Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI vs State abscond

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 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State abscondence---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 piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---In the present case, only medical evidence was left to be considered with regard to the injuries observed on the dead body of the deceased by Medical Officer but the same was of no assistance in the case as medical evidence by its nature and character could not recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved incidence---As all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, in the case, had been disbelieved and discarded, therefore, the conviction of accused could not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in reporting the matter to police---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that despite the occurrence having taken place at about 01.00 a.m. on 04.06.2010, the matter was not reported to the police till 04.30 a.m. on 04.06.2010---According to the prosecution witnesses a motorcycle was available at the place of occurrence and the complainant travelled upon the same for reporting the matter to the police, however, still the oral statement of complainant was recorded by Police Officer (since dead) at 04.30 a.m. and the formal FIR was registered on the basis of the said oral statement of complainant by another Police Officer at 04.50 a.m. on 04.06.2010---In such a case, the ocular account furnished was suffering from legal and factual infirmities and did not appeal to a prudent mind, because, the complainant delayed the matter of reporting the incident to the police---Said inordinate delay in reporting the matter conclusively proved that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place and time of occurrence and the said delay was used to procure their attendance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that a Kalashnikov rifle was recovered from the accused---Recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from the accused could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case 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 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, according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, the recovered Kalashnikov rifle was found in working condition, however, no comparison was made of the said Kalashnikov rifle with the empty shells of the bullets recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, the report of the Forensic Science Agency, offered no proof of any relevant fact---Prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that the witnesses claimed that they had witnessed the occurrence in the light of an electric bulb which was lit at the place of occurrence, however, the said electric bulb was 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 bulb---Non-production of the electric bulb which was allegedly lit at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence was all the more a matter of disquiet for the reason that the trial of the case was conducted in a private complaint and if the said source of light was indeed available then the complainant of the case could have easily produced the same before the Trial Court---Failure of the complainant of the case to produce the said bulb before the trial Court led to only one conclusion and that being that no such source of light was available at the place of occurrence which could have enabled the eye-witnesses to have identified the assailants and also witness the individual roles of the assailants as acted by them during the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle--- Even if 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 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Both the prosecution witnesses attributed causing of injuries to the deceased by co-accused persons of the accused,both since acquitted, however, both the witnesses were found to have made false statements with regard to co-accused persons of the accused---No independent corroboration of the prosecution case was found against the accused and Court was unable to distinguish the case of the accused from the case of the acquitted co-accused persons as the prosecution evidence with regard to the accused and with regard to his co-accused persons(both since acquitted) was similar---No reason was found to believe the statements of the witnesses with regard to the accused in absence of any reason to do so---Thus, the evidence of witnesses had no worth and deserved outright rejection---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Failure of the complainant to name the appellate as an accused in his oral statement on the basis of which formal FIR was registered conclusively proved that the accused was involved in the case subsequently and had the witnesses seen the accused present at the place of occurrence, taking part in the same, then there did not exist any possibility that they would not have named him as an accused in the FIR---Despite the fact that the occurrence took place at about 01.00 a.m. on 4th June, 2010, the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted after much delay at about 10.45 a.m. on 4th June, 2010---According to Medical Officer, he on 04.06.2010 at about 10.45 a.m. conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased after more than nine hours of the occurrence---Medical Officer also noted developed rigor mortis at the time of conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased---However, rigor mortis was a term which stands for the stiffness of voluntary and involuntary muscles in human body after death, which starts within 2 to 4 hours of death and fully develops in about 12-hours in temperate climate---No explanation was offered to justify the said delay in conducting the postmortem examination of the dead body---Inordinate and unexplained and substantial delay in the post-mortem examination of the dead body 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---Delay in the post-mortem examination was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account of the occurrence, after consultation and planning---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused "B" kidnapped a lady for committing Zina and in that regard, deceased got lodged FIR against said accused and due to said grudge, the accused persons committed the offence---Prosecution case revolved around the statement of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence including complainant also---Both the said prosecution witnesses were brothers of the deceased---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that his house was at a distance of as much as 5/6 acres from the place of occurrence---Both the said witnesses did not explain as to why and in what circumstances, they came to be present at the place and time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused "B" kidnapped a lady for committing zina and in that regard, deceased got lodged FIR against said accused, and due to said grudge, the accused persons committed the offence---Perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses revealed that the accused was not related to the motive of the case at all---Moreover, abductee neither joined the investigation of the case nor the prosecution produced her before the Trial Court in support of the alleged motive---Prosecution witnesses did not even make an effort to provide any details regarding the connection of the accused with the motive---Failure of the various Investigating Officers of the case to join abductee in the investigation of the case reflected poorly on the prosecution case---Eye-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---Evocative muteness was found 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 had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI vs State abscondence — 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR