IMRAN GONDAL vs State S — 2023 YLRN 38 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.

IMRAN GONDAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant---Ocular account in the case had been furnished by complainant and two other eye-witnesses, who happened to be brother-in-law of the deceased---All the said three witnesses were residents of a place, which was situated at a distance of 22-kilometres away from the place of occurrence---Presence of said eye-witnesses at the spot at the relevant time was not natural---Mandatory for the said witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time through some cogent reasons---After scanning the ocular account, it had been observed that complainant stated in his cross-examination that deceased was also resident of village of eye-witnesses---Reasoning described by the said witnesses with respect to accompanying deceased did not appeal to a prudent mind--- Similarly, the mode of occurrence narrated by the prosecution eye-witnesses was highly unbelievable---Allegedly, accused boarded the dead body in a Chand Gari and subsequently threw the dead body in an adjacent field---During that episode, not a single independent witness of the vicinity allegedly witnessed the occurrence nor any persons from the vicinity was produced before the Trial Court---Witnesses had not raised any hue and cry to attract the people of vicinity and if they had made hue and cry, even then none had attracted---Even the Chand Gari was not recovered during the course of investigation nor any evidence was collected with respect to ownership of Chand Gari---Complainant had stated in his cross-examination that blood was oozing from the dead body and falling in the street, he identified said street to police---No blood was taken from the said street by the police---Witnesses of ocular account were not witnesses of inquest report and postmortem report of the deceased---Had they been present at the time and place of occurrence, they must have been the witnesses of inquest reports---Witnesses were supposed to have escorted the dead body to the hospital being the close relatives and their names should have been mentioned in the postmortem report in the column of identification of the dead body---Such fact made the presence of witnesses at the spot highly doubtful---Alleged prosecution eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and as such their evidence was not free from doubt---All the said facts indicated that prosecution witnesses were in fact not present at the place of occurrence, hence they were not trustworthy---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

IMRAN GONDAL vs State S — 2023 YLRN 38 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported