Ulfat Rasool vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1310 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.

Ulfat Rasool VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Doubtful---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Last seen evidence had been furnished by a witness, who had nominated the accused in his statement recorded before the police---Name of said witness was not mentioned in the contents of FIR---Likewise, name of said witness was also not mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant---Complainant and a witness had stated that they had seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused at an Adda, whereas witness of last seen evidence stated that he had lastly seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused near the dera of one "Mr. NA"---All the witnesses of last seen evidence were residents of Chak No. 4---Evidently, the dera of "Mr. NA" was at a distance of 17-kilometers from the Adda and his residence was situated at a distance of 21-kilometers from the said dera and as such, all the witnesses of last seen evidence, who were residents of Chak No. 4, were chance witnesses---Complainant and a witness stated that they were present on the night of occurrence at Adda in connection with the election campaign but they did not claim that they were themselves or deceased was contesting the election---Said witnesses had not named the persons in their examination-in-chief for whom they were busy in the election campaign---Thus, last seen evidence brought on record in the case through complainant and other witnesses was not worthy of reliance---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ulfat Rasool VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence, blood stained clothes of the accused and dead body of deceased---No DNA report on record---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that blood stained clothes of the accused, dead body of the deceased as well as blood stained churra were recovered from the fields of "Mr. I"---Dead body was recovered in this case on 10.07.2018 but at the time of recovery of dead body and preparation of inquest report, presence of any churra or clothes of the accused near the dead body of the deceased, in the said field, was not mentioned---Occurrence in this case took place on 10.07.2018 and the blood stained clothes of the accused and blood stained churra were recovered on 09.08.2018 with a delay of one month from the date of occurrence---Blood disintegrated during such period---Buckel swabs of the accused were sent to the office of Forensic Science Agency for matching of DNA profile of the accused with the said clothes or with the handle of churra, therefore, there was no report regarding the matching of DNA profile of the clothes and swabs taken from the handle of churra with the DNA profile of the accused---Thus, it was not safe to rely upon the such pieces of prosecution evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ulfat Rasool VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused had illicit relations with the wife of deceased and he wanted to marry her therefore, he committed murder of the deceased---Record showed that no motive whatsoever was alleged in the FIR---Neither wife of the deceased was involved as an accused nor she was cited as a witness in the case---Motive was not alleged in the FIR and the same had been introduced for the first time through supplementary statement of the complainant with the delay of seven days from the occurrence---Complainant had stated that no one had ever told him prior to the occurrence regarding the illicit relationship/love affair between the accused and the wife of the deceased---No witness had been produced in the prosecution evidence who had ever seen the accused and wife of deceased in some objectionable condition---Some photographs allegedly recovered from the mobile phone of wife of deceased had been produced in the prosecution evidence but there was no forensic report regarding the genuineness of the said photographs---If there was no report of Forensic Science Agency qua genuineness of said pictures then credibility and reliability of the said pictures being genuine, was destroyed---Even mobile phone of the wife of deceased through which the said photographs were taken and recovered was not taken into possession by the police vide any recovery memo---Under the circumstances motive introduced by the complainant through his supplementary statement had not been proved in the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ulfat Rasool VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant, statement of---Infirmities---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that there was no eyewitness of the occurrence---No accused was named in the FIR---No features of the unknown accused persons were mentioned in the contents of FIR---No identification parade of the accused or any other co-accused had been held---Accused had been implicated in the case through supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded after seven days from the date of registration of the FIR---In the said supplementary statement, the complainant expressed his strong suspicion that as accused had taken a house on rent near the residence of deceased and developed illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, therefore, accused must have committed the murder of deceased---No source of information whatsoever was mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant that as to how the complainant came to know that the occurrence of the case was committed by the accused and who had imparted the information to him, thus his statement in that respect was completely silent---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ulfat Rasool VS State Circumstantial evidence---Case based upon circumstantial evidence---In such like cases, every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---If any link in the chain was missing then its benefit must go to the accused. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Ulfat Rasool VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance creating doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Ulfat Rasool vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ