Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ 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 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused were acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which four persons of the complainant party died whereas one sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that six accused persons were acquitted from the charge by extending the benefit of doubt---Record showed that all Investigation Officers had found no incriminating material against seven accused persons and they had also verified their pleas of alibi---Trial Court held that prosecution had failed to prove the charge against said co-accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and they were acquitted from the charge by extending the benefit of doubt---In presence of said observation of the Trial Court, the accused persons could not have been convicted while acquitting their co-accused with similar role by disbelieving complainant and witness---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If the prosecution fails to prove its case against an accused person then the accused persons is to be acquitted even if he has taken a plea and has admitted killing the deceased. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which four persons of the complainant party died whereas one sustained firearm injuries---Time, date, month, and year of occurrence were not disputed---Place of occurrence was Kacha path near the Dera of the accused persons which was also not denied, where the complainant party of the present case had apparently no business as two deceased persons could go through the different route leading to their houses and selecting a "Kacha" path in question near the Dera of accused persons and summoning of the other deceased along with complainant with the plea that they needed their help as their "Vehicle" loaded with wood was stuck near Dera of the accused persons was neither plausible nor believable---Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned in site plan of the place of occurrence that vehicle was stuck off at point No.14 because complainant and witnesses of the case had not pointed out the same---Investigating Officer had not found helping machinery such as tractor etc. at the place of occurrence to remove vehicle from there---Said witness admitted in his cross-examination that complainant, witnesses and deceased of the case had no landed property around or in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer had found heavy arms and ammunition including drum-magazines from near the dead bodies of deceased persons---Said witness had collected numerous crime empties from the place of occurrence of deceased---All the said facts suggested that occurrence had not taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which four persons of the complainant party died whereas one sustained firearm injuries---Medical Officer during post mortem examination on the dead body of one deceased observed single firearm entry wound on back of his scalp (jointly attributed to accused persons and their co-accused, seven in number, since acquitted)---Likewise, Medical Officer during post mortem examination on the dead body of other deceased observed single firearm entry wound on his chin---Medical Officer also observed single firearm entry wound on the skull of another deceased (jointly attributed to accused persons and their co-accused since acquitted)---Said injuries on the persons of all the deceased negated the story of prosecution that ten accused made joint effective firing---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a circumstance which creats reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused is entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons of the complainant party died whereas one sustained firearm injuries---Statedly, eye-witnesses of the occurrence reached the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence after receiving telephonic call made by deceased at 1.45 p.m. on 16.05.2015 when they were sitting at the Dera of complainant but call data in that respect had not been produced to establish such fact---Eye-witnesses were not residents of place where the occurrence took place---Said witnesses also did not receive any injury during the occurrence despite cross firing claimed by them in their story/statements which was neither plausible nor believable and had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court to the extent of co-accused (since acquitted)---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UMER DRAZ vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR