PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ZEESHAN IFTIKHAR alias SHANI vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 YLR 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Reporter
YLR
Parties
ZEESHAN IFTIKHAR alias SHANI vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 173

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

ZEESHAN IFTIKHAR alias SHANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 386, 440, 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Concealments and suppressing of facts by the witnesses---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant by firing due to non-payment of Bhatta and also made indiscriminate firing, causing damage to the mirrors, screens etc. of the vehicle, which created a sense of terror and panic in the area---Upon perusal of record, it appeared that the complainant in connivance with the police while suppressing the real facts, which had a material bearing upon the case, made an abortive attempt to portray an appropriate story of the occurrence---Right from the registration of case up to the making of the statements of witnesses in the Court, the so-called eye-witnesses had left no stone unturned to conceal the presence of Mr. "Y", the proprietor of the show-room and receiving of his injuries at the time of occurrence---Such concealment and suppression made by the complainant party had been un-earthed by the defence while exercising its right of cross-examination---First Investigating Officer, while facing the cross-examination deposed that Mr. "Y" was the owner of the show-room---Though initially said witness negated a suggestion put by the defence that Mr. "Y" was injured during this occurrence, he however, voluntarily stated that he became injured prior to the occurrence of this case---Defence had ably and readily suggested to the said witness that volunteer portion of his statement was incorrect---Said witness, however, admitted that the Medico-Legal Certificate of Mr. "Y" was annexed with the police file---Said witness further admitted it to be correct, in response to a fruitful suggestion made by the defence that according to Medico-Legal Certificate annexed with the police file, the time of medical examination of Mr. "Y" was 03.49 a.m. on 27.03.2018.---Similarly, said witness further stated that the injury statement of Mr. "Y" prepared by Moharrir/Head Constable was also annexed with the police file---In addition to that, second Investigating Officer had also stated that he knew that Mr. "Y" was the owner of show-room/place of occurrence---Said Mr. "Y" had been injured during the occurrence and he had got Medico-Legal Certificate from the hospital---Statements of the two Investigating Officers, left no room to doubt that Mr. "Y" (injured) was actually an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence---Presence of said person at the spot being a proprietor of the showroom was natural and his medical examination by way of Medco-Legal Certificate issued through the police had further consolidated his presence---However name of said person was not shown as a witness in the calendar of witnesses attached with the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., by the police with mala fide---In such circumstances, by not producing Mr. "Y", the injured witness of the occurrence in the Court, the prosecution was guilty of suppression of real facts and withholding of the best evidence---Thus, the self harming act of the prosecution, for retaining for its cards quite close to its chest, had given rise to a serious doubt about the veracity and correctness of the prosecution's version, the benefit of which irresistibility had to be extended to the defence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had badly failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English