MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 504 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 SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the prosecution was furnished by two witnesses including complainant---Occurrence took place in a cricket ground, at place "G"---Complainant was real brother of deceased and also resident of place "G"---Likewise, other witness was also resident of place "B" but in the same city---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained the reason of their presence at the spot at the relevant time by stating that they were playing cricket along with deceased in a cricket ground at the time of occurrence---Occurrence in this case took place in broad day light i.e., at 12:30 noon and as such, there was no chance of any mis-identification of the accused during the occurrence---Both the eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but their evidence could not be shaken and they corroborated each other on all material aspects of the case---Evidence of eye-witnesses was confidence inspiring and trustworthy---Record transpired that there was no conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution to the extent of role played by the accused during the occurrence---In the contents of the FIR, as well as, in their statements, prosecution eye-witnesses stated that after sustaining firearm injury on the right side of the abdomen, deceased fell on the ground in injured condition and thereafter, the accused made two more fire shots on the deceased however, the same did not hit him---Under the circumstances, there was every possibility that one out of the two additional fire shots made by the accused had hit the deceased but the same could not be noticed by the prosecution eye-witnesses due to falling of the deceased on the ground, as well as, on account of sensation and panic created due to the firing by the accused---Moreover eye-witness could not give the photo picture of each and every injury sustained by the deceased due to the panic and sensation developed at the time of occurrence due to the firing---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Safe custody of weapon not established---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Insofar as the recovery of pistol on pointing out of the accused and positive report of Forensic Science Agency was concerned, it was noted that Head Constable, who was Moharrar of Malkhana of the police station, had not uttered a single word that any parcel of pistol was handed over to him and thereafter, he kept the same in safe custody at the Malkhaana and finally handed over the said parcel to any prosecution witness for its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---Thus, the safe custody of the parcel of pistol, allegedly recovered on pointing out of the accused, had not been proved in this case therefore, recovery of pistol and positive report of Forensic Science Agency were of no avail to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one hour in lodging FIR---Not consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the occurrence took place on 12.02.2017 at 12:30 p.m.---Matter was reported to the police and the FIR was also lodged on the same day i.e. on 12.02.2017 at 01:30 p.m., i.e., within a period of 01 hour from the occurrence---Distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 1-kilometer---Even deceased who initially sustained injuries during the occurrence and later on, died, was also medically examined on the same day i.e., on 12.02.2017 at 12:47 p.m., i.e., within a period of 17 minutes from the occurrence---Keeping in view the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence, its distance from the police station and the time of medical examination of the injured (later on deceased), there was no deliberate or conscious delay in reporting the matter to the police and the FIR was promptly lodged---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Mitigating circumstances---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the recovery of pistol on pointing out of the accused had been disbelieved due to the reasons that safe custody of the said recovery had not been proved by the prosecution---Prosecution evidence qua motive had been disbelieved being vague and general one---No specific date, time and place of the prior quarrel had been mentioned by any of the prosecution witness---None of the prosecution witnesses stated that they were present at the time of said quarrel---Under the circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused was quite harsh and the sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice---Hence, the conviction of the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C awarded by the Trial Court was maintained but his sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding evidence of natural witnesses---Not consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Allegedly, gardeners of the ground were present at the spot at the relevant time and they were the most natural witnesses of the occurrence but the prosecution had withheld their evidence and as such, an adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, might be drawn against the prosecution---However, it was the quality and not the quantity of evidence which weighed with the Courts regarding the decision of a criminal case therefore, non-production of the gardeners of the ground in the witness box was not fatal to the prosecution case---Even otherwise, the people/witnesses not related to the deceased/complainant party did not appear in the witness box to avoid enmity with the accused party and their non-appearance in the witness box was not fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Sentence, reduction in---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution case, motive behind the occurrence was that few days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel took place between deceased and the accused party on account of fight of children---No specific date, time and place of the said quarrel had been mentioned by any of the prosecution witness---None of the prosecution witnesses stated that they were present at the time of said quarrel---Vague and general motive was alleged by the prosecution which had not been proved in this case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was altered from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ