Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA 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 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Audio and video clip on record---Not proved according to laws of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Record showed that video of deceased in injured condition was made by Court witness through mobile phone on 11.11.2015 at 08:30 p.m., who prepared CD of this video and handed over the same to Investigating Officer on 10.02.2016 through recovery memo---As per own claim of the prosecution, said video was prepared at 08:30 p.m. on 11.11.2015 but question was why it was not produced to the police during same night by Court witness or at the time of registration of case or on that day and why it was produced after about 3-months of the occurrence---Any convincing, plausible, cogent and acceptable reason appealing to a common prudent man could not be brought on the record by the prosecution---In the FIR, presence of Court Witness with deceased in injured condition in Civil Hospital was not mentioned---Statement of any doctor that deceased remained in injured condition in Civil Hospital, or he was fit to make statement or Court witness was accompanying said injured, was not available on the record---As per claim of Court witness, statement of injured was recorded on mobile phone, then subsequently converted to CD but admittedly said mobile was neither produced during investigation nor during trial rather only CD was produced---Though conversation recorded in audio or video could be proved yet production of actual record of conversation was necessary for the same---Therefore, due to non-production of mobile of Court witness wherein statedly said conversation of injured was recorded, said conversation had not been proved and by production of afore-mentioned CD, said conversation could not be proved; therefore, its forensic analysis was of no avail---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is merely supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it can not tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Unexplained delay of ten hours and forty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at about 08.15 pm on 11.11.2015---Complainant came to police station at 07.00 am, submitted application for registration of case and resultantly FIR was recorded---Though after the occurrence, first preference was to shift the injured to hospital for medical treatment and then to register the case and time consumed in shifting of injured justified delay in reporting the occurrence to the police, yet it had to be proved by the prosecution that complainant carried deceased in injured condition to hospital and time/period which was consumed for bringing him to hospital as well as in his medical treatment, and if actual time spent for said purpose tallied with the period of delay in reporting matter to police, then said delay was termed as explained delay and could not be considered as fatal for prosecution---Therefore, in the present case, prosecution was bound to prove that deceased was shifted in injured condition to hospital by cited eye-witnesses and he died during medical treatment---However, any entry of register of Hospital regarding arrival of injured there, any record of provision of any medical treatment to him there, copy of his Medico-Legal Examination Certificate issued by hospital, copy or record of his referral slip from there to DHQ hospital, copy of record of any entry showing his arrival there in DHQ hospital, copy of his medical treatment chart or any record showing detail of his medical treatment there, copy of his death certificate issued from DHQ hospital or any other document issued by said hospital to show that he expired during medical treatment there and any document to show that when i.e. at what time, he expired, had not been produced by the prosecution---So much so the doctor who provided medical treatment to injured in Civil Hospital, and referred him to DHQ Hospital, had not been produced to prove the same---Similarly, doctor who medically treated him in DHQ Hospital, and under whose treatment, he died, had also not been produced---Furthermore, any document issued by said hospital to show that when i.e. at what time deceased was brought in injured condition in Civil Hospital, when i.e. at what time he was received in DHQ Hospital, at what time his dead body was handed over from DHQ Hospital, and when it was received in dead house of Civil Hospital, had also not been produced---So, afore-stated claim of the prosecution that deceased of the case was first taken to Civil Hospital, in injured condition, then to DHQ Hospital, where he remained under medical treatment and then died after 1½ hours of arrival in said hospital, could not be proved---Hence, prosecution could not prove reason for delay in reporting the matter to police---Thus, there was unexplained and considerable delay of about 10-hours and 45 minutes in registration of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Record showed that nothing was recovered from three accused persons whereas on 25.03.2016, a pistol .30 bore was recovered on the pointing out of one of the accused persons but empties/cartridge cases secured from the place of occurrence were not found to have been fired from said pistol as per report of Forensic Science Agency---Thus, said recovery was inconsequential and of no help to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---In the application, FIR and complaint, it was mentioned that deceased was an eye-witness of case arising out of an FIR registered under S. 302, P.P.C, due to which present occurrence took place---Admittedly, none of the present accused persons was accused in the said FIR; so it was not directly against them---Furthermore, motive is a double edged weapon, it cuts both the ways, it can also be a reason for false implication; even otherwise, when substantive evidence has been discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses---No justification available for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---In FIR, it was mentioned that occurrence was witnessed in light---Eyewitness took the same stance during his evidence---Similarly, other eye-witness did not claim availability of any light at the time and place of occurrence---Both the eye-witnesses neither had residence nor business place at or adjacent to the place of occurrence, therefore, they both were chance witnesses---Though eye-witnesses claimed that they were going after taking tea from a tea shop yet neither name of said tea shop was disclosed nor owner or any serving boy/person of said tea shop was produced in support of said claim---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Prosecution produced complainant/wife of deceased, brother of deceased and brother-in-law of deceased as an eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Admittedly, complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence rather she received information through phone regarding the occurrence---Both the witnesses claimed that they shifted deceased in injured condition to Civil Hospital and then to DHQ Hospital, where he expired after 1½ hours during medical treatment but prosecution did not produce any document from said hospitals to show that the deceased was brought there by those witnesses---While taking into consideration all the afore-mentioned reasons collectively, ocular account produced by the prosecution had not been found as confidence inspiring or truthful, therefore, same could not be relied upon and had to be discarded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Record showed that post-mortem examination over dead body of the deceased was conducted at 11:30 p.m. on 12.11.2015 and there was no administrative reason in hospital for delay in autopsy of dead body rather it was due to receiving of documents from police at 11:15 p.m. on 12.11.2015---Record reflected that FIR was not recorded even at the stated time rather with much delay, however ante-time was mentioned in it and it further suggested that none of the cited eye-witnesses was present at the "time and place" of occurrence---Time was consumed for procuring, introducing, engaging eye-witnesses as well as tailoring/ concocting the story after deliberation and consultation for the prosecution and then the case was registered in its present form and police papers were completed for postmortem examination---Therefore, neither any sanctity nor evidentiary value could be attached to the FIR in the case and it could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution against the accused rather it had lost its efficacy and damaged the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA VS State Witnesses, evidence of--- Dishonest improvement---Witness who introduces dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case can not be relied upon.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR alias SAMOSA vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1510 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR