Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi vs State Motive — 2024 MLD 919 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.

Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Motive---Scope---Prosecution is not required to prove motive in every case, yet the same, if set up, should be proved through independent source of evidence other than the words of mouth and in case of failure to do so, the prosecution should face the consequences and not the defence. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the time and place of occurrence was not justifiable---Chance witnesses---Accused charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was dispute of landed property---Ocular account was put forth by the prosecution through complainant and his cousin---Complainant in order to cover up the collection of three crime empties from the crime scene dishonestly improved his statement in examination in chief while deposing that accused had also made aerial firing at the site whereas no such fact was deposed by other eyewitness nor it was mentioned in FIR or private complaint---Such fact left a negative impact on the credibility of witnesses and doubt over prosecution story---Both the witnesses stated in unequivocal terms that fires made by the accused hit on the chest and belly of the deceased---Said fact was sufficient to rule out their presence at the place of occurrence because there was no injury on the abdomen---Complainant had not stated any particular reason of his presence at the place of occurrence and no reason for commission of murder of deceased was brought on record through any documentary proof---During evidence, distance between the house of complainant and the place of occurrence could not be brought on record; therefore, it could not be inferred that complainant was present near the Dera of witness at the particular time---Absence of witnesses was further reflected from the fact that they deposed in examination in chief that they attended the deceased, but they did not produce their (blood stained) clothes before the Investigating Officer---Presence of witnesses at the time of occurrence was also belied from the fact that Investigating Officer prepared memo of identification of dead body at the place of occurrence which though was not attested by the complainant but by his cousin/witness and given up witness/brother of deceased, who were the attesting witnesses---Surprisingly without stating direct relation with the deceased, said witnesses mentioned before the Investigating Officer that dead body was of deceased son of complainant and they knew him personally---Such expression was not expected from the witnesses which showed that no one claimed himself as the eye-witness when Investigating Officer arrived at the place of occurrence---Identification of dead body was not known, which was the reason memo of identification of dead body was prepared---In such circumstances, it was more than impossible that witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and in their presence, deceased was done to death---Said witnesses were chance witnesses who could not justifiably account for their presence at the place of occurrence---Thus, the testimony of said witnesses could not be relied upon---Presence of witnesses was further ruled out from the opinion of Medical Officer, who stated that cause of death was excessive blood loss---Had the witnesses been present at the place of occurrence, they would have immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital or at least made an effort to stop the oozing of blood---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Injuries on chest and belly were mentioned by the Medical Officer as exit wounds, thus, negating the ocular account---However, other injuries were referred by Medical Officer as entry wounds; one on back at scapular region and other on right side of abdomen in mid auxiliary line---If the accused had fired from the position as shown in the site plan then there could hardly be any chance to receive the injury on the flank with exit wound on the belly or at scapular region on the back with exit on the chest---Prosecution story had many holes to fill in; like if the deceased was sitting on the motorcycle when he received injury, then blood must have been dropped on said motor cycle but it had not been taken into possession and even some other injuries on the body due to falling from motorcycle were expected but they were missing---Medical Officer was cross-examined on such aspect by the prosecution that in order to extend favour to the prosecution he had changed the nature of injuries which was denied by him and so much so complainant or prosecution had not challenged postmortem report or opinion of Medical Officer at any stage during the investigation---Such contradiction in ocular and medical evidence led to the conclusion that witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was the dispute of landed property between the accused and complainant party but no document showing any litigation between the parties was brought on record---Both the witnesses of ocular account and Investigating Officer conceded that no such litigation was pending before any Court---Thus, prosecution had not succeeded to establish the motive part of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State art.133---Criminal trial---Cross-examination---Scope---Cross-examination should always be brief and to the point---Practice of prolonged cross-examination is deprecated. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that crime empties were deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency on 09.04.2020, the day when accused was arrested, and there was every possibility that crime empties were managed, therefore, Forensic Science Agency matching report could not be relied upon---Pistol was shown recovered later, which was also not believable in the sense that when Investigating Officer had visited the place of occurrence, family members of the accused were present and in their presence accused recovered pistol, therefore, pistol was in exclusive knowledge or possession of the accused---In the circumstances, there were doubts in sending crime empties well in time; recovery of pistol too was not from exclusive possession---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Natural witness not produced--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Site plan showed that occurrence took place in front of house of Mr. "MA" who did not join the investigation as admitted by the complainant, and Investigating Officer had also not associated him in the investigation---Thus, most natural witness was skipped by the prosecution for reasons best known to it which fact could be read against the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on the basis of same set of evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that on the basis of similar evidence, co-accused was acquitted of the charge which in turn ruled out even his presence at the spot, therefore, similar facts could not be believed on the same set of evidence against the accused---Principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, with slight change, was applicable in the present case, therefore, acquittal of co-accused could be read a factor setting doubts over the prosecution story---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---For giving benefit of doubt to an accused a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit.

Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi vs State Motive — 2024 MLD 919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD