Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant after abducting him---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two witnesses---Said witnesses claimed that on 09.09.2020 they had gone for meeting with Mr. "S", who was not available in his house; they waited for him but he did not come back and his brother Mr. "N" met them there and thereafter they came back to their house on a car---Said witnesses reached on bridge Q.B. Link Canal where they saw in the light of their car that accused persons were scuffling with unknown person aged about 21/22 years and in their view, accused persons caught hold of arms of unknown person, pushed him in Q.B. Link Canal; they identified accused persons in the light of their car and it came into their knowledge that complainant and his family members were searching the deceased; and they called the complainant and told him about said fact---Prosecution did not produce Mr. "N" to establish the fact that both said witnesses had gone to met him on said day---Only source of identification of the accused persons as well as victim was "lights of car" but said car had not been produced during trial of the case---Furthermore, said witnesses did not raise any alarm/hue and cry and in that regard and they did not try to save the victim or overpower/ apprehend the accused persons although accused persons were just two in number and were not armed with any weapon and if those witnesses, who were also two in number, had intervened for saving the victim, then they along with victim could have become three in number and it would have been very easy for them to rescue the victim and overpower/ apprehend the accused but they did not do so rather in their view, they let the accused persons complete their task i.e. throwing the victim in the canal and remained there as silent spectators---Furthermore, said witnesses did not apprehend the accused persons even after the occurrence and let them escape from there on their motorbike---Although witnesses had a car with them but they neither stopped the accused persons nor chased them---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant after abducting him---Last seen evidence had been produced by two witnesses---Said witnesses claimed that they were working as property dealers and on 09.09.2020 went to place "MF" in connection with some property---On their return, said witnesses stopped motorbike at cigarette Corner to purchase cigarette where they saw accused persons and deceased having cold drinks---However, said witnesses neither could tell the distance between their village and place "MF" where they had gone nor could they prove the cause for which statedly they had gone there---Site plan produced by the prosecution during trial of the case did not reflect presence of said witnesses at stated place as well as of the accused persons and deceased of the case "with cold drinks" and even any shop/stall/ Khokha of cold drinks/cigarettes was not mentioned therein---Said site plan also did not show availability of any bulb there and even any shop keeper of shop/ stall/Khokha of cold drinks/cigarettes neither joined the investigation nor was produced during trial of the case---Any other site plan showing place where both witnesses saw accused persons and deceased with cold drinks was not available on record---Both said witnesses even did not produce their motorcycle during trial of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of mobile phones, SIMs and Call Data Record---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant after abducting him---So far as recovery of mobile phones, SIMs and C.D.R. was concerned, suffice it to say that ownership of said mobile phones had not been duly proved---Documents issued by cellular company qua ownership of SIMs also could not be brought on record and proved---Call Data Record merely showed presence of SIMs in territorial jurisdiction/area of cellular phone tower and not the person carrying the SIM and it also did not show that the persons using the same were present together---Mere Call Data Record without voice transcript was of no avail to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of motorcycle on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant after abducting him---Recovery of red coloured motorcycle on the pointing out of accused was of no help to the prosecution as colour and registration number of motorcycle statedly used in the occurrence had neither been mentioned in the FIR nor in the complaint which was filed after a considerable delay, whereas recovery of other articles i.e. CNIC, ATM, wallet, shoes, clothes were not enough to identify the accused, so same was also of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses of ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant after abducting him---Record showed that Police Post was very much near from the spot i.e. just at a distance of 25/30 meter---Said witnesses did not call for help from said Police Post---Copy of any written application or intimation or statement about giving intimation regarding the occurrence by both witnesses to said Police Post had not been produced during trial of the case---Any witness from said Police Post to establish that those both witnesses went to said Police Post to report said incident had not been produced before the Court---Furthermore, both the said witnesses claimed that many shops and houses were there at said place, but even then they did not raise any alarm and their conduct was not natural rather raised eyebrows---Even otherwise when on bank of canal there might have been many places having no population, shops, residences or Police Post and it would have been easy for the accused persons to complete their task by throwing victim in the canal there, but question was why they opted place for throwing him into the canal which was surrounded by shops, houses and Police Post---This did not appeal to a common prudent man rather possibility could not be ruled out that said place had been introduced as place of throwing victim into the canal just to show presence of witnesses at the spot to establish that they saw the occurrence---Said witnesses were not residents of place and had no business over there---So, said witnesses were "chance witnesses" who could not establish any plausible reason for their presence over there---Said witnesses had close relationship with the complainant and deceased was real paternal nephew of the complainant, then why they both did not identify deceased when they saw that accused persons were scuffling with him and why they did not intervene or why they did not immediately intimate the complainant---If it was supposed for a moment that they had not earlier seen the deceased and thus could not identify him, then it was mandatory for the prosecution to get dead body of deceased, after its recovery, to be identified by those witnesses to establish that it was dead body of the same person who was seen by them scuffling with the accused persons and thrown by the accused persons into the canal, but that mandatory exercise had not been done, which was fatal omission for the prosecution---Thus, such piece of evidence had lost its efficacy and its evidentiary value was nil, hence, of no help to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Presence of witnesses of last seen evidence at the venue doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant after abducting him---Both the witnesses of last seen evidence were not resident of said place i.e. Q.B. Link Canal or its surrounding, so, they were "chance witnesses" who could not establish any plausible reason regarding their presence at relevant "time and place" of occurrence---Furthermore, said witnesses were introduced at belated stage in complaint filed in June, 2021---Dead body of the deceased was not found at the place where statedly both the said witnesses saw the accused persons with deceased---So, testimony of both the witnesses was not confidence inspiring---Even otherwise, evidence of last-seen being weakest type of evidence required strong corroboration which was missing in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had present failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant after abducting him---Motive behind the occurrence was that a female Mst. "S", deceased and an accused were employees of Bureau of Statistics, where deceased developed relations with Mst. "S", however, accused had also love affection with Mst. "S"---Accused persons in connivance with each other and with a planning in order to get Mst. "S", while enticing deceased, murdered him---Motive was not mentioned in the FIR though it was introduced subsequently in the complaint, yet any witness could not be produced by the prosecution during trial of the case who allegedly disclosed the motive to the complainant---Even any person who was witness of any relationship between deceased and Mst. "S" or of interest of accused with Mst. "S" or of annoyance of accused with deceased of the case for such reason, was not produced during trial---So motive has not been proved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASIF ALI vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR