Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT vs State Benefit of doubt

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 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Whenever, a reasonable doubt emerged with regard to the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, he should be benefitted with the same without any hesitation---For the said purpose, it is not necessary that there should be multiple anomalies creating doubt in the prosecution case---A single circumstance creating reasonable doubt would be sufficient. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses did not find support from the medical evidence---As per allegations recorded in the FIR and the statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses, the accused fired two shots with his pistol at the body of the deceased which landed on his face and left arm whereas accused "I" fired at the deceased which hit him on his abdomen---Contrary to that, Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem of the deceased entered into witness box and gave description of injury as injury No.5 "a firearm wound of reentry 3 x 1 cm on interio lateral side of left forearm, 03 cm below left elbow joint crease" which clearly negated the version of the witnesses that the accused fired two shots one of which hit on the left arm of the deceased---Said material conflict in the oral account and the medical evidence lent support to the conclusion that the occurrence was in fact not witnessed by eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State Witness---Chance witness, evidence of---Reliance---Chance witness is a witness who claims that he was present at the crime spot well in time though his presence in ordinary course of business was a sheer chance---Testimony of chance witness is always to be examined by the Courts with a hard look as in normal course the presumption would be that such witness was not present at the crime spot. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twelve hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Alleged occurrence took place at 07:10 am whereas it was reported to the police at 07:30 p.m., thus, there was delay of more than twelve hours---Explanation to that effect was although offered that on account of precarious condition of deceased, he was initially shifted to DHQ hospital from where he was referred to other Hospital for further treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries and took his last breath---Apparent from the record that despite having ample time to report the matter to the police, the complainant took considerable time for the said purpose---Prosecution had not been able to ably explain the delay in lodging the FIR---Said delay surely occurred for the purpose of deliberation and concoction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a quarrel that took place between accused and deceased over playing volleyball---Prosecution had though set up a specific motive for the offence but it was neither stated by the witnesses with full heart nor proved at all---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Alleged occurrence was not witnessed by complainant---Complaint was lodged on the basis of information furnished by two witnesses who were purportedly the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Both the said witnesses were not residents of the vicinity and they were residing at faraway places from the venue of occurrence---Apparently both the witnesses were chance witnesses and in order to establish their presence at the venue of occurrence, they were supposed to provide satisfactory explanation with regard to their presence at the site at the relevant time---From the perusal of their statements it could easily be inferred that they were unable to give a plausible explanation with regard to their presence at the place of occurrence when the alleged offence took place---One of the eye-witnesses was brother of the complainant and uncle of the deceased whereas other witness was close friend of the deceased who even failed to justify his presence at the place of occurrence in the early hours of the day in the company of brother of complainant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Forensics of weapon and crime empties---Weapon of offence and crime empties not matching---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Though claim of the prosecution that pistol .30 bore was recovered from the accused on 08.03.2016 which was taken into possession through recovery memo but as per report of Forensic Science Agency, pistol purportedly recovered from the accused, when examined was not found matched with the crime empties collected from the place of occurrence---Recovery of pistol and the crime empties in the circumstances was, thus, completely inconsequential---Appeal against convic-tion was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AAMIR HAYAT vs State Benefit of doubt — 2024 YLR 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR