Fayyaz Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1658 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Fayyaz Ahmad VS State Ss. 324, 334, 336, 337-a(i), 337-a(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2), 427, 447, 511, 148 & 149---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghair-jaifah-hashimah, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifahdamihah, ghayr-jaifah-muta-fahimah, munaqqilah, causing hurt, ghayr-jaifahbadi'ah, itlaf-i-udw, causing itlaf-salahiyyat-i-udw, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, attempting to commit offence---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements and material contradictions made by witnesses---accused-petitioners were charged that they made indiscriminate firing upon complainant party, due to which they received different injuries---Record showed that neither in the FIR nor the witnesses while recording their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., attributed specific role to any of the accused rather they were burdened with the general allegations of firing and giving torture to the injured witnesses without specifying the role of each accused performed during the occurrence---Statements of complainant, eye-witnesses and the injured witness were suffering from dishonest improvements and material contradictions rendering their testimony doubtful---Even during the course of evidence, no such material was brought on record by the prosecution in order to pinpoint the role performed by each of the accused, at the spot, however, the witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements and assigned specific role to convicted accused/petitioners as per their choice---Dishonest improvements were not accepted from the individual making such statements, leading to the exclusion of new facts presented during the trial from consideration---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Fayyaz Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1658 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD