Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO 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 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses--- Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by complainant and another eye-witness---Both the eye-witnesses were not residents of the village where the occurrence took place---Site plan showed that the occurrence took place at a road in a deserted area---On both sides of the road, there were agricultural fields and no residential house, shop, bus stop, petrol pump or any other building had been shown at the spot---Both the eye-witnesses simply stated in their statements before the police, as well as, in their statements recorded by the Trial Court that on the day of occurrence, they along with deceased were returning back from Mandi upon a motorcycle 'rikshaw' after sale purchase---Said witnesses did not state the specific reason of their visit to Mandi on the day of occurrence---Although during their cross-examination, said witnesses stated that they went to Mandi to purchase ghee, sugar and some grocery but it was noteworthy that no receipt regarding the purchase of any grocery items was produced during the investigation of the case before the Investigating Officer or during the recording of prosecution evidence by the Trial Court---Both the eye-witnesses made an excuse that in fact, items purchased by them along with 'rikshaw', driven by deceased at the time of occurrence, were burnt during the occurrence on account of firing of the accused persons but it was noteworthy that in the FIR there was no such allegation that 'rikshaw' of the complainant party caught fire at the time of occurrence---Since, both the eye- witnesses were not residents of the village where the occurrence took place rather they were residents of another Chak, therefore, they were chance witnesses and they could not prove the reason of their presence at the spot at the relevant time, therefore it was not safe to rely upon their evidence for upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that earlier accused made fire shots upon complainant due to which FIR under section 324, P.P.C., was lodged and the accused was pressurizing for compromise in the said case and on account of the said grudge, the occurrence of the present case took place---Under such circumstances, either complainant or eye-witness should have been the prime target of accused but both of them did not receive even a single scratch on their bodies during the occurrence, though according to the prosecution case, accused and co-accused (since P.O.) were armed with pistols and complainant and eye-witness were at their mercy---As per site plan said witnesses were sitting in the 'rikshaw' on the left and right side of deceased---Prosecution story did not appeal to a prudent mind because if the said motive was against complainant or against eye-witness, then question was as to why the said witnesses were spared alive and in their place deceased was murdered, meaning thereby that the said witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time---Although said prosecution eye-witnesses tried to justify the motive by stating that in fact, deceased was pursuing earlier case lodged against the accused but the FIR statedly lodged by the complainant party against the accused or order sheet of the Trial Court in the said case was never brought on the record during the trial of present case to establish that deceased was a complainant or a witness or he was pursuing the case---Thus, motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in the case and even on the basis of said motive, the prosecution case was highly doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of ten hours in conducting the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Although as per contents of the FIR, the occurrence took place on 26.07.2016 at 08:30 a.m., and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 09:35 a.m., but it was noteworthy that postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 26.07.2016 at 06:30 p.m., i.e., with the delay of 10 hours from the occurrence---Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased, stated that dead body was received in the dead house on 26.07.2016 at 06:00 p.m., whereas, police papers were received on the same day at 06:30 p.m., which showed that there was no delay on the part of the Medical Officer in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased---Delay in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was suggestive of the fact that the occurrence was unseen and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---No specific injury assigned to accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Record showed that no specific injury on the body of deceased was assigned to the accused or his co-accused and a general role was attributed to the accused and his co-accused that the fire shots made by them landed on the different parts of the body of deceased---Said fact also indicated that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence therefore, they could not assign any specific injury to any accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of pistol on the pointation of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Record showed that pistol 30 bore was recovered on the pointation of the accused---Noteworthy that report of Forensic Science Agency in that respect was in the negative and as such, the same was inconsequential for the prosecution case--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias BAO vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR