Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif 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 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by the witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the eye-witnesses made blatant improvements to their previous statements in order to bring the ocular account as narrated by them in line with the opinion and observations of Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body and went on to claim that the injury mentioned by them as the entry wound in their previous statements was actually the exit wound and the seat of the entry wound on the dead body of the deceased mentioned in their statements recorded by the Trial Court, was not earlier mentioned in their statements---Said witnesses made a deliberate and dishonest departure from their earlier narrations of the occurrence while deposing before the Trial Court---Investigating Officer of the case admitted during cross-examination the blatant and dishonest improvement made by the eye-witnesses in their previous statements so as to bring them in conformity with the evidence and observations of Medical Officer---By improving upon their previous statements, the eye-witnesses impeached their own credibility ---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Both the eye-witnesses claimed that during the occurrence they were beaten by the accused, as many as four in total, however, also admitted that neither they were examined by any Medical Officer nor any Medico Legal Examination Certificate existed with regard to them nor the Investigating Officer of the case even prepared any injury statement mentioning the presence of injuries on the bodies of said witnesses as allegedly inflicted upon them by the accused---Eye-witnesses also failed to explain to the Investigating Officer of the case regarding the presence of the dead body of the deceased on a cot at the place of occurrence, whereas the said witnesses had claimed that the deceased had fallen on the ground and his body was not shifted from that place---Complainant admitted in his cross-examination that at the time when the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence for the first time, the dead body was lying on the ground--- Other eye-witness admitted in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer had captured photos of the dead body when it was lying on a cot---Investigating Officer secured the blood stained soil at the place where deceased received injuries and died---Cot was at the place of occurrence---Cot was lying on a different place from the place where the deceased received injuries---Investigating Officer during his cross-examination explained that when he reached at the place of occurrence the dead body was lying on a cot at another place and not at the place of occurrence---Dead body was lying on a cot at a distance of about 20 karams from the place of occurrence---Blood was present under the cot upon which the dead body was lying---Snaps of the dead which he prepared on his first visit of the place of occurrence were of the dead body lying on the cot at the place where the cot was placed---Said portions of the statements of the eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer of the case brought out the contrast and contradictions in their statements and proved that the eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence and therefore made the errors which they did and also could not explain many aspects related to the details of the occurrence and thecrime scene---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence contradicting time of occurrence deposed by witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the present case, the development of rigor mortisand the post-mortem staining on the dead body fully developed in the month of July, at the time of post mortem examination of dead body, contradicted the time of occurrence deposed by the eye-witnesses---In the month of July, development of rigor mortis and the presence of post mortem staining completed on the dead body within such a short span of time as suggested by the eye-witnesses was implausible and the occurrence did not appear to have taken place at the point of time mentioned by the witnesses---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from the accused---Non-association of private witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the accused---Said recovery could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the recovery of the pistol from the accused, which was in clear violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the vidence of the recovery of the pistol from the accused could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused, being evidence obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Accused was arrested on 14.08.2016, the pistol was recovered from the accused on 22.08.2016, however the empty shells of the bullets taken into possession from the place of occurrence on 15.07.2016 were sent to Forensic Science Agency on 26.08.2016---Though, there was no reason for keeping the shells of the bullets, which were taken into possession on the day of occurrence, at the Police Station and not sending them to the office of Forensic Science Agency till 26.08.2016 i.e. after the accused had been arrested on 14.08.2016---In such manner, the report of Forensic Science Agency, regarding the comparison of the shells of the bullets taken from the place of occurrence with the pistol recovered from the accused , had no evidentiary value as the possibility of fabrication was apparent---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the eye-witnesses in their statements recorded by the trial Court was that the deceased had an altercation with the accused over the digging of a watercourse---After scrutinizing the statements of the eye-witnesses, it was found that the motive as alleged could not be proved---During the course of cross-examination both the eye-witnesses were exposed to have made dishonest improvements in their previous statements regarding the motive of the occurrence as narrated by them before the Trial Court---Moreover, admittedly there was no dispute between the accused and the deceased---Furthermore, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case did not collect any evidence so as to establish that there was any grievance in the heart of the accused against the deceased which motivated him to act in the manner in which he did---Eye-witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling the Court to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the accused to have committed the qatl-i-amd of deceased---Haunting silence was there with regard to the minutiae of the motive alleged---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State S. 417---appeal against acquittal ---Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the Courts competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or is perverse. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Purpose of the presence of witnesses at the spot not established---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant had claimed that they were present at the place of occurrence, prior to the arrival of the accused as they were engaged in grazing their sheep and goats near a canal, whereas the other eye-witness stated that they were present at the place of occurrence prior to the arrival of the accused as they were engaged in grazing their cattle---Obviously, there was a huge difference between cattle, sheep and goats---Witnesses could not make a consistent statement as to the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, denuding the fact that both of them were not present at the place of occurrence and therefore such a huge contradiction cropped up in their statements regarding their reason for the presence at the place of the occurrence---Moreover, the Investigating Officer of the case, at the time of his visit to the place of occurrence, did not take into possession any physical proofof the claim of the witnesses that they were present at the place of occurrence grazing sheep, cattle or goats---Investigating Officer during cross-examination admitted that at the time of his visit to the place of occurrence he had not seen any sheep or goats or any cattle present there and furthermore he did not even observe the presence of any hoof marks of such animals present at or around the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination that the witnesses did not point out the presence of such cattle, sheep or goats to him at the time of his visit at the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer of the case admitted during cross-examination that the witnesses never produced before him the animals available at the place of occurrence---Non-production and the non-availability of the animals for which the witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence and the failure of the witnesses to produce the same before the Investigating Officer led to only one conclusion and that being that no such animals were being taken care of by the said witnesses---Had such animals been present at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case or at least their presence marked into the inspection note as well as in the rough site plan of the place of occurrence---Thus, it proved that a false claim was made by the eye-witnesses that they were present at the place of occurrence while taking care of animals owned by them---In such manner, the witnesses failed to prove that they had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, before the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Motive---Scope---Motive is only a supporting piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made the basis of conviction. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif 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---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Perusal of the prosecution evidence revealed that the whole prosecution case as against the accusedwas based on the statements of complainant and another witness---Relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased was on record---Deceased was the brother of the said witnesses---Said witnesses were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---According to the said witnesses, both of them had their residence at a distance of about 3-4 squares of land from the place of occurrence---In that manner, the said witnesses could be validly termed as "chance witnesses" and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---Said witnesses failed to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Inquest report---Witnesses who identified the deed body---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Both the eye-witnesses were not mentioned either in column No.4 of the inquest report as being the witnesses who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of preparation of the inquest report nor were mentioned at page 4 of the inquest report as witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence at the time of preparation of the inquest report---Such fact also pointed towards the absence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence, at the time of preparation of the quest report by the Investigating Officer of the case---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Oral statement of complainant for the registration of FIR doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Scrutiny of the statements of the complainant revealed that his oral statement was neither prompt nor spontaneous nor natural, rather was a contrived, manufactured and a compromised document---No corroboration of the prosecution evidence could be made from the said oral statement of complainant---Sufficient doubts had arisen and inference against the prosecution had to be drawn in such regard---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available, then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arif vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR