Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal 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 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Material witness not produced for evidence---Adverse presumption---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Constable who produced the photographs of deceased before the Investigating Officer on 10.08.2018, was shown as witness of the recovery memo---Said Constable was not produced as a witness by the prosecution---Thus, it was established from the recovery memo. of possession of photographs of deceased that said Constable produced the photographs on 10.08.2018 before the Investigating Officer, therefore, an adverse inference was to be drawn within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had said Constable, appeared as a witness then his deposition would have been unfavorable to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal 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 committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Motive set up by the prosecution in the Fard Beyan and FIR. brought on the record through the deposition of the complainant and eye-witnesswas was that a day before the occurrence the accused persons purchased mangoes from the deceased and some mangoes were found rotten and due to said reasons the accused persons gave threats of dire consequences to the deceased---To substantiate the motive part of the case, the prosecution produced the complainant---In the cross-examination, the complainant deposed that he did not give any application regarding motive part of the occurrence at the police station---In application for the registration of FIR, complainant did not mention the time of motive part fight---In his evidence in Court, he did not give said time---In the application for the registration of FIR he did not give the name of witnesses of motive part of occurrence---In his statement in the Court he had not mentioned names of the witnesses of motive part fight---Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution in connection with the motive was not sufficient to place reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses for committing the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Death had not taken place at the time given by the prosecution witnesses, nor the witnesses were present at the spot, which also got support from the inquest report, wherein the names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned, which indicated that the incident did not occur as stated by the prosecution---However, the complainant and eye-witness deposed that they remained with the Investigating Officer in hospital after the death of the deceased---If Investigating Officer visited and prepared the inquest report and had met with the complainant and eye-witness in the case, there was no reason why the names of the complainant and eye-witness were missing from the inquest report---Absence of such details indicated that the prosecution story was still in the embryo and had not taken any shape---FIR was recorded after due deliberations and consultations and the FIR was then ante-timed---All these factual circumstances led to the conclusion that relying upon the FIR in the instant case was unsafe---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused entitles him to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in oral testimony and documentary evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Investigating Officer on 04.08.2018 prepared un-scaled site plan---Oral testimony was contrary to the documentary evidence in the shape of the un-scaled site plan, revealing that at the bottom of the un-scaled site plan date was mentioned as 09.08.2018 and not 04.08.2018---Besides the un-scaled site plan, scaled site plans revealed that the body buccal swab (s) and swab (s) were collected from nails of both hand on 09.08.2018 from the place of occurrence---Although the site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence in terms of Art. 22 of the Qanune-e-Shahdat, 1984, but it reflected the view of the crime scene and the same could be used to contradict or disbelieve eye-witnesses---All these circumstances created doubt about the parcels prepared by the Forensic Science Agency team and made the matching report of the swab taken from the blade of Churri with the DNA profile of the deceased doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Credibility of the eye-witnesses doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---As per record, it was mentioned in column No.8 of the inquest report that the mouth of the decayed was open---Prosecution witnesses, the complainant, and an eye-witness deposed in their Court statements that they were with the victim when he was shifted to the hospital and before reaching the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries---If said witnesses attended to the deceased and he took his last breath in the an ambulance, then there was no reason for his mouth to remain open---Medical staff always treat the body with dignity and respect; position the body in a supine position with anatomical alignment and close eyes and mouth, if open---Second external check that was equally important was sending a copy of the FIR along with the dead body for postmortem examination and its reference in the inquest report---In the column of the brief history of the inquest report, the Investigating Officer, specifically mentioned that a case had been registered and he was proceeding for investigation of the crime to the place of occurrence and others along with other Police Officers---Even then, it was not mentioned that FIR was also sent along with other documents with the dead body for post-mortem examination---Absence of these details in the inquest report might indicate that the FIR was not registered and was recorded after due deliberations and consultation---Such facts created doubt in the prosecution case and the credibility and truthfulness of the statements of prosecution witnesses, which also created doubt about the genuineness of the version given by prosecution witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from the house of the accused doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow---From the deposition of recovery witness and Investigating Officer, it was revealed that accused, along with his co-accused, was arrested on 20.08.2018---Accused made disclosure and led to the recovery of crime weapon and produced a crime weapon. i.e., blood-stained knife on 31.08.2018---As per the prosecution case, accused was arrested on 20.08.2018---Investigating Officer could not retrieve the crime weapon on 20.08.2018 when the arrest of the accused was shown, and the same was recovered on 31.08.2018, 11 days after his arrest from the accused's house---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Bilal vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR