Sana Ullah vs State Medical evidence — 2024 PCrLJ 1623 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.

Sana Ullah VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence can only indicate that the deceased has lost his life due to specific injuries, but it does not lead to the culprits. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---As per prosecution version, prosecution witnesses, i.e. the complainant, mother of deceased and another eye-witness had identified two accused persons during the identification parade held on 18.11.2016 under the supervision of Judicial Magistrate---Deposition of Judicial Magistrate and the proceedings of the test identification parade revealed that the said prosecution witnesses had identified the two accused persons together in identification parade jointly held---Moreover, the eye-witness admitted that the accused persons raised the objection that witnesses came to the Police Station and their pictures were taken; and the witness's son/proclaimed offender used to meet them---Complainant and eye-witnesses did not rebut this objection---Record showed that on 15.11.2016, Investigating Officer submitted an application before Judicial Magistrate for conducting and fixing a date for an identification parade---Applications revealed that the Investigating Officer mentioned the parentage and addresses of both suspects---In the eventuality of the said facts, it was crystal clear that the identification parade was not held in accordance with law for reasons that were not helpful to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Time of lodging FIR doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---Woman Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased, opined that the duration between the injuries and death was 1 to 2 hours and between death and postmortem was 6 to 10 hours---Said witness further stated in her court statement that the dead body was received in the dead house at 03:00 p.m. on 17.10.2016 and complete documents were produced before her at 07:00 p.m. and she conducted the autopsy at 07:30 p.m. on 17.10.2016, which was also revealed from the postmortem report---No plausible explanation had been furnished as to why the postmortem of the dead body was delayed for five (05) hours from the time of registration of the case and four (04) hours thirty (30) minutes from the time of receiving the dead body in the mortuary for post mortem examination---No doubt, delay in postmortem alone was not fatal to the prosecution case, but when considered with the other evidence available on the record along with post mortem report, it left the impression that there had been some wrangling about the time of registration of criminal case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Safe custody of crime empties not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---Prosecution case was that on 17.10.2016, the Investigating Officer collected two crime empties from the place of occurrence---Same were handed over to the Moharrar Malkhana on the same day---Moharrar Malkhana deposed during examination-in-chief that on 20.10.2016, he handed over parcels (sealed parcels of blood-stained earth, crime empties and parcels sent by WMO) to Investigating Officer for their onward transmission to Forensic Science Agency, but Investigating Officer did not state a single word that he received sealed parcels of bloodstained earth, crime empties, and parcel sent by WMO from the Moharrar Malkhana on 20.10.2016 for their onward transmission to Forensic Science Agency and that he deposited the same with Forensic Science Agency on the same day---So, the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science Agency after the arrest and identification parade of the accused, held on 20.10.2016---Report of Forensic Science Agency revealed that the parcel of crime empties was submitted on 21.11.2016 by Investigating Officer---Prosecution failed to link the parcel of crime empties submitted on 21.11.2016 by Investigating Officer with Forensic Science Agency with the parcel handed over to Investigating Officer on 20.10.2016 by the Moharrar Malkhana---Such facts created serious doubt about the safe custody of the parcel---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Sana Ullah VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused makes him entitled to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Sana Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 449 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass, common intention----Appreciation of evidence---Time of death of deceased not proved---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal niece of complainant by firing---Death certificate of deceased was silent about the time when deceased was brought in expired condition in the Hospital and when death certificate was issued---On perusal of the inquest report, it was revealed that in column No.3, the time and date of receiving information was mentioned as "17.10.2016 at 10:00 a.m.---Prosecution's version was that the FIR was lodged at 2.30 p.m.---If it was so, it was required to be explained by the Investigating Officer, by plausible evidence on record, as to how the inquest was undertaken at 10:00 a.m., a point in time when the FIR was not in existence---Such circumstance raised doubt about the time of occurrence and death as claimed by the prosecution in the inquest report---In column No. 3 of inquest report time and date of receiving information about death was mentioned as 10:00 a.m. by the Investigating Officer, whereas, as per prosecution version deceased received injuries at 10:00 a.m., whereas incident was reported after the death of deceased at 02:20 p.m. on 17.10.2016 in the Hospital---Said fact created doubt about the time of the incident and the time of death of deceased---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Sana Ullah vs State Medical evidence — 2024 PCrLJ 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ