Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain vs State Benefit of d

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 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance creating doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---According to the prosecution story all the eye-witnesses reached the place of occurrence by chance and occurrence took place exactly at the time of their arrival at place of occurrence---Said aspect of the prosecution case did not appeal to a prudent mind---In the light of such facts, it was abundantly clear that the eye-witnesses reached the place of occurrence afterwards---Thus the eye-witnesses were related and chance witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by father of deceased, her brother and uncle---According to the prosecution story deceased was annoyed with her husband/accused due to non-payment of Haq-ul-Mahar described in Column No. 16 of her Nikah Nama---All the witnesses had stated that on the day of occurrence, i.e. 02.09.2016 at 04.00 p.m. accused took the deceased along with his daughter to his home on the basis of compromise with the condition that son of the complainant would obtain copy of record of rights of land owned by accused and hand it over to him, thereafter accused would alienate the said property to deceased---Son of complainant had categorically stated in his cross-examination that his sister was not willing to go back without payment of dower---Furthermore, it was observed that son of complainant had obtained copy of record of rights about the ownership of land of accused on 02.09.2016 at 10:42 a.m., whereas, according to the prosecution story accused was present in the house of complainant till 04.00 pmon 02.09.2016---In this way, question was why the said document was not handed over to accused at that time and that there was no need to go to the house of occurrence---Similarly, when deceased was not willing to reconcile with accused without payment of dower then why she went along with him without transfer of property of dower in her name---Said facts did not appeal to a prudent mind because without resolving the controversy the deceased could not be sent with accused by her parents---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Opinion of police---Scope---Ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the Court, yet it can be considered if it is based on some cogent and convincing evidence. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that due to non-payment of dower consideration, the occurrence took place---As percomplainant and other witness, there was dispute between deceased and accused persons on account of non-payment of dower mentioned in Nikah Nama and under the said grudge the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the occurrence---Notable that motive was only an oral assertion of the complainant and no material evidence was produced to substantiate the motive alleged by the prosecution, hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence---Although, the prosecution is not under obligation to establish a motive in every murder case but if prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---Record showed that a pistol 30-bore and blood stained churri were recovered at the pointation of accused from deserted building of irrigation department and from the place of occurrence respectively---Notable that place of recovery of pistol 30 bore was an open place and accessible to everyone---In that way, the recovery of pistol was inconsequential in the eyes of law---As regards recovery of churri, it was observed that according to the prosecution story the same was not used by accused rather co-convict had used the same who was declared innocent during the course of investigation---Moreso, report of Forensic Science Agency, qua pistol and churri, was not helpful to the prosecution case because recovery of pistol at the pointation of accused had already been disbelieved whereas, positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory qua the human blood on churri had also no legal credence because occurrence in the case allegedly took place on 02.09.2016 and churri was deposited in the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 04.10.2016, i.e. with the delay of 30 days, whereas blood disintegrates after three weeks---Witnesses of recoveries were also witnesses of ocular account and their evidence had been disbelieved---In this way, the evidence of said witnesses to the extent of corroborative piece of evidence was also not helpful to the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Chance witness, evidence of---Reliance---Chance witness in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present at the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day-to-day life affairs---In this context the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time---In normal course, presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot---True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of motorcycle on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---Record showed that a motorcycle was recovered on the pointation of accused from the house of co-accused, which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer---However, no registration number and colour, had been described in the FIR---In this way, recovery of motorcycle at the pointation of the accused was inconsequential and not helpful to the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the daughter of complainant by inflicting churri blows and firing---Record showed that the eye-witnesses were not residing near the place of occurrence---Moreover, place of occurrence was also not the house of accused---Prosecution evidence was completely silent on the point whether after differences between the spouses, accused was residing in the gifted house of his father-in-law situated at place of occurrence---Contrary to said facts, complainant had stated in his cross-examination that they took the police to the house of accused persons after the occurrence at place of "QS" at evening time---House of accused persons in place "QS" was locked and accused persons were not available---Said fact was sufficient to hold that accused was not residing in the house of occurrence---According to the Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report of deceased as well as statement of Woman Medical Officer, mouth of deceased was open---Such fact showed that no person had bothered to close the mouth of deceased, which was not possible in the presence of eye-witnesses---Alleged eye-witnesses were not the witnesses of identification of dead body of deceased at the time of autopsy---Furthermore, eye-witnesses were also not the witnesses of identification of dead body at the time of preparing the inquest report---Had eye-witnesses been present at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time, they must have been the witnesses of identification of dead body---Such fact showed that they were not present at the time and place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ashfaq Hussain vs State Benefit of doubt — 2024 PCrLJ 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ