Rao Humayun Waqas vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2546 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.

Rao Humayun Waqas VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and his son---Statement of complainant clearly showed that he neither mentioned the date and time of occurrence nor nominated any accused---Name of deceased was also not mentioned, nor any role was assigned to any one for committing murder---Deviancy from requirement of stating particulars of charge against the accused was also not justified---Such edition of statement in no case helped the prosecution to substantiate the charges against the accused---Prosecution alleged that complainant being of advance age of 95 years, could not recollect the facts after such a long time, therefore, not mentioning the name of accused and other particulars was not fatal to the prosecution story---Examination in chief of a witness was to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor who was required to follow the pattern suggested as per International best practices so as to facilitate and assist the witness to recollect the facts---In the present case, prosecution had not attempted to elicit the necessary facts from the mouth of complainant by using any techniques therefore, prosecution case was bereft of material necessary to substantiate the charge---Prosecution alleged that son of complainant/witness had deposed in support of prosecution version and statement of single witness was sufficient to substantiate the charge---No cavil to the proposition that conviction could be recorded on the testimony of a single witness but it was only in a situation when there was only one witness available at the place of occurrence but when prosecution claimed more witnesses at the crime scene, then disbelieving the testimony of one or two in contrast to others, squarely helped the prosecution to stay and build their abode on the testimony of single witness because in such eventuality absence of corroboration was so strong enough to fail the prosecution case easily in terms of non availability of proof beyond reasonable doubt while casting a serious doubt on the single testimony---However, it had been observed that son of complainant when entered appearance had entirely changed the complexion of prosecution case by stating that though accused persons came at the place of occurrence yet accused was holding two pistols in his hand but he did not state anything about firing made separately by accused or co-accused rather in a slipshod manner stated that accused persons came to the shop on motorcycle and after firing made their escape good from the place of occurrence, though a slight indication was given in terms that they fired upon his real brother who was sitting on the chair---Such narration was complex and based on compound impressions---Co-accused with similar role stood acquitted on the same set of evidence---Thus, there was no credible evidence available to substantiate the charge against the accused in terms of ocular account---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been able to establish the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Rao Humayun Waqas vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR