Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH vs State Dishonest improve

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 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Dishonest improvement---Scope---In criminal case, the fact brought in evidence through dishonest improvement is to be discarded---Purpose of such approach is to deprive a witness of taking leverage for overcoming lacunas in the case by adjusting his statement accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 377 & 210---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38, 39 & 40---Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of corpse on the disclosure and pointing out of accused---Confession before police---Not admissible---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and later strangulating him to death---Complainant immediately after acquiring information from the witnesses of last seen approached Investigating Officer---Three private witnesses along with Investigating Officer traced accused sitting in a hotel of a village---Astonishingly, accused took no time in admitting his guilt before police and even volunteered to get the dead body recovered---Under Art. 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, no confession of an accused made before a Police Officer could be proved against him---Likewise, Art. 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, bars the proving of a confession made in the police custody---Combined effect of both these Articles is to the effect that confession of an accused made before a Police Officer, either in the custody or otherwise, is inadmissible---Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provided an exception to the rule embedded in Arts. 38 & 39---According to the exception contemplated in Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an incriminating fact discovered in consequence of an information provided by an accused while in the custody of a Police Officer could still be proved against him---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, thus his conviction was found to be suffering from perversity---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 377 & 210---Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender ---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and later strangulating him to death---In the instant case, witness appeared during trial with the claim of having seen deceased in the company of accused on 04.02.2019 at about 4:00 p.m.---Said witness mentioned nothing about the place where he had seen deceased and accused on 04.02.2019---Such omission culminated in failure of prosecution to prove the ingredient of proximity of distance, which was essentially required to authenticate the evidence of last seen---As a necessary consequence, nothing was available on record to give finding in favour of prosecution that the event narrated by said witness came within the ambit of doctrine of "de recenti"---In reference to the proximity of time, it was observed that witness deposed in his examination-in-chief to have witnessed the deceased and accused on 04.02.2019 at 4:00 p.m.---During cross-examination it was deciphered that the time of 4:00 p.m. about the event of last seen was brought on record by said witness through dishonest improvement---In fact, witness had not mentioned the exact time of the event in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and the defence took guard of that fact by confronting him with his statement made during investigation---Narrator of last seen evidence, admitted during cross-examination that he had previous acquaintance with deceased, complainant and accused---Besides previous acquaintance, witness had abode at short distance of one kilometer from the house of deceased but still the information about the episode of last seen was imparted to the complainant after three days---No explanation worth acceptance was furnished by said witness about the mysterious silence to which he resorted for long three days about the fact which had its importance for the family of deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, thus his conviction was found to be suffering from perversity---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 377 & 210---Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---DNA profile---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and later strangulating him to death---Record showed that three internal anal swabs of deceased matched with the DNA of accused, as was evident from the Forensic Science Agency Report---Corroboratory DNA report lost its significance, keeping in view the fact that the evidence of last seen and recovery of dead body on the disclosure of accused was not worth reliance---Even otherwise, it was noticed that the present case was of improper sampling and unsafe custody---Task of autopsy was performed by Medical Officer who while appearing in the dock uttered not a single word about taking of internal anal swabs of deceased---Question of pivotal importance was that from where the internal anal swabs, which later matched with the DNA profile of the accused, originated---Answer of this query was not found discerning from record which indeed was in eternal silence on the point---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, thus his conviction was found to be suffering from perversity---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Circumstantial evidence---Last seen evidence--- Scope--- In circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to prove two of its basic ingredients which are proximity of time and proximity of distance---Proximity of time to prove the evidence of last seen rests on the principle of "de recenti" which lays emphasis that time span between the event of last seen and death must be very short---Short duration between the evidence of last seen and the murder incident in fact eliminates the possibility that the deceased parted the company of accused and joined some other person---More is the distance between evidence of last seen and the death of deceased, greater is the possibility about the hypothesis of innocence of the accused---Failure of prosecution to prove the proximity of time and distance is destined to weaken the evidence of last seen. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State arts.39 & 40---Disclosure of the accused---Scope---In order to prove during trial that the accused actually made a disclosure and subsequently led to the recovery of same fact, it is essential that a memo of his disclosure be prepared---Only the preparation of the memo testified by the witnesses would prove in subsequent trial that the fact was discovered in consequence of a lead and pointing out of the accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 377 & 210---Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender ---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Discrepancies in the recovery of corpse on the disclosure of accused---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and later strangulating him to death---Record showed that the deceased went missing on 04.02.2019, whereas the accused made his disclosure leading to the corpse on 07.02.2019 and till that time neither the complainant had lodged formal complaint with the police nor any case was registered---Though the alleged disclosure was made in the presence of Investigating Officer but still neither the statement of accused was recorded nor at the time of recovery of corpse any memo of pointation was prepared---Dead body was recovered from a pond but the (second) Investigating Officer did not prepare any memo about the disclosure of the accused and the recovery of dead body---Even Investigating Officer despite being a Duty Officer made no effort for preparing the memo of disclosure made by the accused---Non-preparation of recovery memo was the main factor resulting into the acquittal of accused though as per prosecution case he got recovered the dead body in pursuance of the disclosure and pointation---According to the prosecution case, the dead body was found immersed in a pond having water and mud, but during autopsy no supporting symptoms were observed by the doctor in that regard---Deposition of Medical Officer showed that neither the clothes were found wet nor he observed any wrinkles on the limbs---Absence of such symptoms on the corpse out-rightly excluded the possibility about the recovery of dead body from a pond, thus it was a factor which negated the theory of crime put forth by the witnesses---According to complainant, the dead body was recovered from the water by Investigating Officer---On the other hand, while appearing in the dock Investigating Officer stated that the needful of removing the dead body from the pond was done by private persons, who were residents of village---According to prosecution case the accused in order to cause disappearance of the dead body from the public view placed two stones upon it, each weighing two kilograms---Even those stones, despite having their own importance, were not taken into possession by the police during investigation---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, thus his conviction was found to be suffering from perversity---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NADEEM SHAH vs State Dishonest improvement — 2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR