Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi 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 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi VS State S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1898), Ss. 302(b), 34, 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by torturing him---Accused/petitioner was not named in the FIR and he had been implicated in the case through the supplementary statement of the complainant, which was recorded after three days from the occurrence---Although the prosecution introduced an eye-witness in the case who claimed that on 08.11.2023 at 10.00 a.m. he had seen the petitioner and his co-accused while inflicting danda blows on the head of deceased in the bhatick of co-accused due to which the deceased became seriously injured, but it was not understandable that if eye-witness had seen the occurrence of murder or causing serious injuries to an innocent person then as to why he remained silent for three days---Although said eye-witnesses made an excuse that due to threats and fear of the accused persons, he could not disclose the fact to anybody but he had not explained that as to how and when his fear was over---Statement of eye-witness in that respect was completely silent---Conduct of eye-witness required further probe and inquiry---Complainant had implicated five named and two unknown accused and as such total seven persons had been implicated in the case for the murder of a single deceased---Joint and general role of inflicting danda blows on the head of deceased was assigned to accused/petitioner, two co-accused persons and no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioner in the statement of eye-witness---Car or motorcycle, which were mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant, through which the accused persons abducted deceased, had not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner---According to the prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner had to pay some amount to deceased and as the deceased demanded the said amount from the petitioner, therefore, his murder was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused but such motive was not alleged in the FIR and the same had been introduced after three days from the occurrence---Moreover, no specific amount, which was payable by the petitioner to the deceased, had been mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant---No witness in the presence of whom said amount was handed over to the petitioner by the deceased had been mentioned in any statement of the prosecution witnesses---Neither any stamp paper nor any receipt in respect of the said amount had been produced before the Investigating Officer or taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide any recovery memo.---Investigating Officer had concluded that the petitioner was merely present empty handed at the spot at the time of occurrence---No danda had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner---Keeping in view all the said facts, the prosecution case against the petitioner required further probe and inquiry---Bail application was accepted, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs State S — 2024 YLR 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR