Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR 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 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J---Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements---Fund raising---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member---Admittedly, no specific evidence, either oral or documentary, had been placed, proved or relied on record which could show that the accused was member of the banned organization or had any proximate or otherwise nexus with that organization---Just because a handful of police official of CTD had given a tag of member of banned organization to the accused, that did not become a conclusive proof of accused being member of banned organization---No evidence to show that the accused did act of the nature---More serious the offence alleged, higher shall be the quality of evidence required to convict the accused---Appreciating the evidence brought by the prosecution, it was found that neither in the depositions of either of the four witnesses nor in the form of any documentary evidence, it had come on record that the accused was indulging in terrorism or was part of any such activity---Admittedly, accused had not any terror or criminal history of any sort and he had absolutely clean antecedents---Case of prosecution was not that the accused was directly or indirectly involved in any terrorist act prior to his apprehension in the case---In such circumstances it was abundant duty of the prosecution to collect legally admissible evidence to show that the accused was member of banned/ proscribed organization---Prosecution had not been able to bring on record any evidence qua commission of offence punishable under Ss. 11-H, 11-I & 11-J of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J---Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements---Fund raising---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of recovered articles---Scope---Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member---Complainant and Investigating Officer deposed during his court statement that he had handed over three sealed parcels to the moharrar---However, Moharrar was not examined and therefore also crucial link evidence had not been completed by the prosecution---No explanation was furnished for that failure to establish safe custody of recovered articles from time of the seizure at 8:20 P.M. till its production in the Trial Court---Mere oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant and Investigating Officer did not discharge the heavy burden of responsibility, which lay on the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J---Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements---Fund raising---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Decoy witness---Scope---Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member---Decoy witness arranged by complainant could not be said to be a fully independent witness---Witness who paid tainted money to the accused and received receipt and a book became decoy witness---Witness arranged by the police preparatory to trap the accused could not be treated equally by the court with the eye-witness---Even complainant had not deployed shadow witness to hear the conversation between the decoy witness and the accused---Decoy witness had not stated as to how he identified the accused---Complainant and decoy witness had not stated that the description of the accused was given by the secret informer to them or they already knew the accused---Investigating Officer had not collected any material revealing that the accused was distributing any written material nor as to how many books were printed and paid for by the accused---From the prosecution evidence it revealed that book was recovered from the black bag of the accused---Whereas, the book received by decoy witness from the accused and handed over by him to complainant was not produced before the court---As only one book recovered from the bag of the accused was produced before the court---Investigating Officer had not collected any material to establish that the accused distributed book to any other person or persons in any manner whatsoever---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Whenever prosecution come up with a case which was full of doubts and was unbelievable, the benefit would always be given to the accused---Accused was presumed to be innocent until he was found guilty---Burden of proof that accused was guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution had to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J---Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements---Fund raising---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Intelligence sources--- Scope---Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member---Prosecution claimed that on the basis of intelligence sources, decoy witness was sent to the place where accused was fund raising but admittedly it was neither reduced into writing in the form of any Daily Diary entry nor any document or technical surveillance report was obtained, placed or proved on record---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR