Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar 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 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief and causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days in recording statements of injured witnesses---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---All the male members of the complainant parts had either lost their lives or were admitted in the hospital being in injured condition and, thus, it was not expected for a sole female household lady to herself make arrangements for recording the statement of the injured witnesses---Even otherwise, neither the Medical Officer, who medically examined the injured witnesses, observed any kind of fabrication or friendly-hand injury nor the accused persons made any effort to challenge their Medico-Legal Reports at any forum thus it could be safely concluded that both the injured witnesses sustained injuries during the occurrence---If there was any lapse due to an act of the Investigating Officer for recording their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., belatedly, its benefit could not be extended to the defence in any eventuality---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Complainant furnished the ocular account before the trial Court and reiterated the contents of the crime report---Injured witnesses deposed exactly in line and supplemented the complainant on each and every minute detail of the incident of murder in issue---In the course of cross-examination, all the witnesses of ocular account remained firm and consistent on all material aspects of the incident qua the date, time, place, mode and manner of the occurrence, names of the accused persons, weapons of offence, role played by each and every accused for committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the injured witnesses---Defence could not extract any favourable material from their mouths---Locale, number, nature of injures, weapons of offence used for causing theses injures and the duration between injures and death as well as death and postmortem examination were exactly in line with the ocular account and as such the medical evidence lent full support to the prosecution version---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Related and interested witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Mere relationship of the eye-witnesses with the deceased is not sufficient to discard their evidence, if the same is otherwise found confidence inspiring and trustworthy. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Minor discrepancies and contradictions---Scope---Discrepancies of minor character which nether go to the root of the prosecution versionnor shake its salient features are of no significance. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about 17 to 24 hours in conducting postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Though there was delay ranging from 17 to 24 hours in conductng post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased yet the same was not fatal for multiple one reasons---Firstly, in this unfortunate incident five persons lost their lives, two sustained injuries and only a female remained safe---Investigating Officer, who reached at the spot within 20/25 minutes after the occurrence stated that dead bodies of two deceased were lying at the spot, whereas, rest of five injured persons had been shifted to the hospital and after fulfillment of codal formalities, he transmitted those two dead bodies to the mortuary without wastage of time---In that way, it could safely be concluded that the deceased, either in injured condition or dead, were shifted to the hospital soon after the occurrence and there was no deliberate delay in dispatching them to the mortuary/hospital and if afterwards the autopsy was held belatedly, defence could not claim its premium---Secondly, one of the deceased, while in injured condition, was shifted to hospital where he remained admitted for five days and breathed his last on 28.06.2010, where after, his dead body was shifted for post mortem examination on the same day at 7.00 p.m., but even in that case, his autopsy was held with a delay of seventeen hours---It was not understandable what kind of benefit the prosecution could achieve in delaying the post mortem examination of said deceased, as all the codal formalities including lodging of crime report, recording of statements of prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., had already been completed---Thus it could safely be concluded that it was pattern of the hospital to conduct autopsy after a certain period either due to some administrative issue or non-availability of doctor, therefore, its benefit could not be extended to the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed, and two were injured---Admittedly, there was previous murder enmity between the parties and prior to the incident, a case FIR, in respect of offence under Ss. 302, 148 & 149, P.P.C, was lodged by one of the accused persons qua the murder of his brother against deceased and injured persons---Admittedly said case was pending adjudication before the Trial Court and on the day of occurrence, the same was fixed for hearing---Complainant during his cross-examination stated that they were on visiting terms with each other and in the said period there was no quarrel/difference inter-se---Defence alleged that in the light of said admission, it could not be said that present incident was result of previous FIR---Had relationship between the parties been of such a pleasant nature, the parties would have entered into compromise in the previous murder case---Developing cordial relations with the accused persons may have been an effort of the complainant party in order to seek pardon from earlier case but it remained futile---In the said case, defence side booked five accused persons, out of which four were declared innocent at the stage of investigation and they were on bail, whereas, injured was behind the bars, who was granted post arrest bail by the High Court---Present occurrence took place just twenty days after release of said injured from the jail---Release of injured added fuel to the fire and after such development, the accused persons organized a plan and took revenge from the complainant party---No doubt previous enmity, being the motive, was always considered as a double edged weapon but from the evidence available on record it had been established that it was the sole reason of present unfortunate incident---Prosecution had successfully proved motive part of the occurrence, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief and thereby causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Crime weapons recovered at the instance of two accused---Reliance---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Defence had laid much emphasis that two Kalashnikovs recovered at the instance of two accused persons respectively did not match with the crime empties secured from the place of occurrence; that nothing was recovered from the remaining convicts/accused persons, which fact alone was sufficient to take the same as a mitigating factor for awarding lessor punishment---Validity---As far as effect of inconsequential weapons of offence shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused persons was concerned, one accused was arrested after eighteen months, whereas, the other was after 36 months of the occurrence and in the intervening period, the weapons of offence used during the occurrence were not supposed to have been preserved---There was every possibility that accused had handed over different weapon of offence, with the intention to claim benefit of them being inconsequential at a subsequent stage and as such, it could not be taken as a mitigating factor for awarding lesser punishment---Similarly, rest of convicts also remained fugitives from law for a considerable period ranging from 09 months to 3-years, therefore, non-recovery of weapons of offence from them after such a long period was immaterial---However, when the ocular account was found to be confidence inspiring and trustworthy, mere fact that the recovery was inconsequential by itself could not be a ground for lesser punishment---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State absconsion---Effect---No doubt absconson is not a conclusive proof of guilt of an accused but at the same time it can not be overlooked when the evidence available on record suggests that the accused has deliberately and intentionally avoided to face the trial due to his guilty conscience. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the complainant and witnesses at the time and place of occurrence proved---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---During cross-examination, complainant explained that she along with her husband intended to pay homage to Data Darbar at Lahore and as such they accompanied the deceased, who had to attend the Court proceedings there---This was a very valid reason and could not be sighted with doubt---Even otherwise, on such point the defence had questioned the complainant at considerable length but she remained firm and consistent and even gave minute details of description of floor, mosque, path and even colour and height of shrine and the defence failed to shake her testimony on that point---So far as non-sustaining of injuries by the complainant lady while all other members present in the vehicle had sustained injuries was concerned, initially, brother of one of the accused persons was murdered and four of the deceased persons as well as one injured were booked in the said case---Deceased persons were declared innocent by the police, whereas injured was released on post arrest bail after more than three years of his arrest---After the release of injured, the accused persons hatched a plan of revenge and tried to commit murder of entire male members of their opponents---Leaving the complainant scratch-less appeared to be a calculated move on part of the accused persons to make her an example and leave her alone to feel the pain and misery of departure of her dear ones---Complainant faced the test of lengthy cross-examination from time to time spreading the period of over three years with full confidence and described the gruesome incident in minute detail, which established her presence at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time without any doubt---Two persons of the complainant party sustained injuries during the occurrence and as such their presence at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time could not be questioned in any manner---Injured appeared in the dock before the Trial Court and categorically raised accusing finger towards none else but the accused persons being responsible for the murder of five innocent persons and causing fire arm injuries to the injured witnesses---Both these witnesses faced the test of lengthy cross-examination with full confidence, which could not be crushed by the defence in any manner---Statement of both the said witnesses was sufficient to believe the prosecution version and bring home guilt against the accused persons beyond shadow of even slightest doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR with promptitude---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed, and two were injured---Incident took place on 23.06.2010 at about 04.15 pm, which was reported to the police promptly on the same day at about 05.35 pm within one hour and twenty two minutes and formal FIR was chalked out at 05.55 pm---Fact remained that the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was seven kilometers---First Information Report contained names of the accused persons with their specific role of making fire shots at the deceased as well as the injured witnesses---Such fact not only confirmed presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot but also excluded every hypothesis of deliberation, consultation and fabrication prior to the registration of the case and also ruled out the possibility of mistaken identification or substitution---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of---Natural witnesses---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Though all the witnesses of ocular account were closely related to the deceased inasmuch as the complainant was their real sister/aunt, real brother/uncle and brother-in-law/husband of complainant yet their testimony could not be discarded merely on that score by treating them interested witnesses---Both the injured witnesses sustained injuries during the occurrence and the complainant had also established that she was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time, as such they were quite natural witnesses, who could conveniently describe the incident in the manner as it happened as compared to any other independent witness---No earthly reason was found for the eye-witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons in substitution of the real culprits---Substitution of the real culprits with an innocent one, in particular, where the eye-witnesses had lost their close kith and kin, was a rare phenomenon---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witnesses---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed, and two were injured---Defence objected that two independent witnesses mentioned in the FIR were given up by the prosecution so the inference could be drawn that they were not ready to support the prosecution version---Prosecution was not bound to produce all the witnesses---If the accused persons were sure that these witnesses were not ready to support the prosecution witnesses, they had ample opportunity rather were at liberty, to examine them in their defence or even submit application before the trial Court to summon them as Court witnesses but merely on that basis other overwhelming and confidence inspiring prosecution evidence could not be discarded---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR