Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid vs State Medical evidence

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 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge, he will enjoy double presumption of innocence---Therefore, the Court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or perverse. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that none of the witnesses, in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case or in their statements recorded by the Trial Court, stated that there existed any light source which was lit at the place of occurrence, which could have enabled the witnesses to have witnessed the occurrence and observed the details thereof---In their statements before the Trial Court, the witnesses stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 7.30 pm on 11.09.2016---Recognizing that error, the complainant during cross-examination went on to claim that there was source of light available at the place of occurrence in shape of electric bulbs installed for the purpose of playing cricket, however, he admitted that at the time of occurrence, no match was being played---Complainant further claimed that the electricity for lighting the bulbs was being provided by the residents of other houses near the place of occurrence---Falsity of the statement of complainant was exposed when the scaled site plan and rough site plan of the place of occurrence were perused---Perusal of the scaled site plan and the rough site plan of the place of occurrence, did not show installation of such electric bulbs at the place of occurrence---Furthermore, the Investigating Officer of the case did not take into possession any such source of light which was available and lit at the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer of the case admitted that she had to arrange for light source at the time of her visit to the place of occurrence, on the night of occurrence, as none was available there---Absence of any light source had made the whole prosecution case doubtful---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of more than 21 hours in conducting postmortem examination over the dead bodies---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the occurrence took place at about 07.30 p.m. on 11.09.2016, and the post-mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted after much delay at about 05.00 p.m. on 12.09.2016---According to Medical Officer, he on 12.09.2016 at about 05.00 pm conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of one deceased and the post-mortem examination of the dead body of other deceased after about 16.5 hours of the occurrence---Medical Officer also noted developed rigor mortis at the time of conducting the post-mortem examinations---No explanation was offered to justify the delay in conducting the post-mortem examinations of the dead bodies---Not only the post-mortem examinations of the dead bodies were delayed by as many as 16.5 hours, but the police papers were also handed over to Medical Officer at about 05.00 pm on 12.09.2016---Such inordinate, unexplained and substantial delay in the post-mortem examinations of the dead bodies and submission of the police papers to the Medical Officer clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence or having seen the accused escaping from the place of occurrence had not seen the occurrence and were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post-mortem examinations was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account of the occurrence, after consultation and planning---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material from the possession of the accused persons---No private person associated at the time of recovery proceedings---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that pistol and two live bullets were recovered from one accused, whereas a motorcycle, pistol and two live bullets were recovered from the other accused---Such recoveries could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the said recoveries, which action of IO was in clear violation of the provisions of the S.103, Cr.P.C---Thus, the evidence of recoveries could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused persons, being evidence which was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending the recovered empties for analysis---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Investigating Officer of the case arrested the accused persons on 26.09.2016; however the empty shells of the bullets taken into possession from the place of occurrence were sent to Forensic Science Agency on 06.10.2016 when there was no reason for keeping the empty shells, which were taken into possession on 11.09.2016, at the Police Station and not sending them to the office of Forensic Science Agency till after the accused persons had been arrested---In such manner the said report of Forensic Science Agency had no evidentiary value as the possibility of fabrication was apparent---With regard to the recovery of motorcycle from the accused, the eye-witnesses did not mention either the registration number or even the make or the colour of the motorcycle which was allegedly used by the accused persons to arrive at the place of occurrence,therefore, the recovery of the motorcycle could not be used as proof of any fact in issue or any relevant fact---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Prosecution case revolved around the statement of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Admittedly, the said witnesses were not the residents of the place of occurrence or any place near the same---According to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place in a vacant plot of land situated in front of the house of a doctor---Eye-witness/complainant initially admitted that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 7 to 8 kilometers from his house, whereas the house of the other witness was at a distance of one kilometer from the house of the complainant---After admitting during cross-examination that his house was at a distance of as many as 7/8 kilometers from the place of occurrence, the complainant had changed his version and stated that his house was situated on the back side of the house of said doctor, the house in front of which the occurrence had taken place in a vacant plot of land---Such claim of the complainant that his house was on the back of the house of doctor was badly exposed to be a false claim during the cross-examination of draftsman, who in his cross-examination, gave the complete details of the houses which were present near and around the place of occurrence and also admitted that the house of the complainant was not near or around the place of occurrence---Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by draftsman and the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by Inspector showed that the house of the complainant was not marked in the same---Other eye-witness also made an attempt to prove himself as a resident of an area around the place of occurrence, however, he too failed---Complainant during cross-examination stated that the house of the other eye-witness was at quite a distance from the place of occurrence---Statements of eye-witnesses proved that admittedly the said witnesses had no reason to be present at the place of occurrence and also they made no effort to explain as to why on the night of occurrence, at about 7.30 p.m., they were present in a vacant plot of land for no reason at all---Thus, the eye-witnesses failed to prove any reason for leaving their houses on the day of occurrence and their arrival at the place of occurrence and the same remained unproved---Names of both the eye-witnesses were neither mentioned in column No.4 nor at page 4 of the inquest reports prepared with regard to two deceased as being the witnesses who were present near the dead bodies at the time of preparation of the inquest reports---Such fact also evidenced the absence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the eye-witnesses was that before the occurrence, co-accused instigated the accused persons to murder the deceased as revenge for not returning two women to the accused party---As per statements of the witnesses, the motive as alleged could not be proved---Both the said women neither joined the investigation of the case nor the prosecution produced them before the Trial Court in support of the alleged motive---Eye-witnesses did not even make an effort to provide any details regarding the dispute over women---It was not even brought on record that as to when the said women were abducted, if indeed they were, and with whom they were residing at the time of occurrence and who had refused to return them---Failure of the Investigating Officer of the case to join said women in the investigation of the case reflected poorly on the prosecution case---It was not even proved whether any women existed regarding whom the motive of the occurrence was alleged---Eye-witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the accused persons to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---Moreover, there was an evocative muteness in the prosecution case with regard to the particulars of the motive alleged---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rashid vs State Medical evidence — 2024 YLR 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR