Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF 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 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and live bullets on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle and five live bullets from the accused could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer did not join any witness of the locality during the said recovery, which action of his was in clear violation of the provisions of the S. 103, Cr.P.C and therefore the evidence of the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle and five live bullets could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused, being evidence which was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Moreover, the recovered Kalashnikov rifle and five live bullets were never sent to the office of the Forensic Science Agency, for their comparison with the empties collected from the place of occurrence---Moreover, even report of the Forensic Science Agency was not brought on record that the recovered Kalashnikov rifle and five live bullets were indeed a weapon in working condition and that bullets could be fired in the same---In that manner, the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle and five live bullets from the accused did not prove any fact in issue or relevant fact---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---FIR lodged after due deliberation---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---According to the Investigating Officer of the case, the time of getting the information of the occurrence by the police was mentioned as 11.00 p.m. on 07.12.2013 in the inquest report, whereas the oral statement of complainant was recorded by Investigating Officer at Grid Chowk at 01.10 a.m. on 08.12.2013---Furthermore, the oral statement of complainant was recorded by Investigating Officer at Grid Chowk while he was on his way to the Police Station---FIRs which were not recorded at the police station suffered from the inherent presumption that the same were recorded after due deliberation---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---For giving the benefit of the doubt it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances, rather if only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Complainant stated that when firing was made, they laid down on the ground, however the accused persons did not come near them and did not make firing on them---If the prosecution witnesses were laying and cowering on the ground to save themselves from the bullets being fired, then how they were able to observe the firing made by each of the assailants and the consequential hitting of the deceased by one of the bullets---When according to the prosecution witnesses they were ducking and recoiling to save their lives during the occurrence, then there did not exist any possibility that they would have been able to witness and observe the maker of the fatal shot at the deceased---Hence, the prosecution witnesses did not witness the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State absconsion---Scope---abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-production of material witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Both the prosecution witnesses admitted the presence of other witnesses, who had arrived at the place of occurrence to attend the marriage function---However, none of the said witnesses appeared before the Trial Court in support of the prosecution case---Due to failure of the prosecution to produce the said persons who had witnessed the occurrence, it could be presumed that had they been produced before the Trial Court, they would not have supported the prosecution case---Even the person whose marriage was being celebrated at the time of occurrence, was not produced before the Trial Court and was given up as an unnecessary witness---Similarly, the person who was injured during the occurrence also did not appear before the Trial Court in support of the prosecution case against the accused---Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that if any evidence available with the parties was not produced then it would be presumed that had that evidence been produced the same would have gone against the party producing the same---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Medical evidence--- Conviction---Scope---Conviction can not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---According to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place at about 11.00 p.m. on a cold winter night on 07.12.2013---However, admittedly, no source of light, which could have enabled the witnesses to have rightly identified the accused and also allowed the witnesses to have noted the individual roles of each and every accused present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, was produced by the witnesses during the investigation of case or even before the Trial Court---Prosecution witnesses claimed that they had witnessed the occurrence in the light of the electric bulbs which were lit at the place of occurrence---However, the said electric bulbs, which were allegedly lit at the place of occurrence and in the light of which the prosecution witnesses allegedly had witnessed the occurrence, were neither produced by the prosecution witnesses to the Investigating Officer of the case nor the Investigating Officer of the case, during his visit to the place of occurrence, took into possession any such electric bulbs---Non-production of the electric bulbs which were allegedly lit at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence was all the more a matter of disquiet for the reason that according to the prosecution witnesses the assailants were standing at a distance of as much as 18 karams from where the electric bulbs were allegedly lit---In that manner, according to the prosecution witnesses, the assailants were standing at a place 18 karams away from the stage and the availability and range of the electric bulbs lit at the place of the occurrence to have an effect at such a large distance was also not proved---In the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by Patwari and the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by the Investigating Officer of the case, the presence of any light source lit at the place of occurrence had not been marked---Prosecution witnesses failed to establish the fact of such availability of light source and in absence of their ability to do so, the existence of such a light source could not be presumed---Absence of any light source had put the whole prosecution case in doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Record showed that the names of both the eye-witnesses were neither mentioned in column No.4 nor at page 4 of the inquest report prepared with regard to deceased as being the witnesses who were present near the dead body at the time of preparation of the inquest report---Said fact also evidenced the absence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence---More grave was the fact that admittedly in the inquest report the role of the accused that it was his fire that had hit the deceased was not mentioned---Eye-witnesses, though claimed that after the occurrence deceased was taken to the hospital by the Emergency Service, Rescue 1122, however, neither during the investigation nor during the course of the trial, any proof was brought on record to support the said claim of the prosecution witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural behavior of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Motive behind the occurrence was that the complainant went to forbid the accused persons from aerial firing---Prosecution case revolved around the statements of complainant/ brother and paternal uncle of the deceased---Eye-witness stated that only complainant went to forbid the accused persons from aerial firing---In said circumstances, the complainant should have also been the target of the assailants---Furthermore, according to the eye-witnesses, the complainant was in clear view, at a meager distance, from the assailants and unarmed whereas the accused, as many as six in total, were allegedly armed with various firearm weapons---Neither there was any dearth of ammunition nor that of intent and opportunity on the part of the accused or his co-accused for coming away with the complainant, who at the time of occurrence, was allegedly present at the place of occurrence and there did not exist any obstacle in the line of the sight of the accused and the place where the complainant was present---In such scenario, it was hard to believe that the complainant would have been shown the courtesy of not being harmed at all when he should have also been the target of the assailants---In the midst of firing by so many accused persons, the complainant did not receive even a single scratch on his body during the whole occurrence---If the complainant had been present in the view of the assailants, then he would not have been spared---Blessing the complainant, with such an incredible consideration and showing them such favour, the persons with whom the assailants had a direct dispute with, was implausible and opposed to natural behaviour of any accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State S. 302---Qatl-i-amd--- Admission of accused---Scope---If the prosecution fails to prove its case against an accused person then the accused person is to be acquitted even if he has taken a plea and has thereby admitted killing the deceased. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the eye-witnesses was that after the complainant had an altercation with the accused over stopping the accused and his companions from firing at the place of occurrence, the assailants fired at the witnesses, however, it hit the deceased---After scrutinizing the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the motive as alleged could not be proved---It was admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves that the accused had no motive to commit the qatl-i-amd of the deceased, rather his altercation had taken place with the complainant---During the whole occurrence, despite the presence of six armed assailants, the complainant was not even injured---Had the motive being true, then the complainant would not have been let off---Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the accused to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---Thus, there was an evocative muteness in the prosecution case with regard to the motive alleged---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twelve hours and forty five minutes in conducting postmortem---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to the owner of the sound system---Occurrence took place at about 11.00 p.m. on 07.12.2013, the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted after much delay at about 11.45 a.m. on 08.12.2013---According to Medical Officer, he on 08.12.2013 at about 11.45 a.m. conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased after about 12 hours and 45 minutes of the occurrence---No explanation was offered to justify the said delay in conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body---Not only the post-mortem examination of the dead body was delayed by as many as 12 hours and 45 minutes, but also the dead body was brought to the hospital at 11.35 a.m. on 08.12.2013---Inordinate and unexplained and substantial delay in the post-mortem examination of the dead body and submission of the police papers to the Medical Officer clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence or having seen the accused escaping from the place of occurrence had not seen the occurrence and were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post-mortem examinations was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account of the occurrence, after consultation and planning---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State S. 417---appeal against acquittal---Presumption---Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or is perverse.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR