RAFAQAT ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 696 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.

RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of 'danda' on the pointation of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Record showed that danda was recovered on the pointation of the accused---Said 'danda' was recovered after the joint disclosure of the accused along with his co-convict and as such, the said recovery became doubtful in the eyes of law---Noteworthy that the said 'danda' was not stained with blood and as such, there was nothing on record to connect the said recovery with the occurrence---Moreover, the recovered 'danda' was of common pattern and was available in the markets easily and as such, the same could be planted against the accused---Under the circumstances, it was not safe to rely upon such recovery of 'danda' against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss.302, 147 & 148---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inculpatory and exculpatory parts of statement of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Record showed that the accused had nowhere admitted in his statement or in the suggestions given to the prosecution eye-witnesses that he committed the murder of deceased rather he stated that on the night of occurrence when deceased entered his house to commit the rape of sister of co-convict, they raised hue and cry, whereupon, a mob gathered at the spot and gave beating to deceased---Evidently, the accused did not admit that he gave beating to deceased on the night of occurrence---First and foremost duty of the prosecution was to prove its case and if the prosecution failed to prove its case then statement of an accused was to be accepted or rejected in toto---Legally it was not permissible to accept inculpatory part of the statement of an accused and to reject exculpatory part of the said statement---If after rejection of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was accepted in toto then no offence was made out against the present accused---Noteworthy that acquitted co-accused persons also made statements on the same lines as that of the statement of present accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and the same suggestions were given by defence to the prosecution eye-witnesses---Since, the co-accused persons had been acquitted by the Trial Court and appeal against acquittal had already been dismissed therefore, the present accused could not be convicted and sentenced merely on the basis of his statement or suggestions given by his counsel to the prosecution witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular and medical evidence---Conflict between---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Record showed that there was conflict between ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution---Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased found 17 injuries on his body---According to his evidence, some injuries were the marks of burns and electric shocks but none of the prosecution eye-witnesses stated in his evidence that as to how the said injuries were received by deceased---Had the prosecution witnesses been present at the spot at the relevant time then they should have explained the said injuries on the body of the deceased---Notable that no electric wire or any other weapon which could cause burn marks or electric shock marks, had been recovered from the possession of the accused---Noteworthy that Medical Officer had neither mentioned the probable time that elapsed between the injuries and death, as well as, probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination in the postmortem report nor he mentioned the said details in his evidence recorded by the trial Court---Said witness frankly conceded during his cross-examination that he normally mentioned the duration between the injuries and death and between death and postmortem examination in the postmortem reports---Under the circumstances, it was not determinable in the case that what was the probable time of occurrence when deceased received injuries on his body---In such circumstances the ocular account of the prosecution did not support the medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six hours and fifteen minutes in lodging FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---According to the prosecution's own case, the occurrence in the present case took place in the house of the accused at 01:00 a.m., on the intervening night of 08/09.06.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 09.06.2018 at 07:15 a.m., and as such, there was delay of 06 hours and 15 minutes in lodging the FIR---Distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 5-kilometers---Complainant had stated during his cross-examination that he had the facility of car at his disposal on the night of occurrence through which he shifted deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital---Under the circumstances, the said gross delay in reporting the matter to the police had created doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story---Thus, the FIR was not promptly lodged in the present case therefore, possibility of deliberations and concoctions in the prosecution story could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Ocular account of the prosecution case was furnished by the complainant and other eye-witness---Prosecution case was that on the night of occurrence, the complainant on hearing the noise of hue and cry, woke up and went to the roof of acquitted accused who was his neighbor, wherefrom, he witnessed the occurrence, but during his cross-examination, complainant stated that his house was not situated in the street in which the house of the accused persons was situated---Said witness further stated that if one had to go from his house to the house of the accused persons then he had to enter his street and then to the street of the accused persons---Story narrated by the complainant during his cross-examination had negated the story narrated by him in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Record showed that accused along with acquitted co-accused persons was assigned the joint role of inflicting 'danda' blows on the body of deceased by the prosecution eye-witnesses---Co-accused persons had been acquitted by the Trial Court whereas, appeal filed against the acquittal of the said co-accused had already been dismissed---Under the circumstances, the prosecution evidence which had been disbelieved against the acquitted co-accused could not be believed against the present accused without independent corroboration, which was very much lacking in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses in the present case was highly unnatural---According to the prosecution case, the complainant party was comprising of three adult male members---Complainant was real father of deceased and he stated during his cross-examination that an eye-witness was his paternal cousin---Prosecution case was that the accused and his co-accused were armed with 'dandas' at the time of occurrence and as such, the accused persons were not armed with any formidable weapon like gun, pistol etc. but the eye-witnesses kept on standing like silent spectators and allowed the accused and his co-accused to inflict, as many as, 17 injuries on the body of deceased---Said witnesses did not try to rescue deceased from the accusedand his co-accused during the occurrence or to apprehend them at the spot, after the occurrence---Such conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses was highly unnatural which further showed that they were not present at the spot at the relevant time---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of ten hours and forty minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Record showed that postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 09.06.2018 at 11:40 a.m., i.e., with the delay of 10 hours and 40 minutes from the occurrence---Said delay was suggestive of the fact that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Police opinion---Scope---Police opinion becomes irrelevant after recording of prosecution evidence by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE RAFAQAT ALI VS State Ss. 302, 147 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting danda and sota blows---Motive behind the occurrence was that few days earlier to the occurrence, hot words were exchanged between deceased and co-convict---No specific date, time and place of the motive occurrence had been brought on the record by any of the prosecution witnesses---No reason of the earlier quarrel which took place between deceased and co-convict had been stated by any of the prosecution witnesses---Vague motive was alleged by the prosecution which had not been proved in the case and the Trial Court had rightly disbelieved the motive part of the prosecution case---Moreover, the prosecution story of motive did not appeal to a prudent mind because if there was any earlier quarrel between the deceased and co-convict, then what was deceased doing in the house of accused persons at the odd hours of night (01:00 a.m.)---Prosecution evidence in that respect was completely silent, which made the prosecution story doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

RAFAQAT ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ