MUHAMMAD ARSLAN vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 463 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.

MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was matrimonial dispute between accused and deceased---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by father and maternal uncle of the deceased---Record showed that the said witnesses were admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---According to the prosecution witnesses, they were residing at a place which was admittedly at some distance from the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer of the case deposed that both the prosecution witnesses did not have their residences or their places of employment near or around the place of occurrence---In that manner, both the prosecution witnesses could be validly termed as chance witnesses and therefore under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---Notable that the said witnesses failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place and time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that the Investigating Officer of the case arrived at the place of occurrence on his own---Oral statement of complainant was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case, at the place of occurrence---Most damningly for the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer of the case made contradictory statements with regard to his arrival at the place of occurrence and his arrival at the hospital---Initially, the Investigating Officer of the case, stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence after getting the information of the same at the Police Station, remained there till 05.00 p.m. and subsequently went to the hospital, however also admitted that he had gone to the hospital as early as 01.40 p.m.---Contrary to the whole prosecution case, according to the statement of defence witness/IT Statistical Officer, the record maintained at the hospital showed that the deceased was brought to the hospital in an injured condition on 06.02.2022 at 01:55 p.m. and was also given treatment and such record was produced before the Court---Coupled with the said facts, the admission of the eye-witness that his statement under S. 161 of the Cr.P.C was not recorded on the day of occurrence brought further doubt in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Motive not proved--- Effect--- Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Motive of the occurrence as stated by complainant in his oral statement was that the deceased was suffering from violence at the hands of the accused---However, the eye-witnesses failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as stated by them---Admitted by the eye-witnesses that deceased had contracted marriage with the accused of her own free will and consent and FIR was registered against the accused for abduction of deceased but the said FIR was cancelled after deceased made a statement in favour of the accused that he had not abducted her rather she of her own free will and consent had contracted marriage with him---No evidence on record that deceased was facing any threat to her life at the hands of the accused prior to the occurrence rather, to the contrary, she was living with the accused till her tragic death---Said fact proved that the accused and the deceased were having a happy and a healthy marital life and hence there did not exist any reason for the accused to have murdered his loving wife---Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the accused to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---Moreover, there was a poignant hush with regard to the particulars of the motive alleged---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of motorcycle used by witnesses---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Though it was claimed by the eye-witnesses that they had gone to the place of occurrence on one motorcycle; however, during the course of the investigation as well as before the trial Court, the said motorcycle allegedly used by the said witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence was not produced---Investigating Officer of the case visited the place of occurrence after the occurrence and remained there for a considerable time---During the course of his stay at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer of the case did not take into possession the motorcycle allegedly used by the said witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence along with the other recoveries, though there was no occasion for the said motorcycle not to have been present at the place of occurrence or not being taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during his visit at the place of the occurrence, if the same was available---Said motorcycle which was used by the said witnesses was not even produced during the entire period of investigation nor was produced before the Trial Court---Non-production of the motorcycle and the failure of witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer of the case to produce the same before the trial Court led to only one conclusion and that being that no such motorcycle was available---Had a motorcycle been used by the said witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case but it was not and it proved that a false claim was made by the said witnesses that they had arrived at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle---Very inception of the prosecution case was therefore put in doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of the accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Eye-witnesses claimed that the occurrence took place exactly at the same time when they had arrived at the place of occurrence---Said narrative of the prosecution witnesses that the accused kept waiting for the arrival of the witnesses at the place of occurrence and thereafter committed the same was unnatural and could not be believed---Thus, it was opposed to human conduct that an assailant would keep waiting for the arrival of the witnesses prior to the commission of the offence---Being perceptive of the fact that by pending the matter the accused ran the risk of the arrival of the witnesses and their deposing against him, even then he kept waiting for their arrival---Such behaviour, on part of the accused, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses ran contrary to the natural human conduct and behavior---Prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence, at the place of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of pistol and bullet from the place of occurrence---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the place of occurrence---However, the recovery of the pistol from the place of occurrence offered no corroboration of the ocular account for the reason that the said pistol was never recovered from the possession of the accused---Moreover, the Investigating Officer of the case, submitted that it was the team of Forensic Science, which had taken into possession the pistol and handed over the sealed parcel to him, however, during the course of trial no one from the said team of Forensic Science appeared as a witness before the trial Court in support of the said fact---Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that he did not record the statement of any such member of the said team during the investigation of the case---Moreover, the piece of bullet recovered from the place of occurrence was also found not suitable for comparison by the Forensic Science Agency---Thus, the recovery of the pistol from the place of occurrence did not further the case of the prosecution in any manner---In view of the said facts, the recovery of the pistol could not be used as a circumstance against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Call Data Record of the cell phone of deceased not produced---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/ daughter of complainant by firing---Complainant admitted that neither during the investigation of the case nor before the trial Court, he had mentioned the number of the mobile phone device used by deceased from which he had received the call---Complainant also admitted during cross-examination that he did not even mention his own phone number on which he had received the call of deceased during the course of the investigation---Complainant, during cross-examination, investigation of the case and even before the Court did not produce any evidence in the shape of Call Data of the mobile phone number under his use or under the use of deceased to establish that he had indeed received the telephonic call of deceased and after receiving the said call he and other witness had proceeded to the place of occurrence---Furthermore, the Investigating Officer of the case also did not collect any evidence during the investigation of the case so as to prove that complainant had indeed received a phone call of deceased---Mobile phone device through which the deceased had called complainant was also not found present at the place of occurrence nor was produced by any witness during the investigation of the case nor was produced before the trial Court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of the eye-witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that the alleged eye-witnesses along with given up prosecution witness made no effort either to save the deceased or to apprehend the accused when they were three in number and could have easily restrained the accused, who according to the prosecution witnesses had thrown the weapon used by him during the occurrence, in the presence of the witnesses before fleeing away from the place---It was unnatural and unbelievable that the alleged eye-witnesses along with given up prosecution witness did not even move a limb to protect their near and dear one---No person having ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would watch the proceedings as mere spectators for as long as the occurrence continued without doing anything to rescue the deceased or to apprehend the assailant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural death of wife occurring in the house of her husband/accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Prosecution alleged that when any person died an unnatural death in the house of accused, then some part of the onus laid on him to establish the circumstances in which such unnatural death had occurred---Validity---It was the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt subject to any statutory exception---No matter what the charge, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused was the law and no attempt to whittle it down could be entertained---In case of present nature, the accused could not have been convicted for the alleged murder merely because he happened to be one of the residents of the place of occurrence---Eye-witnesses admitted that the accused had his siblings and parents living with him, however, claimed that they used to reside in a separate adjacent house---Investigating Officer of the case, during cross-examination, stated that there was no other house situated next to the house of the accused and therefore in a manner admitted that the parents and siblings of the accused were also the residents of the same house where the occurrence took place---Thus, an accused person could not be convicted merely because he did not explain the circumstances in which the deceased (wife) had lost her life---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Delay of seven hours in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that the occurrence took place at about 12.30 p.m. on 06.02.2020, but the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted after much delay---According to Medical Officer, she conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased at 07.15 p.m. on 06.02.2020 i.e. after 07 hours of the occurrence and after 07 hours of recording of the oral statement of complainant by Investigating Officer---Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased and prepared the post-mortem examination report, gave the time between death and post-mortem examination as being six hours---According to Medical Officer, she received the police documents at 07.00 p.m. on 06.02.2020 and thereafter she conducted the post-mortem examination---Said witness explained during cross-examination that the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was delayed due to the fact that the police papers were not handed over till 07.00 p.m.---Despite the claim of the prosecution that the formal FIR had been recorded at 01.45 p.m. on 06.02.2020, five more hours were taken to submit the complete documents to the Woman Medical Officer after the registration of the formal FIR---Reason which was apparent for the delayed conducting of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of daughter of complainant was that by that time the details of the occurrence were not known and the said time was used not only to procure the attendance of the witnesses but also to fashion a false narrative of the occurrence---No explanation was offered to justify the delayed receipt of complete documents from the police and the delay in the post-mortem examination---Furthermore, it was also not explained by the prosecution why the dead body was not sent to the hospital for as many as five hours after the occurrence when the hospital was at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Said facts clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post-mortem examination was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account, after consultation and planning---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State Medical evidence---Conviction---Scope---Conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARSLAN VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not necessary that there should be so many circumstances rather if only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit would be extended to accused not as a matter of concession but as of right.

MUHAMMAD ARSLAN vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 463 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ