Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR vs State S

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 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconsion of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Absconsion of the accused spread over about fourteen years---However, absconding could not be viewed as a proof for the crime---People stayed away from law for a variety of reasons not necessarily compatible with hypothesis of guilt, to avoid impending wrath of opponents in hostile environment---Absconding could not be made sole basis for conviction of accused when the other prosecution evidence was doubtful and riddled with contradictions---Absconding was never sufficient by itself to prove the guilt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS State S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Evidence of best witness not recorded---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Record showed that the deceased ladies were living in a portion of the house of Mr. "E"---Investigating Officer, although in the cross-examination, replied that he joined said Mr. "E" in the investigation but admittedly no statement of him under S. 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded---Not examining him by the Investigating Officer amounted to withhold the best available evidence therefore an adverse inference could be safely drawn against the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witness---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Eye-witness was aged about 28 years at the time of occurrence---In the presence of real son who was young, the accused who was aged about 44 years came and committed the murder of his real mother but the witness made no attempt to interfere or intercept---No doubt that accused had a 12-bore pump action gun but at the same time the target for him was the real mother of eye-witness, so in that situation it could not be expected from real son to prefer the death of his real mother for saving his own life---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of nine hours and forty five minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Record showed that both the dead bodies were in hospital at least by 09:00 am.---Medical Officer categorically maintained that she conducted the post mortem examinations on the same day at 06:45 pm.---In cross-examination, said witness replied that she proceeded for post mortem examination immediately when she received the dead bodies---If the dead bodies were in hospital at 09:00 a.m. then why the postmortem was conducted after about 10 hours that was 06:45 p.m. and why the Medical Officer said that she received the dead bodies at that time also---Delayed post mortem examination had always been considered as vital blow on prosecution's case as it created serious doubt about worth and veracity of presence of the witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses--- Non-availability of the justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Record showed that the brother and son of the deceased being eye-witnesses furnished ocular account of the incident---Complainant was the real brother of deceased but he was not the resident of the house or locality where deceased was residing---Complainant in cross-examination, admitted that his house was at a distance of about 4/5 kilometers from crime scene and that he was a laborer---Similarly other eye-witness although was the real son of deceased but he too was not residing in the house with her mother---Said witness was residing and running his shop which was at a distance of one kilometer from crime venue---Both the said witnesses in view of said circumstances were chance witnesses---Chance witness was a person who under ordinary circumstances was not supposed to be present at a place where he claimed but he had to be at his ordinary place of residence or work---Thus, when a chance witness claimed his presence at a particular site he was always under heavy obligation to show any specific reason to establish his availability at the stated place---In failure to offer any good reason such witness remained of no worth for prosecution---In the FIR, it was stated by complainant that eye-witness told him that few days earlier accused came to the house of deceased and forced her for Nikah and for that reason, on the day of occurrence he and eye-witness were sitting in the house of deceased---Surprisingly, those words never came out from the mouths of witnesses during their examination-in-chief---Contents of FIR were not the final words and could not substitute the evidence---Unless said contents were proved by maker while appearing in court, no value could be attached thereto---As both the eye-witnesses completely failed to disclose any reason for their presence in the house of deceased, therefore, on that score alone their credibility had lost the value and importance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR vs State S — 2024 YLR 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR