Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD 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 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of the accused---Doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that a gun 12 bore along with four live cartridges was recovered from co-accused, since acquitted; gun 12 bore along with one live cartridges was recovered from one accused and pistol 30-bore along with four alive bullets from other accused were recovered, and a positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available---Such evidence did not support the prosecution case as parcel of crime empties were deposited with the office of Forensic Science Agency on 27.09.2010---Prosecution had not established link between the recovered weapons and crime empties with the report of Forensic Science Agency, making the case of the prosecution highly doubtful---On perusal of report of Forensic Science Agency, it revealed that Police Constable submitted parcel of crime empties on 27.09.2010---Case of the prosecution was that Moharrar malkhana handed over the parcel of samples to the said Police Constable on 08.06.2010 for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency, whereas, report of Forensic Science Agency available on the record revealed that Police Constable deposited parcel of the empties with the office of Forensic Science Agency on 27.09.2010---Thus, there was no evidence to connect the report of Forensic Science Agency with the said weapons recovered on the pointing of the accused---Said contradiction in the deposition of the Police Officials as well as report of Forensic Science Agency could not be stated to be minor and irrelevant in the absence of the positive and material evidence---Said facts created doubt about the genuineness of the recovery of crime empties---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the entire prosecution evidence was silent on the point that with whom the complainant proceeded to police station for reporting the incident, when at the road of a Chak, she met with the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer had not deposed that after recording of "Fard Biyan" of the complainant, she also accompanied him to the place of occurrence---Rather, during cross-examination, the Investigating Officer deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence at about 01:00 a.m. (night), the complainant and witnesses were present there---Deposition of complainant and eye-witness, revealed that witnesses of ocular account were chance witnesses---Investigating Officer deposed during cross-examination that he had recorded the statements of witness and he stated that the complainant and her son were present in their village and she said that her deceased son was not available---Said witness did not know the reality of the narration, but as it was stated before him, he recorded it---Said facts raised grave doubts about the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Complainant deposed that in the light of motorcycle, they witnessed the occurrence---Draftsman deposed during cross-examination that witnesses had not disclosed to him any source of identification at the time of occurrence as such he had not mentioned the same in the scaled site plans---Witnesses had not disclosed about the presence of the motorcycle at the place of occurrence and as such he had not mentioned its presence in the site plans---Investigating Officer deposed during cross-examination that motorcycle of the deceased or any other motorcycle was not recovered from the place of occurrence at the time of his first visit to place of occurrence---Thus, it was concluded that there was no visibility in the odd hours of night and in the site plans, the source of light was not mentioned---Time of occurrence was indicative of fact that darkness had set-in and it was not possible to identify a person without using any source of light---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Private complaint lodged fourteen months after the occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity between the parties---Incident took place on 21.05.2010 at 12:00 a.m. (night) in an area which was at a distance of 06 kilometers from the police station---First Information Report was lodged on 21.05.2010 at 01.00 a.m. (night) on the basis of fard bayan of the complainant made on 21.05.2010 at 12.30 a.m.---Complainant submitted private complaint on 04.07.2011, after fourteen (14) months of the occurrence---Complainant alleged that police got her signature on the blank paper and her statement was not read over to her; and the police in collusion with the accused persons spoiled the case of the prosecution---However, the version of the complainant came on the record after fourteen months from the date of occurrence---Said facts raised grave doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconsion of the accused---Not proof of guilt---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that after the occurrence, the accused persons absconded themselves---However, in the light of the statement of the Investigating Officer, it could not be said that the requirements of declaring a person proclaimed offender were met with---However, the factum of abscondence, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not substantive piece of evidence---Mere absconsion was not a proof of guilt of an accused---Prosecution had badly failed to bring home guilt of the accused persons through straight forward, confidence inspiring and corroborative evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive behind the occurrence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity between the parties---Motive was a double edged weapon, which could be used for the commission of crime or for falsely implicating the accused---Not necessary to advert to the evidence on the question of motive as it was fairly admitted by both sides that they were enmeshed in civil and criminal litigation since long---Hence, when there were open hostilities between two groups, the motive factor might propel one side to indulge in crime and the same factor might possibly also induce the other group to implicate their rivals---Investigating Officer found two accused persons not involved in the case after collecting evidence in their defence and verifying their statements factually---Station House Officer and DSP/SDPO also verified the investigation of the Investigating Officer--- All these circumstances cast a serious doubt on the testimony of complainant and the eye-witness---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of SIM from the accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer brought on the record that during investigation, SIM of mobile from which the accused persons made call to the deceased and asked him to come at the place of occurrence, by changing their voice was recovered from the accused persons and tried to connect the accused persons with the crime---SIM number was not physically verified by the Investigating Officer nor any record in that regard was placed on the record---Testimony of the prosecution witness was silent that in whose name the SIM was registered---Even the location of that number was not brought on record---Thus, the recovery of the SIM was of no consequence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about eleven hours in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer deposed during cross-examination that he reached at the place of occurrence at about 01.00 a.m. (midnight) on the fateful night---One hour was consumed in preparing the injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and soon thereafter, he dispatched the dead body to the mortuary for postmortem examination---Eye-witness deposed that the dead body was firstly removed from the place of occurrence to Police Station at about 06.00 a.m. on the following morning---Postmortem examination of dead body was performed at about 02.00 or 02.30 p.m.---No plausible explanation was available as to why postmortem of the dead body was delayed for about eleven hours---Delay in conducting postmortem examination also led to the conclusion that the FIR. was recorded with a delay and the FIR had not been recorded at the time at which it was claimed to have been recorded---Said aspect of the matter was sufficient to cast doubt about the authenticity of the FIR---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAQSOOD AHMAD vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR