Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali 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 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflict between---Accused was charged for committing the murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat by churri---All the eye-witnesses stated in their statements before the Trial Court regarding only one injury inflicted by the accused on the body of the deceased---According to the statement of Medical Officer as well as postmortem report, there were eleven injuries on the body of deceased but all the eye-witnesses did not utter a single word regarding the fact that deceased received eleven injuries on her body, which created conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence of the prosecution---Had the eye-witnesses been present at the spot, at the time of occurrence, they would have also explained the remaining injuries sustained by the deceased---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about ten hours and fifty minutes in lodging the FIR not plausibly explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Occurrence in the case took place on 16.02.2019 at 08.15 a.m., but the FIR was lodged on 16.02.2019 at 07:05 p.m., i.e., with the delay of 10 hours and 50 minutes from the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was only 1/2 kilometer---Such gross delay in lodging the F.I.R had created doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing the murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Record showed that one of the eye-witnesses and a complainant were not residents of the place, where the occurrence took place---Place of occurrence in the case was 'MM' whereas both the said witnesses were residents of 'HK' located in another District---Eye-witness stated before the trial Court that on the day of occurrence he was asked by his father-in-law, complainant and other in-laws that there was a quarrel between deceased and her husband whereupon he accompanied the complainant to 'MM' and witnessed the occurrence but no such story was mentioned in the F.I.R which showed that the said story was later on concocted by the prosecution to justify the presence of eye-witnesses in the village of occurrence at the relevant time---Thus, the eye-witnesses could not justify their presence at the spot at the relevant time through any valid reason, therefore, they were chance witnesses and as such their evidence was not free from doubt---Though female eye-witness was resident of the area where the occurrence took place but she recorded her statement before police for the first time on 18.02.2019 i.e., after two days of the occurrence---Said witness remained mum for two days after the occurrence and as such her evidence was also doubtful---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat by churri---Record showed that blood stained "churri" was recovered on the pointation of accused---Occurrence in this case took place on 16.02.2019, whereas, churri was recovered on the pointation of the accused from his house on 08.03.2013 i.e., after twenty two days from the occurrence and during such period, accused had ample opportunity to wash way the blood on churri---Thus, recovery of blood stained, churri' on the pointation of accused was not free from doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat by churri---As per prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that accused was having suspicion regarding illicit relationship of his wife with someone else---None of the prosecution witnesses uttered a single word regarding motive part of the prosecution case during their evidence recorded by the Trial Court and they remained mum in that respect---Under the circumstances, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in the case and the same was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about 29 hours and 15 minutes in conducting postmortem on the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing the murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Record showed that postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 17.02.2019 at 01:30 p.m., which meant that there was delay of 29 hours and 15 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination---Delay in lodging the F.I.R and conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was suggestive of the fact that the occurrence was unseen and the said delay were consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Record showed that the complainant party comprised of at least 3/4 male adult members and they were also accompanied by other female members and people of the area at the time of occurrence but they did not try to save the deceased at the time of occurrence or apprehend the accused after the occurrence---Said witnesses allowed the accused to commit the murder of deceased, by inflicting, as many as, 11-injuries on her body---Deceased was real daughter of the complainant and sister-in-law of eye-witness---Accused was not armed with any formidable firearm weapon and he was only armed with a Churri---Evidently eye-witnesses stood like silent spectators at the time of occurrence---Had the eye-witnesses been present at the spot at the time of occurrence as claimed by them then they could have saved deceased or at least apprehended the accused after the occurrence---Conduct of eyewitnesses was unnatural thus their evidence was not worthy of reliance---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Ocular account of the prosecution was furnished by three eye-witnesses including the complainant---Complainant did not state in the FIR that he had witnessed the occurrence---Names of other eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR and their names were introduced by the complainant for the first time through his supplementary statement, which was recorded on 18.02.2019 i.e., after two days from the occurrence---Both the eye-witnesses stated before the trial Court during their cross-examination that they accompanied complainant to the police station for registration of F.I.R but surprisingly their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R and their statements under S. 161 of Cr.P.C were not recorded on the day of occurrence rather the same were recorded after two days from the occurrence i.e., on 18.02.2019---One of the eyewitnesses stated during his cross-examination that at evening time, he accompanied his father-in-law, complainant, to the police station, where the complainant recorded his statement and after two days from the occurrence he along with other eye-witness got recorded their statements---Likewise, other eye-witness also stated before the trial Court that she accompanied complainant to the police station for registration of the FIR but neither her name was mentioned as an eye-witness in the FIR, nor she made any statement to the police on the day of occurrence i.e., on 16.02.2019, rather she made statement before the police on 18.02.2019---Eye-witnesses remained mum for two days after the occurrence without any valid reason, which showed that their introduction in the case as eye-witnesses after two days of the occurrence was result of an afterthought of the prosecution, hence their evidence was not worthy of reliance---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending the crime weapon for analysis---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by cutting her throat---Record showed that the blood stained 'churri' was sent to the office of Forensic Science Agency on 29.03.2019 i.e., after one month and thirteen days from the occurrence, therefore, it was unlikely that the blood on 'churri' would not disintegrate during such period---Thus, the evidence of alleged recovery of 'churri' from accused and positive report of Forensic Science Agency were of no avail to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Imran Ali vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR