Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi 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 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his nephew---Abscondence of accused for about 13/14 years was another factor which ran against the accused persons---Though warrants of arrest and proclamations were tendered in the evidence and also put to the accused persons for their response in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., yet process server did not appear in the dock in support of such evidence---Contrary to above fact, Police Constable appeared and deposed that on 06.02.2001, warrants of arrest against accused persons were handed over to him for execution and similarly the proclamations on 27.02.2001; he submitted his reports in that respect---Thus, prosecution had succeeded to prove the observance of legal process and resultant willful abscondence of the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his nephew---Murderous enmity was stated to be the motive of the occurrence---Both the accused persons were also found involved in commission of alleged offence as per investigation which had not been challenged anywhere throughout---Even after committing that occurrence said accused persons were also nominated in another FIR, relating to murder of complainant of present case and one accused was executed because present accused persons were also absconders in that case---Even before that occurrence present accused persons were also accused of murder of brother of complainant of present case---Therefore, enmity between the parties as a motive of present case was also proved---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his nephew---On the same set of evidence one accused in an earlier trial and one accused in present trial stood acquitted, therefore, present accused persons contended that under the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, they could not be convicted---Validity---As per record, injuries attributed to acquitted accused of earlier trial and acquitted accused of present trial were observed by the doctor as exit wounds and no recovery was effected from them; thus, their case was distinguishable and under the principle of abundant caution, present accused persons could be singled out---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and caused firearm injuries to his nephew---Recovery of weapons of offence i.e., Kalashnikovs from two accused persons was another factor which lent support to prosecution case---Though no report of matching of such weapons with 24 bullet casings of Kalashnikov collected from the spot was available, yet by recovery of weapon after such a long period, availability of matching report was hardly expected---Such inconsequential effect of recovery did not affect the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State art. 21---abscondence of accused---Scope---abscondence of accused after the occurrence is a relevant fact as per art. 21 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---abscondence is always considered as corroborative evidence, though not a sole reason to convict the accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his nephew---Three witnesses were chosen to depose ocular account of prosecution case including injured witness---Occurrence was from the year 2000 when injured was student of Class-10 and after about 17 years he appeared as witness in the trial and deposed that he was present at Adda "K" for going to school where deceased, Cousin of his father was also present when occurrence took place at 7:45 AM---Injured witness stated perfectly the role of both the accused persons and other co-accused persons---Injured witness was confronted with his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. but nothing favourable to defence could be elicited from his mouth---Said witness responded correctly about passing of information to police by his uncle/complainant while he along with deadbody of deceased remained at the place of occurrence till the arrival of police in whose company he was shifted to the hospital in an injured condition where he was examined just after half an hour---Statement of said witness was recorded by the police not only at the place of occurrence but he was also interrogated in the hospital---No contradiction was found by the Court in his statement which rang true---Subsequent hostility of a witness was no ground to reject his testimony in the trial---An independent witness was also present at the place where two persons sustained injuries---Witness deposed correctly the role of accused persons including the present accused persons---Said witness deposed that injured was present at the Adda to go to school, likewise other students were also present at the Adda to go to school---Such version of the witness supported the version of injured witness that he was present at the place of occurrence for going to school---Witness was Chairman of Union Council and was not the relative of any party; therefore, did not exaggerate the occurrence, rather responded only to those questions which were in his knowledge and did not try to improve his statement in any manner nor showed desperation to fix the offenders at every cost which showed his impartiality expected from a man of his status---Witness deposed about his presence at the place of occurrence that he was going to purchase diesel and was on motorcycle of his friend who was also present at the place of occurrence---Thus, being independent witness his presence at the spot could not be doubted in any manner---Another witness deposed that his village was at a distance of one kilometer from Adda "K", which took ¾ minutes on motorcycle, 6/7 minutes on bicycle and 12/14 minutes by foot---Said witness further deposed that they proceeded perhaps to attend court proceedings or some other work at local court from village on the day of occurrence---Such natural narration clearly reflected his presence at the spot and reason for availability of deceased at Adda "K"---Deposition of all three witnesses of ocular account despite being recorded after 17 years of the occurrence had a touch of truth and minor contradiction due to efflux of time were natural; therefore, they had not affected the prosecution case in any manner---Corresponding to role of firing by the accused persons, Medical Officer observed as many as 20 firearm injuries including entry and exit wounds on the person of deceased---Though a photographic narration of injuries by the witnesses in such a situation of indiscriminate firing by five accused at the site was not expected, yet being daylight occurrence, fact of firing by the accused persons could not be oversighted---Thus, medical evidence stood in conformity to ocular account providing/support to the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of witness disbelieved in a previous trial---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and caused firearm injuries to his nephew---Allegedly in an earlier trial, the statement of injured witness was disbelieved as he had exaggerated the prosecution version---Such exaggeration resulted in disbelieving him in that trial---When a witness missed or exaggerated a fact in an earlier trial he could not be termed as untruthful in subsequent trial if his testimony was straight forward and natural---If this was permitted then once some witness was disbelieved in an earlier trial his testimony could not be relied upon in any subsequent trial, and the accused would receive a clean chit on the basis of statement earlier made by the said witness---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR