Muhammad Nadeem vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2521 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.

Muhammad Nadeem VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Foot prints of accused---Evidence of foot tracker ---Not free from doubts---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of his wife---Foot tracker prepared four moulds of visible footprints of accused from near the dead body and two moulds of visible impression of tyres of motorcycle---Said foot tracker could identify the accused in a "Foot identification parade" in the light of moulds of footprints collected from the spot---Police took into possession aforesaid moulds through recovery memo---Thereafter, on 16-07-2013, foot tracker was again summoned by the police where foot identification parade was conducted in presence of the Investigating Officer and he picked up footprints of accused in said "foot identification parade" and two moulds of footprints of accused with shoes i.e. left and right foot were prepared by him and handed over to the police for their comparison with the footprints collected from the spot on 29-05-2013---During cross-examination, said witness stated that he did not tell the police that moulds were related to open shoes, casual shoes or formal shoes, boots, khairri etc---Said witness had not told the police that whether the moulds related to a child or adult and whether footprints were of a female or male---When said witness reached at the spot 30 to 40 persons were present at the place of occurrence---In addition to that, the prosecution had also examined recovery witness of the moulds of a male and tyres of motorcycle from the spot, who during his cross-examination also stated that before their arrival a few persons were present at some distance from the dead body---Notable that there was haunting silence with regard to the factthat when the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence whether the moulds of the shoes as well as tyres were covered or not, therefore, it was not probable that the footprints of the accused would have remained intact during that period---Prosecution had also failed to prove safe custody of said moulds as statement of Investigating Officer was silent about the fact that on which date and time, he had handed over the moulds to the moharrar of the police station---According to the postmortem report and statement of Medical Officer, postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 28-05-2013 whereas according to the statement of foot tracker, he prepared moulds of footprints and impression of tyres of motorcycle on 29-05-2013 from a nearby place where dead body of an unknown woman was lying---When the dead body was not present at the place of occurrence on 29-05-2013 then whole evidence of said witness had lost its sanctity---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Muhammad Nadeem vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2521 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR