Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR 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 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing due to previous enmity---Prosecution did not allege any direct motive against accused---As per prosecution case, two other accused persons were involved in the murder of paternal uncle of deceased---Said accused had absconded and wanted to eliminate deceased because he was pursuing the case---Said accused persons hired accused and a juvenile co-accused and another accused for such purpose---In order to prove the said motive, the prosecution produced two witnesses who testified that one day prior to the fateful day at around Asar prayer time they were taking tea at a hotel when accused/ proclaimed offender and other accused persons came there---Said proclaimed offender and accused in their presence asked other accused and his co-accused to kill deceased and they would pay them---Said piece of evidence was false and concocted---To start with, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that so many people would assemble at a public place to hatch a conspiracy for murder---Secondly, witnesses claimed that they informed deceased about the conspiracy on the same day; if that was so deceased would have mentioned it in his statement--- Thirdly, the said two witnesses did not state that any money was paid by proclaimed offender to the accused or his co-accused in his presence---Even otherwise, there was no evidence to prove that any money was paid to the accused and his co-accused for the murder of the deceased and no such money was recovered from their possession during investigation of the case---Lastly, witnesses got recorded their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., three days after the incident for which there was no explanation---Such delay impinged on the credibility of the witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties and weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing due to previous enmity---Investigation Officer recovered two crime empties of .12 bore gun and two of .30 bore gun from the place of occurrence and secured the same vide Recovery Memo--- During the course of investigation, accused made disclosure and while on physical remand got recovered pump-action gun along with cartridges after digging earth near a tube well situated on the canal which was taken into possession vide Recovery Memo---Crime empties and the weapon of offence were sent to the Forensic Science Agency---According to the Forensic Report, the parcel sent contained one 12G pump action having serial number obliterated, along with its item number, duly signed---Report further stated that it was said to be recovered from some person "B"---Thus, it was evident that the parcel sent did not contain the gun allegedly recovered from accused---Said weapon was never sent to the Forensic Science Agency---Positive report qua 12G pump-action shot gun was, therefore, inconsequential---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved--- Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing due to previous enmity---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two witnesses to prove the charge---Both of the said witnesses reiterated the contents of the FIR, however, their testimony did not inspire confidence---Notably both the said eye-witnesses were not residents of the place where the incident happened---In order to justify his presence, one of the eye-witness stated in his examination-in-chief that he was brother of deceased and on day of occurrence at about 06:15 a.m. he was present in his house and came out on hearing noise and saw the occurrence but in cross-examination he conceded that he was not his brother---Noteworthy that when said eye-witness conceded that he was not the brother of deceased he himself falsified the reason that he had advanced for his presence at the spot---In the site plans the house of said witness had not been shown---Other eye-witness during his cross-examination conceded that his house was situated in a colony which was at a distance of one kilometer from the crime scene---In such circumstances, both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and their evidence required independent corroboration which was very much lacking in this case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Dying declaration--- Doubtful--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing due to previous enmity---Record showed that injured then deceased was taken to hospital, where Investigating Officer reached there on receiving information about the incident and after seeking permission from the Medical Officer, recorded his statement---Medical Officer certified that victim was fit whereupon he recorded his statement which was attested by the said Medical Officer and two witnesses---Occurrence took place at 06.15 a.m. and injured then deceased was brought to the hospital at 06.30 a.m. and his statement was recorded at 08.10 a.m.---Keeping in view the fact victim had suffered multiple injuries it could reasonably be presumed that he was expecting his death at that time---Said statement of victim could be regarded as dying declaration which was admissible in evidence under Art. 46 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--- However, perusal of statement of victim showed that he gave photographic details of the incident---It was not possible for the victim to make such a narration in his given condition---Victim was surrounded by two witnesses---Record did not indicate that necessary steps were taken to keep him out of their influence at the time of making the declaration---Said facts made the dying declaration all the more dubious and it could not be relied upon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing due to previous enmity---Record showed that the evidence of eye-witnesses was contradicted by the medical evidence---As per contents of the application, on the basis of which formal FIR was lodged, fire shot made by accused landed on the right side of the waist of deceased whereas both the eye-witnesses stated that the fire shot made by accused landed on the right side of the back of deceased---According to the evidence of Medical Officer, who initially medically examined deceased in injured condition, there was one injury on the back of the chest of the deceased and in his cross-examination he stated that he could not specify the nature of the said injury as to whether the same was an entry or exit wound---On the other hand, according to the statement of Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination and as per pictorial diagrams, there was no injury on the waist or on the back side of the waist of deceased and there was only one injury on his right upper back region which was skin deep---Co-accused was assigned the role of making a fire shot on the right leg of deceased---Although Medical Officer noted injury on the right knee of deceased, in his cross-examination he also stated regarding the said injury that he could not specify whether said injury was an entry wound or exit wound, though he specifically mentioned that three injuries were entry wounds---As per evidence of Medical Officer, there were perforated wounds on the posterior aspect of the right shoulder of deceased---Another entry wound on the chest of the deceased was found---Said injuries were also noted in the postmortem examination report of the deceased by Medical Officer but the said injuries were not attributed to any of the accused in this case---Moreover, there were a total of three (or seven injuries) on the right leg of deceased whereas according to the evidence of witnesses only one fire shot with pistol .30 bore was made by co-accused on the right leg of deceased---Prosecution eye-witnesses had not mentioned two injuries on the chest and two injuries (or six injuries) on the right leg of deceased which were noted in the postmortem report of the deceased and pictorial diagram---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR