Amjad Faiz Sultan vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1346 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.

Amjad Faiz Sultan VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of incident---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Eye-witnesses had utterly failed to bring anything on the record establishing their claimed presence with the deceased at the relevant time---Houses of said witnesses were far away from the place of incident and they had no place of business or agricultural land near the place of incident---Thus, both the said witnesses were chance witnesses---Admittedly, the testimony of chance witness ordinarily is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time---In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Amjad Faiz Sultan VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case was furnished by complainant and another witness---Presence of both the said witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they did not receive even a scratch during the incident---Admittedly, deceased was real brother of complainant as well as brother-in-law of other witness but both the said witnesses did not make an abortive attempt to save the deceased from the clutches of appellants and their co-accused---Such conduct of said witnesses ran contrary to the natural human response which one was expected to demonstrate at the time of such tragic incident---In the FIR as well as before the Trial Court it was the case of complainant that on 05.07.2018 he along with other witness went to DC house on motorcycle to see deceased from where they along with deceased went to new lorry adda for lunch but the said motorcycle on which the witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation---Failure to prove the mode through which the witnesses came to arrive at the place of occurrence had vitiated trust of Court in the prosecution witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Amjad Faiz Sultan VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Amjad Faiz Sultan VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by the eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Case of the complainant in the FIR and stated by him before the Trial Court was that the appellants along with their co-accused while armed with their respective weapons attacked upon deceased and caused him humerous injuries---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence reflected the falsity of eye-witnesses as the occurrence was committed within a few minutes and it was humanly impossible to provide such minute details in such a photographic manner or to assign the specific role and furnish detailed description of the same, which inferred false implication of accused persons---Thus, lodging of the FIR with such minutest details of the case ruled out the possibility of truthfulness and narratives of the FIR suggested the exaggeration and improvements made by the eye-witnesses who admittedly were inimical towards the appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Amjad Faiz Sultan VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that on the basis of the same statements made by the eye-witnesses, four co-accused of the appellants, who also caused firearm injuries on the person of deceased and whose roles were exactly at par with that of the appellants, had been acquitted by the Trial Court---Evidence which was found doubtful to the extent of co-accused of the appellants could not be believed against the appellants and the convictions, and sentences of appellants were not sustainable on the same set of evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Amjad Faiz Sultan vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR