Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE 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 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Grave and sudden provocation---Conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C. converted in S. 302(c), P.P.C.---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---First Information Report was lodged with the delay of 05 hours and 30 minutes from the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 12 kilometers and mere delay in reporting the matter to the police might not be fatal to the prosecution case---Insofar as the case of accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt--- However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and he was sentenced to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused". Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account in conflict with medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---Record showed that ocular account of the prosecution in the present case was in conflict with the medical evidence---Prosecution case as set forth in the FIR, was that on the night of occurrence, accused persons while armed with different weapons came to the house of the complainant and forcibly dragged deceased while giving him 'sota' blows and took him into the house of the accused party where they committed the murder of both the deceased persons---According to the postmortem report of deceased, there was no injury on his body except one injury on his neck which was attributed to accused---Noteworthy that according to the postmortem report of lady deceased, there were two injuries on her body, one was on her right cheek, whereas, other was on the right side of her neck---None of the prosecution eye-witnesses explained injury No. 1 on the body of lady deceased---Even the Trial Court had partly disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution eye-witnesses regarding the forcible abduction of deceased and infliction of 'danda' blows on his body by the accused party---Co-accused, who were statedly armed with sotas, had already been acquitted by the Trial Court and petition for leave to appeal filed against their acquittal had also been dismissed---Said conflict between ocular account and medical evidence of the prosecution created dent in the prosecution case---Insofar as the case of accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt---However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in---Grave and sudden provocation---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---Record showed that accused "A", while making his statement under S. 342 of Cr.P.C., had candidly admitted the occurrence with the stance that on the night of occurrence, he committed the murder of both the deceased on account of grave and sudden provocation and 'ghairat'---Occurrence in the present case took place on 29.01.2013 which meant that the same took place prior to the amendment brought in S. 311 of P.P.C. whereby it was provided that if the offence had been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, punishment would be imprisonment for life---As the said amendment could not be applied retrospectively and as the occurrence of this case took place prior to the introduction of said amendment therefore, the said amendment in the relevant law was not applicable in this case---Notable from the statement of accused "A" recorded under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., that on the night of occurrence, he had seen his sister/ deceased with the deceased in objectionable condition in a room of his house, in the odd hours of night, therefore, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---If the prosecution evidence was disbelieved then statement of an accused was to be accepted or rejected in toto---If the statement of accused "A" was accepted in toto, then to his extent, it was a case punishable under S. 302(c), P.P.C. and not a case punishable under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal of the said accused was partly allowed with the modification of sentence---Insofar as the case of other accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---According to the prosecution case, as set forth in the FIR, on the night of occurrence, accused was present in his house, where complainant and his sons were also present along with his wife and deceased and as such, the complainant party comprised of total seven members---Witness/son of the complainant had conceded during his cross-examination that the house of his uncle was situated in front of the house of the complainant party and said uncle had six sons---Said witness further conceded during his cross-examination that he had not recorded in his statement before the police that any of his family members raised hue and cry when his brother was beaten and abducted by the accused persons nor he informed any neighbour in that respect though house of his uncle who had six sons was situated in front of his house---Noteworthy that the accused persons were not armed with any lethal firearm weapon like pistol, gun etc and according to the prosecution case, they were armed with 'kappas' and 'dandas' but the complainant party, who comprising of at least seven members did not try to rescue deceased from the hands of the accused persons---Thus, the conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses, who were closely related to deceased was highly unnatural therefore, their presence at the spot was highly doubtful, hence their evidence was not worthy of reliance---Insofar as the case of other "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt---However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---Record showed that a blood stained "kappa' was recovered on the pointation of accused---Noteworthy that the 'kappa' was recovered on the pointation of the accused after 01 month and 03 days from the occurrence and during the said period, said accused had ample opportunity to wash way the blood on the 'kappa'---Moreover, blood disintegrated during the period of one month and three days---In the light of said fact, recovery of blood stained 'kappa' on the pointation of accused was not free from doubt---Insofar as the case of accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt---However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 14 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased persons---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---There was delay of 14 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of son of complainant whereas, there was delay of 15 hours in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of lady deceased---Said delay in conducting the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of both the deceased persons was suggestive of the fact that the occurrence was unseen and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses---Insofar as the case of accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C, therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt---However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS State Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 364, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant and sister of one of the accused persons---Occurrence took place in the month of January at 04.45 a.m., meaning thereby that it took place during the darkness of night---Record showed that no source of light had been mentioned in the site plan or in the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses rather complainant during his cross-examination had conceded that no light was installed in the street between his house and that of the accused---Insofar as the case of accused "R" was concerned, neither he made any confession before the Trial Court nor he had admitted the murder of both the deceased in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C, therefore his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt---However, circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "A" however, due to grave and sudden provocation, he committed the murder of both the deceased---Consequently, the punishment awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was converted into S. 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced him to fourteen years---Appeal was partly allowed to the extent of said accused.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR