Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta 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 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of six days in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Occurrence of the case dated 07.05.2014 was reported to the police on 13.05.2015 with a delay of six days which prosecution tried to explain by staling that complainant remained busy in treatment of his brother and on his death, matter was reported to the police---Such explanation did not find support from any other material available in evidence---Medico-Legal Examination of the injured was conducted through police showing availability of firsthand information of the occurrence---Such fact got further support from the statement of Investigating Officer who deposed that injured himself appeared before him and stated that due to an altercation he had received some injuries---Evidently from the place of occurrence hospital was just at a few paces---Moreover, other son of the deceased was a Police Constable, therefore, the sole explanation of prosecution about delay in lodging the crime report fell to the ground and possibility of due deliberation and consultation by complainant before reporting the occurrence to the police could not be ruled out of consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light doubtful---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Prosecution claimed that occurrence took place on 07.05.2014 at 10:30 p.m.---Deceased and the witnesses were present in a field allegedly busy in irrigating the land through approved schedule of 'Wara Bandi'---No source of light was shown available at the site except holding of a torch and moon light as claimed by the prosecution---Torch was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and it was also not proved that it was a night with moon light as complainant conceded that it was 6th night of Islamic month, therefore, non-availability of sufficient light at the place of occurrence provided doubts about the identity and precision on the part of witnesses about roles of the accused persons---Thus, the very identity of the assailants remained fishy---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Crime weapon not recovered---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows--- Admittedly, no recovery of crime weapon could be effected from or on the lead of accused, thus, this element was yet another factor going against the prosecution and even otherwise, when the ocular account had failed, recovery even if had been effected, it being just of corroborative nature, could not have been considered and made basis for recording conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Place of occurrence doubtful---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that witnesses admitted during cross-examination that though clothes of the deceased were contaminated with soil but no mud was found which was not possible in light of nature of work he was allegedly doing at the crime scene---Even otherwise, last worn clothes of the deceased when he received injuries were not produced during investigation nor before the Trial Court---Fact of irrigating the land in a particular field was further under doubt when field number was later changed by the complainant through supplementary statements---Complainant stated that deceased owned the land of the specific field---No revenue documents were produced about ownership of said land nor any tenancy agreement was made available, so much so, schedule for turn of water issued by the Irrigation Department was also not produced, therefore, the place of occurrence remained doubtful and effort of prosecution to show collection of blood- stained earth from the place of occurrence after six days was nothing but merely an eye wash, which was not useful for prosecution in any manner---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---In the FIR the prosecution had given a clue of an earlier trivial quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons, which according to the prosecution formed basis behind the occurrence---Even in the private complaint, regarding motive part it was incorporated that the accused persons raised lalkara that today deceased would be taught a lesson for quarrelling---Except such simple words, no reference was given by either of the witnesses that anyone from them had seen such earlier quarrel and what was the reason behind said quarrel---Thus, it could safely be held that though motive was set up yet the same could not be established by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that accused remained absconders, however, when question was put to them about their abscondence, they categorically denied the same and both unanimously stated that fake reports were prepared by the police and in fact they were never informed by the police regarding the said proceedings---However, mere abscondence of accused is not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused---Value of abscondence depends upon the fact of each case and abscondence alone cannot take the place of guilt unless and until the case is otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence---Accused persons generally disappear due to fear of police or because of feelings of guilt, and in this case during cross examination accused put the apprehension of their fake police encounter because son of the deceased was a police man, therefore, mere abscondence would not be taken as a conclusive proof of guilt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Inadmissible---Medical officer dying before being cross-examined---Effect---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that the Medical Officer who conducted the Medico-Legal Examination followed by Post-mortem Examination later died---Senior Clerk of the hospital appeared and tendered the Medico-Legal and Post-mortem Reports without narrating the contents of such reports therefore, description of injuries, nature of injuries, kind of weapon and cause of death could not be brought on the record---Without appearance of Medical Officer, Medico-Legal Certificate and Post-mortem Reports were of no use for the prosecution because Medical Officer had not been tested through cross-examination with respect to his observation/findings made in such reports---Complainant stated that support of medical evidence was available in the terms that during the stage when only co-accused was facing the trial, Medical Officer appeared as witness and his statement was also recorded---Even such statement had not been tendered in evidence by the prosecution against the accused which could not be used against them by merely referring it from the record because it was recorded in their absence, therefore, by all means prosecution hardly had support of medical evidence in the case---In such circumstances, prosecution had failed to bring on record the secondary evidence of Medico-Legal and Postmortem Reports in accordance with law and contents of such reports if deposed by the Medical Officer in the absence of accused could not be used against them---Even acclaimed contents of both reports allegedly deposed by late Medical Officer were not put to the accused in their statement under S.342 of Cr.P.C., therefore, medical evidence provided no support to prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Unnatural conduct of complainant and witnesses---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that complainant was not resident of the place of occurrence---Residence of complainant near the place of occurrence was also doubtful when he remained unable to tell names of persons cultivating the particular land in question and presence also became doubtful from his reply that he did not remember as to whether his clothes were smeared in blood while attending the deceased or not---Such facts showed that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Other witness, though was son of the deceased and was expected to be residing in the same area but he also could not prove his presence at the place of occurrence when he deposed during cross-examination that he was unable to tell the name of any other owner of the surrounding lands of the place of occurrence---Accused/assailants were not armed with any firearm weapons rather with hatchets, and witnesses admitted that complainant and witnesses were of good height and physique, but against natural human conduct they did not try to capture the accused or intervened in order to save the life of deceased because they did not sustain any injury or scratch during the occurrence as admitted by the witnesses during cross examination---Even injuries on the person of deceased remained on non-vital parts of body i.e., knee, arm and back, and the injuries on his back were simple in nature, therefore, it was not a big fight between the parties so as to desist the complainant party from intervening into the matter---It was clear that both the witnesses were not present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence, therefore, their testimony could not be stretched in favour of the prosecution to be used against the present accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Motive---Scope---Though the prosecution is not required to prove motive in every case, yet the same, if set up, should be proved through independent source of evidence other than the words of mouth, and in case of failure to do so, the prosecution should face the consequences and not the defence.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Allah Ditta vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR