Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood vs State S

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 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconsion of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Murder was committed in the house of accused and he was not there after the occurrence---As far as the absconding of the accused was concerned, the evidence taken against the accused was that he had absconded after the incident---Deposition of Investigating Officer revealed that nothing was available on record to show that the proceedings under Ss. 87 & 88 of Cr.P.C took place against the accused as prescribed in the law---Accused was indeed absconding, but in the present case, the substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account had been disbelieved and therefore, no conviction could be based on absconsion alone---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Material witness given up---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the complainant deposed during cross-examination that Mr. "A"/witness informed police about the occurrence telephonically at once---Son of the deceased deposed during his cross-examination that Mr. "A"/witness informed the police about the occurrence---Thus, it was established from the evidence of complainant and son of deceased that Mr. "A" informed the police about the incident and said witness was given up being un-necessary, therefore, an adverse inference was to be drawn within the meaning of Art. 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had the said witness appeared in witness box, his testimony would have been un-favourable to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Prosecution's version was that the death information was received at 06:00 a.m., but column No. 3 of the inquest report revealed that the date and time of receiving information of death were 21.12.2009 at 04:00/05:00 a.m.---As per the prosecution case, fard bayan was written at 06:00 a.m., and in column No.4 of the inquest report, names of the persons who identified the dead body at the time of the inquest were mentioned---If it was so, it was required to be explained by Investigating Officer, by plausible evidence on the record as to how the inquest was undertaken at 04:00/05:00 a.m. in the presence of witness, who was called from another place and proceeded at about 08:30 a.m. and directly went to THQ Hospital---Investigating Officer deposed that on 21.12.2009 he received the information of occurrence in village---After that, Investigating Officer along with other Police Officials proceeded to the place of occurrence; recorded fard bayan; prepared an inquest report and an injury statement and entrusted the dead body of the deceased to Police Constable for taking to the mortuary for postmortem examination---If Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence upon receiving information, then the complainant had met with her and recorded fardbayyan and he prepared an injury statement---On perusal of the injury statement, it revealed that space was left blank after mentioning "Banam" and it revealed that till preparation of the injury statement, fardbayyan was not prepared---Under Column No. 24 of the Inquest Report, a sketch plan of where the dead body was found was not given---Investigating Officer had not prepared a drawing of where the dead body was lying and its condition but left it blank---Conduct of the Investigating Officer and his investigation of the case was not above board---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven hours and fifty minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---First Information Report revealed that the same was lodged at 6:30 a.m. on 21.12.2009, and Female Medical Officer conducted postmortem examination at 02:20 p.m. on the same day---Contents of the postmortem examination report revealed that the dead body was received in the dead house on 21.12.2009 at 2:00 p.m., and complete documents from police were received at 2:20 p.m.---Autopsy was conducted at 2:20 p.m.---Autopsy was conducted after about seven hours and fifty minutes from the time of registration of FIR---Prosecution did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---Considering all these facts, the prosecution had not been able to prove on record that the FIR was recorded at the claimed time---Delay in lodging the first information report often results in consultation and deliberation, which is a creature of an afterthought---Prosecution failed to explain the delay in reporting the incident and the delay in conducting a post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased---Hence the said circumstances raised considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the case and suggested delay in reporting the incident in lodging the FIR which was fatal to the prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was a domestic dispute between accused and deceased---Motive set up by the prosecution in the fardbayyan and FIR. was that the deceased made the call to the complainant on 20.12.2009 and informed her that there were usually domestic quarrels between the deceased and the accused---Coming to know of the occurrence, complainant and her bhanja/witness went to the house of the deceased---After that, the complainant and eye-witness had improved their statements before the police---Defence had brought on record the contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and eye-witness---In the circumstances, the motive, as alleged, was an afterthought and did not inspire confidence and therefore the same deserved to be discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Recovery of the rifle allegedly affected by the accused was of no consequence to the prosecution case when medical evidence was at variance with the ocular account---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory was only to the effect that the weapon allegedly recovered from the accused was in mechanical operating condition---So, the recovery of the weapon from the accused was of no consequence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflict---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Complainant deposed that accused made three fire shots with his rifle which landed on the belly and one fire hit on her chest---All fires went through and through---Contrary to that, the complainant deposed during cross-examination that they were standing near the deceased at relevant time and they witnessed that five shots went through and through---Son of deceased deposed during cross examination that three fire shots were made by the accused; two fire shots landed on belly and one fire shot landed on the chest of his mother---Postmortem examination report revealed that the deceased received three firearm injuries---Injury No. 1-a went through and through, whereas injuries 2-a and 3-a were from downward to upward---In the prosecution's case, the accused shot a burst, and all fire shots landed on the deceased's body---Under the head external examination sub-head examination of clothes, the postmortem report revealed that the deceased's shirt was torn---Prosecution's evidence was silent on how the deceased's shirt was torn and who did the same---Even the Female Medical Officer had not observed corresponding holes on the shirt---Distance from which the accused fired upon the deceased became irrelevant because the Investigating Officer had not mentioned the distance between different pointsin the un-scaled site plan---Conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony was so severe that it traveled to the roots of the matter and knocked the bottom of the prosecution's case against the accused---Apparent conflict between the medical evidence and ocular testimony of a chance, and an interested witness made there evidence incapable of being believed---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Asjad Mehmood vs State S — 2024 YLR 1892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR