MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 829 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 NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions between statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---Record showed that there were contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses who informed the police about the incident---Complainant deposed during his cross-examination that he did not make call to the Rescue Service---Contrary to the deposition of the complainant, the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that call to Rescue Service was made by complainant---Statements of complainant, eye-witness and Investigating Officer created doubt about who informed the police about the incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---Evidence of chance witness could be accepted---Evidence of chance witness could only be relied upon if the proof had a ring of truth and was cogent, credible, and trustworthy---Similarly, the conduct of the chance witness was also a relevant factor while appreciating his evidence. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of one hour and thirty five minutes in reporting the matter to the police---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the accused was forcing deceased to enter into a marriage, but due to her refusal, the accused murdered her---Incident took place on 08.11.2018 at 03.00 p.m.---Police station was at a distance of 4.5 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Prosecution had not given a reason for the delay in lodging the FIR---However, it could be found from the FIR that it was not mentioned therein that the complainant went to the police station to report the incident, nor was it mentioned that on hearing about the incident, police reached the spot and complainant reported the incident to the police---Complainant did not explain the reason for not lodging the report with the police of the incident of murder of his sister, which took place in the house of his sister in his presence---Delay in lodging the FIR often resulted in consultation and deliberation, which was creature of an afterthought---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 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that after referring the written complaint to the police station through Constable at 04:35 p.m., he inspected the dead body of the deceased and prepared injury statement, inquest report and handed over the dead body of the deceased along with relevant documents to a Constable---In column No.3 of the inquest report, the date and time of receiving death information were mentioned as "8.11.2018 at 04:00 p.m."---Unexplained discrepancies in the timings and reference of FIR in the column of brief history in the inquest report must be considered---As per the prosecution case, inquest proceedings were conducted at 04:00 p.m. on 8.11.2018---On the face of the inquest report and in the column of a brief history of the case, there was overwriting on the number of FIR---Bare reading of the number of FIR revealed that the FIR number was 875/18, which was overwritten as 876/18---Facts indicated that the prosecution story was still in the embryo and had not been given any shape---First Information Report was recorded later after due deliberations and consultations and then ante-timed to give it the color of a promptly lodged FIR---Second external check that was equally important was sending a copy of the FIR along with the dead body for postmortem examination and its reference in the inquest report---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Presence of complainant and eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---In the present case, the deposition of the Investigating Officer revealed that on receiving information about the murder, he reached the place of occurrence at 04:10 p.m., even then, the complainant, took 25 minutes to report the incident---Thus, it was found from the evidence of the complainant that he had reported the incident of murder of his sister, which occurred in her house in his and eye-witnesses' presence at 04:35 p.m. on 08.11.2018 with the delay of one hour and 35 minutes, which created doubt about the presence of the complainant and eye-witnesses---Complainant admitted that he was a resident of another Chak and on 08.11.2018 at about 03:00 p.m., he along with eye-witnesses went to see his sister/ deceased---Per the prosecution case, the deceased was residing at some other place---Per the prosecution's case, the distance between the residence of deceased and complainant was 30 minutes on a motorbike---Thus, the complainant and eye-witnesses were chance witnesses---Medical Officer, during the external examination of the body of the deceased, specifically mentioned about the deceased "mouth opened, eyes closed"---If the prosecution witnesses attended to the deceased soon after the occurrence, there was no reason for the mouth to be open---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---As per the prosecution case, on 16.11.2018, the accused was arrested---On 19.11.2018, upon his disclosure, pistol 30-bore was recovered from his residence---Investigating Officer secured the same through a recovery memo---Investigating Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that on 19.11.2018, he handed a sealed parcel of the recovered pistol to Moharrar for keeping it in safe custody in the Malkhana---Contrary to the deposition of the Investigating Officer, Moharrar deposed during examination-in-chief that the Investigating Officer sent the sealed parcel said to contain pistol 30 bore for safe custody, but Moharrar did not name the person who handed over said sealed parcel to him---Besides, the complainant deposed during cross-examination that accused was arrested by the police on the day of occurrence---Statement of the complainant threw clouds of doubt on the recovery of the pistol 30-bore---In these circumstances, the recovery of the weapon of offence and a positive report was not of any consequence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer had conducted the investigation of the case in a faulty manner---Investigating Officer had not mentioned the distance between different points in the un-scaled site plan prepared on 08.11.2018---Whereas, the distance between different points had been mentioned in the scaled site plans prepared by draftsman on 10.11.2018---Scaled site plans were prepared to bring the prosecution version in line with the postmortem examination report---As per the postmortem report, there was burning, blackening, and tattooing on the injuries---Admittedly, an autopsy was conducted on 09.11.2018, and the draftsman visited the place of occurrence on 10.11.2018, and after that, he prepared site plans---So, mentioning distance by the draftsman in scaled site plans became immaterial---Investigating Officer's conduct and investigation were not above board---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of fifteen hours and fifteen minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of complainant by firing---Constable, who took the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination, deposed that the dead body was placed in the mortuary at 06:20 p.m.---Per the prosecution case, a written complaint was handed over to the Investigating Officer, at 04:35 p.m.---If it was so, it was required to be explained by the Investigating Officer by plausible evidence on the record as to how the inquest was undertaken at 04:00 p.m. and after the preparation of the inquest report, injury statement, the Investigating Officer entrusted the dead body of the deceased to a Constable for taking to the mortuary for postmortem examination---Formal FIR was chalked out at 05:00 p.m., whereas reference to the same was given in the column of a brief history of inquest report---However, there was overwriting on the number of the FIR in the injury statement and inquest report---Moreover, it also got support from the testimony of Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem on 09-11-2018 at 8:15 am upon the dead body of the deceased---As per the prosecution case, FIR was registered at 05:00 p.m., and the dead body was placed in the mortuary at 06:20 p.m. along with documents---Medical Officer reaffirmed during cross-examination that she received the dead body on 08.11.2018 at 6:20 p.m. and received complete police papers on 08.11.2018 at 08:00 p.m.---Said fact created doubt about the time of registration of FIR---Complainant submitted that due to the non-availability of a lady doctor, a postmortem could not be conducted soon after receiving the dead body and the documents from the police---Deposition of Medical Officer negated the plea of the complainant, when she stated that she received the dead body of the deceased at 06:20 p.m. and complete documents at 08:15 p.m. on 08.11.2018.---Medical Officer admitted her presence and availability in the evening of 08.11.2018, but the prosecution did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased at 08:15 am on 09.11.2018, with a delay of about 15 hours and fifteen minutes from the time of registration of FIR---Prosecution did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---Said facts themselves were sufficient to create serious doubt about the prosecution story---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

MUHAMMAD NASIR alias BHOLA vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 829 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ