ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY vs State Motive — 2024 PCrLJ 82 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.

ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon that cuts both ways---If, on the one hand, it provides a reason for the accused to commit the occurrence in question, on the other hand, it equally provides the first informant with a reason to implicate his rival. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---As per the prosecution case, on 16.08.2017, the accused was arrested---On 21.08.2017, upon disclosure of accused, a knife was recovered from the northern room of his residential house---As per the recovery memo knife was kept in a cloth bag, which was hung on the room's western wall---Investigating Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that after proceedings at the place of occurrence, he raided the houses of the accused persons, but they were not traceable---Astonishingly soon after the incident, the accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence, as per the prosecution case, and the Investigating Officer made efforts to effect their arrest---Even otherwise, it did not appeal to reason that the accused might have kept a knife in his house intact to produce it before the Investigating Officer on his arrest---Accused could not be expected to keep the knife in his house when he could have easily disposed of the same---In said circumstances, the recovery of the weapon of offence and a positive report were not of any consequences---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Complainant deposed that motive behind the occurrence was that two days before the occurrence, an altercation took place between deceased and accused persons and due to that reason, accused persons committed murder of the deceased---Eye-witness deposed similar grounds---Complainant during cross-examination deposed that he disclosed the motive part of the occurrence before the police, however he had not mentioned the detail of said motive part of occurrence, i.e. place, time and witnesses of the said altercation---Complainant had not disclosed the reason for said altercation of motive part of the occurrence to the police---Investigating Officer deposed that both eyewitnesses did not describe about the motive of that occurrence in their statements---Thus, the motive for the commission of the crime by the accused was not proved through cogent and convincing evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Deposition of Investigating Officer revealed that he took 55 minutes to record the complainant's statement, prepare the inquest report, etc.---After the preparation of the inquest report, etc. within 55 minutes, the Investigating Officer sent the oral complaint to the police station for the recording of FIR---Said fact revealed that before the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer conducted a partial investigation---Admittedly, a statement under S. 154, Cr.P.C., of the complainant was not incorporated in the register for FIRs registration---Police Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that on receiving the oral complaint, endorsed and dispatched by the Investigating Officer through Police Constable, he dictated the FIR to the Computer Operator, who typed it without any addition or deletion---Prosecution had not produced the Computer Operator to whom dictation was given by Police Officer, whereafter he typed the FIR---First Information Report was not entered into the register, suggesting that FIR was not chalked out as stated---Evidential value of the FIR would be reduced if it was made after an unexplained delay, particularly when the same was not entered in the printed form as per Police Rules, 1934---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Record showed that the place of occurrence was thoroughfare and the prosecution witnesses had not got any reason to be present at the place and time of occurrence---Investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that eye-witnesses told him that they had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 50 feet---Presence of the complainant and the eye-witness at the relevant time of occurrence was belied from the site plan prepared on their pointing---Un-scaled site plan and scaled site plans showed the presence of witnesses at a point and at a distance wherefrom they could not have witnessed the incident---Whereas during the cross-examination, the complainant and the eye witness, improved their statements by stating that they were at 7 feet when a knife blow was given by accused, but the position of the complainant and the eye witness near the deceased, was not shown in the un-scaled site plan---Although, the site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence in terms of Art. 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but it reflected the view of the crime scene, and the same could be used to contradict or disbelieve eyewitnesses---All the said circumstances made the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Record showed that the prosecution witnesses stated that due to the severe condition the deceased, then injured, was taken to the THQ Hospital---Presence of the said witnesses was alleged to be doubtful at the spot because if they had been present and witnessed the occurrence, they would have tried to stop the blood oozing from the body of the son of complainant---On the contrary, said witnesses did not provide first aid---Both witnesses admitted that different hospitals were available on the way from the place of occurrence to THQ Hospital, still, they did not take the deceased (then injured) to any nearby hospital for providing medical treatment---Both the said witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they took the deceased, then injured, to THQ Hospital, due to his severe condition---Said act of the prosecution witnesses remained unnatural---Said witnesses opted to take the deceased then injured to the hospital, which was far from the place of occurrence at a distance of 25/26 kilometers, which also threw a cloud of doubt on the presence of both the witnesses, including the complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY VS State Witness---Related witness---Scope---Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a related witness, but it is only a rule of prudence---Rule of caution is that the evidence of related witness is scrutinized with some extra caution---Once the Court is satisfied that the witness was present at the scene of occurrence and his evidence inspires confidence, the same cannot be discarded on the sole ground of relationship with the deceased or chance witness.

ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY vs State Motive — 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ