Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD 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 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot was not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that in the inquest report the names of complainant and eye-witnesses had not been mentioned---Eye-witnesses or the complainant did not sign the inquest report---However, the Investigating Officer had categorically asserted that he recorded statements of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., at the spot, which allegedly showed that witnesses were present at the place of occurrence---If Investigating Officer visited and prepared the inquest report and had met with the complainant and eye-witnesses, in that case, there was no reason why the details were found missing from the inquest report---Absence of those details indicated that the prosecution story was still in the embryo and had not been given any shape---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of the accused---Doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that weapon of offence, i.e., gun 12-bore repeater, one bandolier, four live cartridges and one magazine were recovered from the possession of the accused and positive report of Forensic Science Agency was also available on the record---However, it did not appeal to the prudent mind that the accused would conceal the gun 12-bore repeater, one bandolier, four live cartridges and one magazine in his residential Dera to hand it over to the police on his arrest---Said fact created doubt about the said recoveries---Defence version was that the Police Officers serving in the police department at the DPO office, on the next day of the occurrence, took into possession a shotgun along with the license of co-accused (since acquitted) and then the same was planted against them---Statement of the recovery witness threw clouds on the said recoveries---Recovery of the weapon of offence and the positive report were not of any consequence, in circumstances---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of any justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the occurrence occurred in the Dera/cattle shed of the complainant---Presence of the witnesses was by chance---Complainant stated the reason for his presence at his Dera was due to an ailment of a buffalo---Eye-witness and brother-in-law of the complainant deposed during cross-examination that his residence was not at the Dera of complainant/place of occurrence and he was not a veterinary doctor---Investigating Officer deposed during cross-examination that he did not mention in his spot inspection note about the presence of sick buffalo---Patwari deposed during cross-examination that he did not point out the presence of any sick buffalo in the place where witnesses were present---Medical Officer deposed that mouth and eye of the dead body were opened---Both the eye-witnesses deposed in their Court statements that they attended deceased, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot---If they attended to the deceased soon after the occurrence, there was no reason for the mouth and eyes of deceased to be open---Investigating Officer, after reaching the place of occurrence, inspected the dead body, prepared an injury statement, inquest report and photographs of the dead body of the deceased were also taken, and photo-card containing four pictures of deceased were secured and genuineness of the same was not denied by prosecution or complainant---Deceased was in knee-chest position, the body was lying on his side, and the torso was lying diagonally---Said fact suggested that the complainant and eye-witness were not present at the time of occurrence---If the complainant and an eye-witness were present at the place of occurrence and tried to close the eyes and mouth of the deceased and also straightened the dead body of the deceased, then there was no reason the same should have been closed and the dead body lying in a straight position---Thus, the complainant and eye-witness failed to prove their presence on the spot---With that background, the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses in the place seemed to be doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive set up by the prosecution in the Fard Beyan and FIR brought on the record through the deposition of complainant and witnesses was that about 1½ years before the occurrence, the daughter of the accused eloped with one Mr. "I", and the accused had a suspicion that the complainant party had facilitated and helped the elopement of his daughter with Mr. "I"; and due to that grudge, the accused had murdered the deceased---To substantiate the motive part of the case, the prosecution produced one witness---In the cross-examination of said witness, some omissions, contradictions and improvements had been brought on record by the defence---Investigating Officer deposed about the motive part of the occurrence that under the motive part of complaint, the name of deceased was not specifically mentioned---To whom the motive was attributed the witness had not stated that he received threats from the accused---Testimony of said witness revealed that the daughter of accused went to the house of Mr. "I" on 18.11.2015---During cross-examination, said witness admitted that accused had not caused murderous assault or damage to his family members, although they were residing in the village---Contrary to the deposition of said witness, the complainant deposed that prior to the occurrence, neither said witness nor any of his other family members was murdered by the accused---However, the accused made three murderous assault upon said witness but he remained alive due to his luck---Another witness deposed that he stated before the Investigating Officer that deceased and a witness facilitated Mr. "I" in elopement of daughter of accused with him---Said contradictions between the statements of witnesses were material and raised doubt or suspicion in the prosecution case about the motive for committing the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of one hour and fifty minutes in reporting the matter to the police---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the accused had a suspicion that the complainant party had facilitated and helped the elopement of the daughter of accused and due to that grudge, the accused had murdered the deceased---Record showed that the occurrence took place on 18.11.2017 at 10.40 p.m. in the Dera/cattle shed of complainant situated at a distance of ten kilometers only from the place of occurrence---First Information Report was registered on the oral statement of the complainant, on 19.11.2017 at 12.50 a.m.---However, it was clear from the Fard Bayan that the statement of the complainant was recorded by Police Officer at 12:30 a.m.---Complainant took one hour and fifty minutes to report the incident to the police, for which no plausible explanation was rendered---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---According to the complainant and eye-witness, two charging lights were lit at the time of occurrence---Investigating officer deposed that in the statement of the complainant, the factum of lightening of charging lights at the time of occurrence was not mentioned---Patwari deposed that he did not show the source of light, bulb in the garage, however, a charging light was hanging at the front guarder of garage in the middle---Charging lights were not a source of light recorded in the FIR---Charging lights produced in the Court were new---Statements about the source of light were not consistent---Statements of the prosecution witnesses did not support the FIR about the source of lights and they were contradictory---Evidence adduced by the prosecution did not establish that there was any source of light when the incident allegedly took place---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Confliction---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that in the scaled site plans, place of firing was shown at points "2 and 3," and the deceased, was shown at point "1"---Distance between Point "1" and Points "2 and 3" was 12 and 6 feet, respectively; however from such a distance, blackening was impossible---In the un-scaled site plan, the distance between point "1" and point "3" was not mentioned---Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, observed blackening on injury No. 1---Blackening and recovery of pellets from the wound and the seats of injuries showed that deceased sustained the fire shot injuries on the vital part of his body from a close range---Thus, there was an apparent conflict between the medical evidence and with ocular testimony delivered by the eye-witness---Fact, however, was that the deceased received firearm injuries from close range, and who was responsible for the said wounds was not known; however, the accused was not responsible for said wounds---Although the site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence in terms of Art. 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but it reflected the view of the crime scene---Same could be used to contradict or disbelieve eye-witnesses---Thus, there was an apparent conflict between the medical evidence and ocular testimony incapable of being reconciled by any amount of argument and persuasion--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MANZOOR AHMAD vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR