Aamir Khan vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Aamir Khan VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the present case, the tale of homicide incident was brought on record by complainant, brother of deceased and his cousin as well as brother-in-law---From in-depth analysis of their deposition, Court came across-multiple aspects strongly reflecting upon their absence from the crime scene---Firstly, it was noticed that the incident occurred at a place which was situated just two furlongs (1300 feet) away from police station---Though such a short distance could be covered within no time but surprisingly neither eye-witnesses nor other witness, who were given up, made any effort to report the matter to police---Besides the complainant was having mobile phone in his possession, as was evident from column No.2 of FIR, but he made no call from it either to the police station or to the rescue service---Assailants were on a motorcycle thus it was quite natural for the witnesses to intimate the police about the occurrence for taking immediate steps towards apprehending the assassins---Secondly the incident occurred at 8:15 p.m. on a road situated in the heart of the city which remained thronged by motorists and pedestrian---Place of incident was surrounded by commercial buildings which were jam-packed with customers due to 27th of Ramzan---In that backdrop, it was surprising that the victim remained laying on the roadside for about 45 minutes and as per admitted facts was removed therefrom at 9:00 p.m.---Complainant candidly conceded during cross-examination that he made no effort for immediate shifting of victim to hospital---From the deposition of other eye-witness similar picture was depicted and he also admitted in unequivocal terms that no steps were taken for shifting the victim to hospital---Such conduct of the two witnesses without speck of any ambiguity was jaw dropping and did not commensurate with the normal human response which a close relative was required to demonstrate---In all circumstances one is expected to make last-ditch efforts for shifting his close relative to a medical facility having met a tragic incident---Both the eye-witnesses were closely related to the victim of murderous assault and it sounded strange that they let victim perish without making any efforts to save his life---Indeed such conduct gave vent to the defence version that none of the two eye-witnesses was in attendance by the time victim was beset by the assassins---No explanation in that regard was found stemming from record nor was offered during arguments by the prosecution---Thirdly, it was observed that in the crime report nothing as such was mentioned as to how the victim was shifted to DHQ Hospital though it was found discerning therefrom that victim died on way to hospital---During trial, the witnesses came forward with the stance that the needful of shifting victim to DHQ Hospital was done in an ambulance of rescue service---Both the eye-witnesses admitted in clear terms that the ambulance of rescue service reached the spot but not on their phone call---Question arose that if at all the eye-witnesses were in the company of deceased while having mobile phones in their possession then why they resorted to such indifferent attitude even after having seen victim, a person from the common bloodline while taking last breath within their view---Obvious answer of such question negated the presence of witnesses from the spot---None of the eye-witness boarded ambulance of rescue service when victim was being shifted to hospital, statedly in injured condition---Instead all the three eye-witnesses hired a taxi car for reaching the hospital---Fourthly, it was noticed that though both the witnesses claimed that the accused reached and decamped from the spot while boarding a motorcycle but provided no description of it like its make, model, colour, registration number in their police statement---Complainant could not tell the inter se distance between place of occurrence and his house as well as of the house of other eye-witness---Complainant also could not tell the time of Iftar and the time of his departure from the house---Similarly, both the eye-witnesses despite being questioned could not tell the time when the ambulance of rescue service reached the spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused through unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Aamir Khan vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR