Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED vs State Witness

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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Witness---Deviation by witness from stance---Effect---Once a witness was found to have lied about a material aspect of a case, it could not then be safely assumed that the said witness would declare the truth about any other aspect of the case---Testimony of one detected in a lie was wholly worthless and must of necessity be rejected---If a witness was not coming out with the whole truth then his evidence was liable to be discarded as a whole meaning thereby that his evidence could not be used either for convicting accused or acquitting some of them facing trial in the same case. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that the statement of injured then deceased was recorded in the hospital---Perusal of the record revealed that the Investigating Officer made no effort to procure the attendance of any unconnected witness, though it could easily be done from the hospital---Another aspect of the case was that the said statement of deceased was recorded at the hospital and the certificate regarding the ability of the then injured later deceased was also issued by a Medical Officer---Medical Officer was not produced before the Trial Court to prove the said certificate---Prosecution only got Medical Officer examined, who stated that the then injured later deceased was not in a position to make any statement---In absence of evidence that the then injured later deceased was able to make the statement, no reliance could be placed on the same---Deceased remained alive and admitted to the hospital for a considerable time, however, his purported statement was not attested by any official working at the hospital---Deceased remained alive and under treatment for a considerable time, during which there was sufficient time for the Investigating Officer to record the dying declaration through a Magistrate which exercise was not done---No explanation was traceable from the perusal of the record that as to why the statement of the deceased was not recorded in the presence of the doctor as it did not bear his signatures---For a dying person a doctor was like nothing less than an angel and the last ray of hope for him in his capacity as a saviour of his life, in that backdrop, a doctor could be the best person to endorse the dying declaration as it was expected from a dying person to tell the whole truth to the doctor---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Witness---Common set of witnesses---Scope---Common set of witnesses could be used for recording acquittal and conviction against the accused persons who were charged for the commission of same offence. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 17650 - 17700 Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then its benefit is to be extended to the accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State art. 46--- Dying declaration---Evidentiary value--- Principles--- Dying declaration could be made the basis for awarding conviction provided it was free from the menace of prompting and tutoring and was proved to have been made by none other than the deceased himself---Paramount reason for attaching importance and credibility to such a statement was the presumption that a dying person seldom lied. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Same set of evidence/witness statements forming basis of acquittal of co-accused persons used to convict accused persons without any independent corroboration---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that it was the accused and his co-accused, since acquitted, who had fired at the deceased---Eye-witnesses had also saddled co-accused, since acquitted, with the responsibility of raising a lalkara---Eye-witnesses did not draw any distinction with regard to the role of the accused and co-accused (since acquitted) during the occurrence while making their statements before the Trial Court---Court was unable to find any independent corroboration of the prosecution case against the accused and was unable to distinguish the case of the accused from the case of acquitted co-accused as the prosecution evidence with regard to the accused and with regard to co-accused (since acquitted) was similar---Eye-witnesses were adjudged to have deposed falsely not only against co-accused (since acquitted)---No reason was available to believe statements of eye-witnesses with regard to the accused in absence of any reason to do so---Said fact lying on part of the of eye-witnesses with regard to both the co-accused (since acquitted) had vitiated the trust of the court in them---Evidence of eye-witnesses, in circumstances, had no worth and was to be rejected outright---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material evidence---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---In the present case, the place of occurrence was a room which was inhabited by a lady---Neither during the investigation of the case nor before the Trial Court, the statement of the said lady was recorded---Such lady, who admittedly was the resident of the place of occurrence, did not appear during the investigation of the case and did not depose anything regarding the occurrence---Case of prosecution was not that the said lady was not present in the house at the time of the occurrence---Such failure of the prosecution to produce the said lady as a witness has repercussions, which entailed the failure of the prosecution case against the accused---Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that if any evidence available with the parties was not produced, then it shall be presumed that had that evidence been produced the same would have gone against the party producing the same---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Motive--- Recovery--- Evidentiary value---Scope---Motive and recovery are only corroborative pieces of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then the evidence of motive and recovery have no value and lost their significance. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Source of light---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that no source of light, which could have been available at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence allowing the witnesses to identify the assailants was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, despite the fact that as per prosecution's own claim the occurrence had taken place at about 12.10 a.m. (night time)---Eye-witness also admitted during cross-examination that they were only carrying sticks and did not possess any torch or any other source of light at the time of occurrence which could have enabled them to witness the same---Furthermore, the Investigating Officer of the case, during his investigation, did not take into possession any article so as to prove that sufficient light was available at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence for the witnesses to have made such a positive identity of the assailant nor the witnesses produced any such source of light during the investigation of the case or during the trial---No such electric light bulb or any other light source was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer in the light of which the witnesses had allegedly witnessed the occurrence---Prosecution failed to establish the fact of such availability of light source and in absence of their ability to do so, court could not presume the existence of such a light source---Absence of any light source had put the whole prosecution case in murky shadows the depth of which the prosecution could not get itself out---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of accused at the place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Motive for the commission of crime was that few days before the incident deceased had a quarrel with accused---Record showed that the whole prosecution case revolved around the statements of two witnesses---Deceased was the brother of said two witnesses and admittedly they were not the residents of the place of occurrence---Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence and the rough site plan, neither showed any house nor any shop nor any temporary place of residence belonging to eye-witnesses---Both the witnesses in circumstances, could be termed as chance witnesses---Said witnesses failed to prove the reason for them to be present at the place of occurrence, at 12:10 a.m. in the night---Said witnesses claimed that they along with their deceased brother had gone to a jungle in search of their cattle which had not returned and when they were returning from the jungle, on a path back to their residence, they witnessed the occurrence---According to the witnesses, they had left their residence at about 9.00 p.m. in search of the cattle whereas they witnessed the occurrence at about 12:10 a.m. in the night---Complainant during cross-examination admitted that he had not mentioned the number of the cattle which had gone missing in his oral statement--- Investigating Officer of the case, stated that during the investigation of the case eye-witnesses did not show him the cattle which had gone missing and for the search of which the said witnesses had proceeded from their residence---Another Investigating Officer of the case also stated during cross-examination that none of the witnesses told him about the number of the cattle which had gone missing and for whose search the witnesses had proceeded from their house---Furthermore, complainant stated during cross-examination that there was only one passage leading to the jungle and the witnesses were returning to their residence using the said path when they witnessed the occurrence---Investigating Officer of the case stated that in the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by him he had not shown any passage leading from the jungle to the place of occurrence, contrary claim of both the witnesses, who had stated that when they were returning from the jungle on a path towards their own house, they witnessed the occurrence---Draftsman also admitted during cross-examination that he had not shown any passage in the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence---Prosecution witnesses thus failed to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Both the witnesses claimed that after the occurrence they brought the then injured/deceased to their house while holding him---Clothes of both the witnesses, in circumstances, should have been smeared with blood, however, the Investigating Officer of the case did not take any such blood-stained clothes of the witnesses in possession---Investigating Officer of the case, who otherwise showed extraordinary interest in the case, did not take the clothes of the eye-witnesses, which were stained with blood, into possession and if those were sent to the Forensic Science Agency for examination and grouping with that of the blood-stained clothes of the deceased, the same would have provided the strongest corroboration to the testimony of the two eye-witnesses---Said omission struk at the roots of the case of the prosecution and laid bare the untruthful and false claim of the said witnesses to have been present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Both the said witnesses were under a duty to provide a convincing explanation appealing to a prudent mind of their presence at the crime spot otherwise their testimony had to be declared questionable and unacceptable---Said witnesses also claimed that on their way back from the place of occurrence to their residence, the blood of deceased fell on the path taken by them, however, no blood-stained earth was collected to prove the said claim---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Occurrence had taken place at 12.10 a.m. at night and deceased had received as many as five firearm entry wounds, however, still he was not taken to the hospital and was brought to his home---Deceased arrived at the hospital after more than 3½ hours of the occurrence---Said fact was hard to believe and was against human conduct that the injured later deceased, who had received as many as five firearm entry wounds on his person, kept bleeding at his house for such a long period and was brought to the hospital after delay---Said fact also proved that both the witnesses were not present and had they been present then they must have taken the then injured (deceased) to the hospital---All those omissions were conspicuous by their absence---In absence of physical proof or the reason for the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene, the same could not be relied upon---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the witnesses was an alleged quarrel which had taken place a few days prior to the occurrence between the deceased and the accused---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that he had not witnessed the episode of the quarrel between the deceased and the accused---Complainant, during the course of investigation, did not name his friend who had allegedly told him about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused---Complainant, before the Trial Court, failed to name the said friend who was the bearer of the said knowledge regarding the motive of the occurrence and his failure to do so showed that no such quarrel had taken place---Investigating Officer of the case also admitted that the complainant did not produce before him any witness in support of the motive of the occurrence---Prosecution did not produce any evidence, oral or documentary, so as to establish any reason existed with the accused to murder the deceased---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Prosecution was unable to establish any motive of the occurrence---Trial Court rightly disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the motive---Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling the Court to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the accused to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that the occurrence took place only when witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence---Said narrative of the witnesses that the accused kept waiting for their arrival at the place of occurrence and thereafter committed the offence was unnatural and could not be believed---Opposed to human conduct that an assailant would keep waiting for the arrival of the witnesses prior to the commission of the offence---More illogical that being perceptive of the fact that by pending the matter the accused ran the risk of the arrival of the witnesses and let them deposing against the accused even then the assailants kept waiting for their arrival---Such behaviour, on part of the accused, ran counter to natural human conduct and behaviour---Both the eye-witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence and had not witnessed the 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 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Principle---One tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate other tainted piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of accused---Non-association of private witness in recovery proceedings---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the accused, however, the said recovery had no evidentiary value in the eyes of law as the same was made in clear violation of S. 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---Said recovery of the pistol from the accused could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused, being evidence, which was attained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Investigating Officer did not ask any individual, resident of the area neighbouring the place of the recovery of the pistol from the accused to witness the same---Report of Forensic Science Agency stated that the crime empties sent for analysis were fired from the pistol recovered from the possession of the accused---Court had noted that according to the statement of (Head Constable)/ witness a (Sub-Inspector)/ witness handed over a sealed parcel said to contain an empty to another (Sub-Inspector)/witness for its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---Contrary to the statement of said (Head Constable)/ witness that he had received a parcel containing one empty, four empties were received at the Forensic Science Agency---Said witness/Head Constable was not declared hostile by the prosecution and in presence of his unchallenged testimony, it could be safely determined that the prosecution failed to prove the number of empties which were actually collected from the place of occurrence---Safe custody of the empties which were found to have been fired from the pistol was not proved---Possibility of fabrication on part of the Investigating Officer in order to obtain a favourable report of the Forensic Science Agency could not be ruled out---Recovery of the pistol from the accused did not further the case of the prosecution in any manner---Alleged recovery of the pistol was not proved and the same could not be used as a circumstance against the accused, in circumstances---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASNAT AHMED vs State Witness — 2023 YLR 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR