Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1054 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.

Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved--- Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---As per claim of the complainant mentioned in the statement, deceased used to torture accused daily and due to that grudge, she had committed murder of her husband and children with knife and hatchet---However, any document or independent witness was not produced by the prosecution during investigation or trial of the case to prove/establish that there was any dispute or quarrel between the spouses prior to the occurrence---Even complainant during his cross-examination had categorically admitted that no quarrel ever took place between accused and her deceased husband prior to the occurrence---No reason/justification whatsoever for commission of murder of four minor children of the deceased by their mother/accused had not come on the record---Furthermore, said motive had also not been believed by the Trial Court---So, motive could not be proved by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence was merely supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence could tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it could not tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---According to the case of prosecution mentioned in fard bayan and FIR, complainant along with witnesses reached the house of occurrence, and saw that accused had knife in her hand, but glowing of any light at that time was not mentioned in the FIR and even during investigation neither any electric light/bulb was shown in the site plan of the place of occurrence nor taken into possession by the Investigating Officer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Extra-judicial confession---Doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---Extra-judicial confession was statedly made by the accused before three witnesses---It was not understandable that what compelled the accused and why she allegedly confessed the crime, particularly before the persons, who being closely related to the deceased were expected to cause her more harm than good and they immediately became witnesses against her---Said aspect raised doubt about genuineness of such piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime weapons and blood stained clothes---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---As per case of prosecution, accused got recovered blood stained knife and blood stained hatchet lying near dead bodies at the place of occurrence---Accused also got recovered blood stained clothes which she was wearing at the time of occurrence---Though prosecution claimed that blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered yet in fard bayan as well as in the FIR it was not mentioned that knife held by accused as well as clothes of the accused were blood stained---As per statement of eyewitness, hands and clothes of the accused were also blood stained whereas Investigating Officer, who arrested the accused at 07.45 a.m. on the same day, stated in his statement that her hands, feet and clothes were not stained with blood, meaning thereby that accused washed her hands and also changed her clothes but then why did she not wash the knife and hatchet---When witnesses were at the place of occurrence, then why did they let the accused place knife with dead bodies as well as change her blood stained clothes and to leave the house/place of occurrence---Inquest reports were prepared at the place of occurrence but availability/presence of blood stained knife and blood stained hatchet there was not mentioned in any inquest report---Such state of affairs created reasonable doubt about the recovery of knife and hatchet---Though blood stained earth, blood stained clothes of the deceased persons, blood stained knife, blood stained hatchet and blood stained clothes of the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, yet any report regarding matching of blood group of blood available on knife, hatchet and clothes of the accused with blood group of blood available on soil and clothes of any of the deceased had not been produced by the prosecution---Any report regarding availability of finger prints of the accused on the handle of knife as well as handle of hatchet had also not been produced---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State Extra-judicial confession---Evidentiary value---Extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence and it can only be taken into consideration if, firstly it rings true and then finds support from other strong and tangible evidence of unimpeachable character. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eyewitnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---Admittedly, prosecution did not produce any witness of the occurrence during trial of the case---Complainant and two other witnesses reached at the spot after the occurrence---Said witnesses were neither residents of the house of the occurrence nor of said vicinity rather the complainant and other witnesses were residents of another colony---As per statement of the complainant, distance between his residence and place of occurrence was about five/six kilometers---Whereas, distance between residence of other eyewitness and place of occurrence was about three and half kilometers---Said witnesses were chance witnesses and thus they were required to explain and establish plausible as well as valid reasons regarding their stated arrival and presence at the place of occurrence---Though, as per statement of complainant, their close relative died and for his Fateha Khawani, they had to go along with deceased in the early morning and for that purpose, complainant along with witnesses came to the house of deceased at about 03.30 a.m.---This meant that the sole cause of arrival of witnesses including complainant at place of occurrence and seeing accused holding knife in her hand was that they had to go for Fateha Khawani of their close relative---Though, complainant during his cross-examination before the Court stated that their relative was hit by fire shot on 09.07.2018 at about Asar Prayer time and he died due to said firearm injury at about 11.00/12.00 p.m., yet prosecution neither produced copy of any FIR or Rupt regarding infliction of firearm injuries to the relative of complainant or copy of his Death Registration Certificate showing date of his death---So, evidence of eye-witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated arrival at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was suspect evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two hours &thirty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of her husband and four children by inflicting churri blows---Occurrence took place during the night in the house of deceased which was at a distance of about two kilometers from the concerned police station---As per case of the prosecution, complainant along with two witnesses came at the place of occurrence at 03.30 a.m. when occurrence was already over---Complainant went for reporting the occurrence, met a Sub-Inspector (SI), got his statement recorded before him at 05.45 a.m. which was sent to police station and FIR was chalked out at 06.05 a.m.---Complainant also had a motorcycle---Thus, it could not be termed as promptly registered case and such state of affairs suggested that possibility of deliberation, consultation and concoction could not be ruled out---If there was delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution was under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ