Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sana Ullah vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of recovered weapon of offence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---Chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence could not be ruled out as the case property was not deposited in the safe custody of Malkhana---Case property remained with the Investigating Officer---Notably the 30-bore pistol and five live bullets were recovered on 27-11-2016 from the rented house of accused and the same were secured through recovery memo, which were deposited with the Moharrar Malkhana of Police Station for their safe custody on 27-11-2016---No evidence on record was available to show that the 30-bore pistol and five live bullets recovered on 27-11-2016 from the accused were handed over to the Moharrar malkhana on 27-11-2016 by Investigating Officer---So, there was no linked evidence adduced in the case to find that the 30-bore pistol and five live bullets were handed over by the Investigating Officer for safe custody to the Moharrar malkhana on 27.11.2016---Said facts created doubt and weakened the prosecution story---Thus, the recovery of 30-bore pistol and five live bullets and the positive report of Forensic Science Agency were of no avail to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---Woman Medical Officer had observed about the deceased's eyes as "eyes semi opened."---In the inquest report, in column No. 8, it was mentioned "eyes opened."---Prosecution witnesses, i.e., the complainant, mother of deceased and another witness, deposed in their court statements that they took deceased (then injured) to the hospital where she succumbed to the injuries---If said witnesses attended to the deceased who took her last breath in the hospital, then there was no reason for the eyes to be opened---Such facts created doubt in the prosecution case as well as on the credibility and truthfulness of the statements of said prosecution witnesses, which also created doubt about the genuineness of the version given by prosecution witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sana Ullah vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ