Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN 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 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence for the prosecution was materialized through postmortem of deceased which was conducted by Medical Officer at 12.00 noon on 02.02.2018 with a delay of five hours---Record showed that bullet entered from left side of rib cage and exited from right side of the rib cage without its exit from the back, otherwise Medical Officer must have mentioned the further exit of bullet from the back side as she had mentioned while showing its entry inlet---Thus, there was contradiction in medical evidence as bullet entered from the left side of chest whereas prosecution claimed it as a fire shot on the front of chest---Another touchy aspect in medical evidence was the size of entry wound which was bigger than the exit wound and it was not possible in ordinary circumstances but presence of tattooing could produce such type of effect if the fire was made with palleted weapon---So, there was serious conflict in medical and ocular account which showed that occurrence was not committed in the manner as being claimed by the prosecution---Such contradiction was fatal to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empty---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Prosecution had claimed that recovery of pistol from the accused was supportive to prosecution case because one of the empties collected from the place of occurrence was reported by Forensic Science Agency as having been found fired from the pistol recovered on the lead of accused---Similar evidence of matching report against the co-accused had been discarded by the Trial Court while acquitting him---Sub-Inspector was the man who deposited the empties and pistol in the office of Forensic Science Agency, though fact of depositing of empties on 07.02.2018 was available in his statement as well as in the statement of Moharrir but he did not depose about the fact of depositing the pistols rather stated that he recorded the statement of Moharrir for depositing of pistols before Forensic Science Agency---In normal circumstances, it might be considered an innocent omission but two pistols were received by Forensic Science Agency in two separate parcels whereas Moharrir deposed during cross-examination that both pistols were sealed in one parcel---This was a dent in recovery of pistols and transmission of that very pistol which was allegedly recovered from the accused---Furthermore pistols after recovery were handed over to the Moharrir on 15.02.2018 but they were deposited in Forensic Science Agency with further delay of eight days on 23.02.2018---Thus, recovery of pistol from the accused had become doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not necessary that there should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Report of the hospital available on record showed deposit of dead body of deceased in the morgue at 9.20 am on 02.02.2018 by Police Constable and it was received back by him at 11.30 am on the same day for postmortem and later during the day it was handed over to brother of the complainant--- Presence of Police Constable in hospital prior to reaching of Investigating Officer threw suspicion that occurrence was in the knowledge of police from very early hours and due to absence of complainant, the registration of FIR was delayed and by that time postmortem was conducted---This was the reason that instead of complainant, his brother received the dead body and later was given up to hide the facts that might have been caught during his cross-examination---Absence of complainant got further strength from the statement of complainant who conceded that he had two wives, one living at a distance of 30/40 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Moreover, had the FIR been registered before the postmortem, the inquest report must have contained the FIR number, which was not there---Complainant was not present at the place of occurrence, therefore, his testimony could not be relied upon as trustworthy---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Delay of four hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Motive was annoyance of accused over his rejection for marriage with daughter of the complainant---Matter was reported to the police at 11.00 am on the same day with a delay of more than four hours with the justification that time was consumed while shifting the victim in injured condition to hospital and on the way when she died, her dead body was kept at hospital and police on receiving information reached there---Said four hours were very crucial to decide the fate of first Phase of prosecution reel---Complainant stated that his son informed the Rescue 1122 Emergency Ambulance Service and it reached at 7.00 am and according to him, they had shifted the dead body at 7.15 am---If injured had died, there was no question of shifting her to hospital in injured condition, and that fact was also mentioned in the report of Emergency Service 1122 available in the file that on 02.02.2018 at 7.30 am, when they reached at the place of occurrence, the woman had died---Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to wait further even for a moment to report the matter to the police---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAJID HUSSAIN vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR