YASIR PARVEZ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2164 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

YASIR PARVEZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 396 & 412---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and injuring the complainant during dacoity---Investigating Officer during the course of his cross-examination admitted that he did not mention the name of any of accused persons on injury statement, and recovery memos. regarding blood stained earth and empty of 30-bore---Said omission was reflective of the fact that till the preparation of said documents, the names of the assailants were not known to Investigating Officer and application and FIR was belatedly drafted after due deliberation and consultation---No record was either produced by the complainant or collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation to establish the fact that on the date of occurrence amount to the tune of Rs. 100,000/- was actually drawn from the bank as mentioned in complaint---Complainant during the course of his cross-examination stated that he did not produce any receipt before the Investigating Officer about the withdrawal of money from the bank---Investigating Officer also admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he did not take any record from the concerned bank regarding withdrawal of the amount by the deceased---Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any bank official in that regard---Deceased was claimed to have been brought at THQ Hospital in injured condition but Investigating Officer never made any attempt to record statement of injured while preparing injury statement---Record showed that injured was further referred to another Hospital but Investigating Officer did not visit said Hospital for a period of around ten days in order to record statement of the injured till he succumbed to the injuries---Non-recording of statement of injured for about ten long days simply shattered the whole prosecution story given in complaint particularly where it had not been plausibly explained at trial that what refrained the Investigator from recording statement of injured---All the said facts clearly suggested that FIR in the instant case was lodged after due deliberation and consultation between complainant and police without recording statement of injured who was in his senses when he was firstly medically examined at THQ Hospital---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly.

YASIR PARVEZ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2164 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR