MUHAMMAD TAYYAB vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2207 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.

MUHAMMAD TAYYAB VS State Ss. 302, 364, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he along with others committed murder of the brother of the complainant after abducting him---According to prosecution, accused got recovered the dead body---Said discovery was not a secret information that could remain within the knowledge of police and the accused so as to evaluate it in the light of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---As per evidence an application was moved before Magistrate for disinterment of corpse, though such order was not brought into the evidence yet Medical Officer on firmed the fact that exhumation of dead body was done in the graveyard by a court order on an application moved by Investigating Officer---Said witness stated that on the lead and pointing out by the accused dead body was recovered from the graveyard in the presence of complainant, her husband, one other person and Medical Officer and that too by digging a grave by the accused himself---However, it was strange when application was already moved for exhumation and information in that respect was available with the police, doctor and complainant, question of exclusive knowledge did not arise so as to make evidence of recovery of dead body as admissible under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Another strange factor was mentioned by the witnesses that for digging out the dead body no men were hired but that was done by accused himself---It was beyond comprehension that a man was laid into grave in a populated graveyard and nobody noticed nor it was reported that in what circumstances the deceased was brought there---No witnesses were available who could even depose burial of dead body by the accused or the co-accused---During evidence, it did not come to light that accused had ever pointed out a place where he committed the murder of deceased---There was no evidence of last seen in the case, nor any eye-witness to the act of murder and act of burial---Claim of prosecution that a certain cell phone number was in use of deceased and it remained on in certain intervals till the registration of FIR and thereafter too, was not supported with proof of ownership or report of a cellular company in that respect---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD TAYYAB vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2207 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR