Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif vs State S

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 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one hour and forty five minutes in reporting the matter to police---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Incident took place on 08.12.2014 at 10.00 pm---Incident was reported by the complainant at Emergency Ward of the hospital at 11.45 pm on 08.12.2014---Record showed that there was a statement in column No.3 of the inquest report that the "date and time of the discovery of information of death" was "08.12.2014 at 10:08 pm---As per the first column of the inquest report, relating to the place where death took place or from where dead body was recovered, it was mentioned as "Mayo Hospital Emergency Ward Dead House"---On the last page of the inquest report, the place and the time, when the inquest report was prepared and the witnesses put their signatures were left blank---It was mentioned in column No.8 of the inquest report that the mouth was semi-opened---Said facts revealed that FIR was recorded later on after due deliberation and consultation and was ante-timed---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 12 to 24 hours in conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Post-mortem report revealed that complete documents were received on 09.12.2014 at 12.45 pm---Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased stated that the time of death was mentioned in post-mortem report as 08.12.2014 at 10.08 pm; that dead body was received in the department on 09.12.2014 at 11.20 pm; that time which was written in the concerned documents was 11.20 pm dated 09.12.2014; that delay of 12 to 24 hours occurred due to not receiving police papers---Duration given by the doctor between death and postmortem was 12 to 24 hours, which suggested that the death took place between 01:00 a.m. on 09.12.2014 and 01:00 p.m. on 08.12.2014---Said fact created doubt in the prosecution case as well as on the credibility and truthfulness of the statements of witnesses---Thus, it was not safe to rely on the testimonies of those witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not mentioned---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the prosecution had not provided evidence to establish the motive for the commission of the crime, creating doubt about the prosecution case---Admittedly, the prosecution had not brought any proof on the record that the deceased was a shareholder in the land for which hot words were exchanged between the accused and deceased, which also threw a cloud of doubt on the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubts in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused made him entitled to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Safe custody of crime empties in Malkhana not established---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Record showed that 30-bore live bullets were recovered on the disclosure and pointation of the accused---Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available on record---Prosecution case was that on 08.12.2014, the Investigating Officer collected one crime empty from the place of occurrence---Same was handed over to Moharrar Malkhana who deposed that on 17.12.2014, he handed over the two sealed parcel to a Police Constable for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---Said Constable stated that the said parcels could not be deposited on the said date due to some objection from the office---Said Constable brought back the said parcel and handed it over to Moharrar police station who again handed it over to the said Constable on 22.12.2014, which he delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory intact---In the present case, no evidence had been given that said witness made entries in Register No. 19 kept for the purpose of the malkhana---Moharrar Malkhana deposed that his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C, was recorded by the Investigating Officer---Deposition of the Investigating Officer revealed that he did not depose a single word that he recorded statement under S.161 of Cr.P.C. of Moharrar Malkhana on 17.12.2014 to the effect that Constable returned from Forensic Science Agency and handed over the parcels to Moharrar Malkhana, who kept the same in safe custody, nor he deposed that on 22.12.2014 he recorded statements of Constable and Moharrar Malkhana revealing that Moharrar Malkhana handed over parcels to Constable and said Constable deposited the same with Forensic Science Agency---Moreover, it was also necessary that when case property was re-deposited in the Mallkhana, entry in the Malkhana Register was required to be made, and a dire necessity had been cast upon the prosecution to produce in Court the abstract of the Malkhana Register for ensuring, dispelling of, any aura of skepticism seeping into the prosecution case, especially vis-a-vis safe custody of the case property, "being," re-deposited in the Malkhana---Thus, the prosecution did not prove that the parcel of the crime empty was kept in safe custody---Due to the Lack of such evidence, it could not be held that the alleged parcel of crime empty was re-deposited in Malkhana, and its benefit would go to the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Prosecution emphasized that after the occurrence, the accused absconded himself---However, in the light of the statement of the Investigating Officer, and a Constable, it could not be said that the requirements of declaring a person as a proclaimed offender were met---Investigating Officer did not depose a single word that non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation were issued against the accused---Admittedly, Police Constable had not stated that when non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation was issued and handed over to him--- However, the factum of absconding, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not a substantive piece of evidence---Mere absconsion was not proof of the guilt of an accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Asif vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ