Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons died while three were injured---Record showed that there were material contradictions in the statements of all the witnesses of ocular account---Complainant stated that in his cross-examination that all the accused entered jointly in his room however, they separately fired at once---Firing which were made by the accused persons were received by all the persons who were present at that time---Injured witness had stated in her cross-examination that all the persons who were available in the room received injuries---Said injured witness again stated that her father and another person did not receive injury---All the accused persons entered into the room where the occurrence took place and all of them started incriminate firing---All the injured persons and deceased persons received firearm injuries in the respective cots on which they were sitting---Likewise other injured witness had stated in his cross-examination that all the accused persons suddenly entered into the room and immediately made indiscriminate firing upon the persons present in the said room---All the male and female persons who were present in the room received fire shot injuries---Injured witness in his examination-in-chief did not attribute any specific injury to the accused allegedly caused by them on the person of deceased as well as injured---Complainant had stated in his cross-examination that the accused indulged in firing from the distance of 2/3 feet each from the cots which were lying inside the room but the Medical Officers who furnished medical evidence did not observe any blackening, burning or tattooing around the wounds of the deceased as well as injured persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence might confirm the ocular account with regard to the receipt of injury, locale of injury, kind of weapon used for causing the injury, duration between the injury and the death but it would not tell the name of the assailants. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a circumstance which created doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Witness---Injured witness---Scope---Merely the injuries on the body of a person would not stamp him/her a truthful witness. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 17700 - 17750 Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons died while three were injured---Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR was dispute of plot between the complainant and accused---Due to that revenge, the accused in consultation with each other committed the occurrence---No cogent/convincing evidence qua motive part of incident was produced by the prosecution during the trial---Moreover, no independent witness qua motive was produced during the course of investigation or brought in the witness box at trial---Prosecution had not been able to substantiate the alleged motive behind the occurrence and the same had rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused---Reliance---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons died while three were injured---Record showed that a pump action gun was recovered at the instance of accused, however, the same was immaterial because the report of Forensic Science Agency qua the said weapon was in the negative---No recovery was effected at the instance of co-accused persons during the course of investigation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons were died while three were injured---Record showed that the ocular account in the case had been furnished before the Trial Court by complainant and two injured, who were closely related to the injured as well as deceased of the case---Complainant in the FIR and before the Trial Court stated that the accused along with their co-accused fired at the deceased---Complainant narrated the specific seat/locale of injuries on their person---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence reflected the falsity of eye-witnesses as the occurrence was committed within a few minutes and it was humanly impossible to provide such minute details in such a photographic manner or to assign the specific role and furnish detailed description of the same, which would rather infer to falsely rope in the accused persons---Lodging of the FIR with such minutest details of the case ruled out the possibility of truthfulness---Narratives of the FIR suggested the exaggeration and improvements made by the eye-witnesses, admittedly inimical towards the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of one hour in lodging the FIR---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons were killed while three were injured---Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR was dispute of a plot between the parties---Record showed that in the incident three ladies lost their lives and three persons sustained firearm injuries---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was one kilo-metre---Matter was reported to the police through application of complainant and formal FIR was got registered---Medical examination of the injured persons was conducted on the same night at 2:30 a.m. to 3:10 a.m., respectively i.e. with a delay of about three hours after the occurrence---Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that the FIR was not registered at the time as mentioned in the FIR because son-in-law of complainant had stated in his cross-examination that he was with the complainant at the time of registration of FIR---First Information Report was registered at about 9/10 a.m. in the morning---Even the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of deceased ladies was conducted at 1:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m. and 2:40 p.m. respectively, i.e. after about 13 to 15 hours of the incident---Such noticeable delay was normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased which happened only when the complainant and police remained busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in such cases of un-witnessed occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324, 452, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about more than sixteen days in recording the statements of witnesses by police---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the accused party, due to which three persons died while three were injured---Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 03.11.2012, whereas the statements of injured witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., were recorded on 19.11.2012 and 10.11.2012, respectively--- Credibility of a witness was to be looked with serious suspicion if statement of said witness under S.161, Cr.P.C., was recorded with delay without offering any plausible explanation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR