MUHAMMD SAFDAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 82 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.

MUHAMMD SAFDAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 364-a, 377, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, sodomy, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Scope---accused were charged that they kidnapped the minor son of the complainant, committed sodomy and murdered him---admittedly, there was no person who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons---To substantiate that aspect of the case the prosecution produced CCTV footage taken from the camera of a Petrol Pump---However, admittedly the owner of said Petrol Pump or any other person who produced CCTV footage to the Investigating Officer was not joined into investigation nor produced during the course of trial to prove that aspect---Furthermore, during the course of trial when statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, footage was not played in the court room in order to get the accused identified by those witnesses--- although CCTV footage was sent for forensic analysis for identification of the accused but according to report of Forensic Science agency, the forensic facial comparison of the pictures of deceased and accused persons with footage in USB was inconclusive due to minimal facial feature information of the persons---In such background, CCTV footage being inconclusive was of no avail to the prosecution case--- Circumstances established that the prosecution absolutely failed to bring on record any convincing/reliable evidence/material to establish that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged offence---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMD SAFDAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported