HAFEEZ AHMED vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2503 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.

HAFEEZ AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-a(i), 337-a(ii), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, hurt, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at spot at time of occurrence not established---Chance witnesses---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the ocular account was furnished during trial by four witnesses---Though Mr. "S" eye-witness deposed during trial to have abode in the vicinity of crime scene but the falsity of such stance was badly exposed during cross-examination---Said witness candidly conceded that he along with his sons was registered voter of Union Council of some other place---However, it was proved during cross-examination of complainant that the claim of Mr. "S" regarding his abode in village vicinity of crime was nothing but a blatant lie---Indeed, it emerged from the cross-examination of complainant that during the relevant time Mr. "S" was running a small grocery shop in a locality situated at a distance of 40/45 kms. from the place of occurrence---acclaimed presence of complainant at the spot was also not free from doubts--- admittedly, complainant was resident of a village situated at a distance of 60/65 kms. from the eventful place---Defence placed on record the ownership of the mobile phone of complainant, its Call Data Record and Site Location/Grid Report---From the perusal of the said documents, it transpired that at the time when the homicide incident occurred, the complainant was present in the area of Grid installed in other Tehsil and he reached at place of occurrence at about 7:25 p.m.---Data so tendered in evidence by defence witness since emanated from automated information system and collected through modern devices and techniques, proved beyond any shred of doubt that complainant reached the vicinity of crime after about 03-hours of the incident, thus his claim of having seen the incident was nothing but a brazen lie---Thus, it had been concluded that both of them were chance witnesses and besides that they failed even to prove their presence at the spot---While pondering upon the testimony of other two eye-witnesses, it was observed that they entered the dock with the stance of having received injuries during the same incident---Statement of eye-witness Mr. "S" showed that one of the injured witnesses used to ply taxi in another city---Not only that, in MLC, the address of said injured was found mentioned, as a neighbourhood other than the place where murder incident took place---Deposition of said injured witness was in eternal silence regarding the reason which prompted him to reach the vicinity of crime and it made him a chance witness---Record showed that the depositions of injured witnesses stood belied from medical evidence to the extent of main injury endured by deceased as well as in reference to the role ascribed to acquitted accused, their medical examination was proved to have been carried out two days after the incident---One out of them was also a chance witness, thus, it would be a fallacious approach to uphold the conviction of accused upon their depositions---Intrinsic worth of the testimony of a witness rested upon his credibility, which, by no stretch, was divisible in nature---If an eye-witness of a murder incident was found to have deposed falsely regarding material aspects, it was better to discard his evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

HAFEEZ AHMED vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR