Moula Bakhsh vs State Evidence, corroboration of — 2025 YLR 1467 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.

Moula Bakhsh VS State Evidence, corroboration of---Principle---One tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Inconsistent---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and a witness---according to the statements of said witnesses, they had seen the appellant inflicting two injuries on the head of deceased with the use of a hatchet, one blow landing on the right side of the head of deceased and the other blow landing on the right ear of the deceased---Contrarily, the Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination and later the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, observed only one injury, present on the head area of the dead body of the deceased---Said opinion and observations of the Medical Officer was never challenged by the prosecution either during the investigation of the case or during the course of the trial---In this manner, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were in direct contradiction and in conflict with the opinion and observations of the Medical Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Perusal of the evidence recorded by the complainant of the case during the trial revealed that it was admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence had taken place in the land owned by the appellant---It was admitted by the prosecution witnesses that their residence was at a distance of 20 acres from the place of occurrence, whereas their land was at a distance of 1½ acre from the place of the occurrence---Reason as given by the said witnesses for their presence at the place of occurrence was that the prosecution witness and the deceased had brought an engine to pump out water from the bore dug within the land of the appellant in order to irrigate their lands and the witnesses and deceased had arrived at the place of occurrence at about 07/07.30 am and started to pump out the water and continued to pump out water from the bore using the engine brought by them to the place of occurrence to work the pump, till the occurrence took place---However, both the Investigating Officers of the case admitted during cross-examination that at the time of their visits to the place of occurrence and even during the course of investigation as conducted by them, neither such an engine was taken into possession by them from the place of occurrence nor any such engine was produced before them during the course of the investigation---Non-production of the engine which had been allegedly brought to the place of occurrence by the prosecution witness and the deceased to pump out water from the bore dug within the land of the appellant and which engine was running when the incident took place led to only one conclusion that no such engine was available at the place of occurrence---Had such an engine been brought to the place of occurrence by the prosecution witness and the deceased, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case on the day of occurrence and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officers of the case but it was not and it proved that a false claim was made by the prosecution witnesses for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their continued presencethere which place was admittedly the land of the appellant---In this manner, the prosecution witnesses failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Blatant improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Record showed that the prosecution witnesses made blatant improvements to their previous statements in order to bring the ocular account, as narrated by them in line with the opinion and observations of Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body---Prosecution witnesses went on to claim that acquitted accused persons and the co-accused of the appellant had also inflicted injuries upon deceased after realizing that Medical Officer had observed the presence of bruise, abrasion and scratch mark on the right hand, right foot and right clavicle of the dead body of the deceased respectively---Infliction of the said injuries by acquitted accused persons to the deceased was not mentioned by prosecution witnesses in their previous statements---Prosecution witnesses also went on to claim that the accused, though armed with hatchets, had used the blunt sides of the hatchets to inflict the injuries upon the deceased though in their previous statements they had not made any such claim that the accused had used the blunt sides of the hatchets to inflict the injuries to the deceased---Prosecution witnesses made a deliberate and dishonest departure from their earlier narrations of the occurrence while deposing before the Trial Court---By improving their previous statements, the witnesses impeached their own credibility---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of hatchet from the accused---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery of hatchet---Consequential---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Recovery of hatchet 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 recovery of the hatchet from the accused, which was in clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the evidence of the recovery of the hatchet from the accused was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Moreover, the Investigating Officer of the case admitted that the hatchet was recovered from a house which was inhabited by other persons and from a room which was open to access---In this manner, the prosecution could not prove that the hatchet was recovered froma place which was under the exclusive possession of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Injured witness not produced for evidence---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Prosecution case was that the brother of the deceased was also injured during the occurrence, however, said injured was never examined as a prosecution witness by the complainant of the case during the course of the trial---Complainant sought several adjournments to produce the said injured as a prosecution witness---In this manner, the prosecution case was not supported by the brother of the deceased who was also an injured witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR with promptitude---Inconsequential---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---allegedly, the oral statement of the complainant recorded by the Police Official, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, was made with promptitude---However, during the course of the trial, it remained a consistent theme with the prosecution witnesses that the oral statement of complainant was a sham document---Similarly, a prosecution witness in his statement before the Trial Court claimed that signatures of complainant were obtained on blank papers and subsequently, a false document was prepared and FIR of the case was not read over to them by police officer in charge---Scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses revealed that the oral statement of complainant was declared as a contrived, manufactured and a compromised document by the prosecution witnesses themselves---No corroboration of the prosecution evidence could be made from the said oral statement of complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the complainant and a witness was that the appellant was named as accused by the deceased in a case registered by the deceased regarding the theft of his goats and the appellant committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased due to said grudge---Perusal of the statements of said witnesses revealed that they failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as narrated by them in their statements before the Trial Court---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that the case registered by the deceased regarding the theft of his goats had already been settled due to the fact that the deceased had withdrawn from the prosecution of the said case---Other prosecution witness stated that he had no knowledge regarding the details of the case registered by the deceased against the appellant as he was not a witness of the said case---Thus, the said witnesses failed to provide evidence to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---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: 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Moula Bakhsh VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Delay of two months and twenty days in sending the hatchet for analysis---Consequential---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---another aspect regarding the recovery of the hatchet from the appellant was that the occurrence took place on 07.01.2019, whereas the hatchet was received in the office of Forensic Science agency on 27.03.2019 and was analyzed on 08.11.2019---During such a long period the blood available on the hatchet, if any, would have disintegrated---Thus, it was not possible to believe that the blood available on the hatchet had not disintegrated by the time the same was analyzed by the Forensic Science agency, and it was, therefore, scientifically impossible to detect the origin of the blood---Therefore, the recovery of the hatchet from the appellant did not further the case of prosecution in any manner---Thus, the alleged recovery of the hatchet was not proved and the same could not be used circumstances against the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Moula Bakhsh vs State Evidence, corroboration of — 2025 YLR 1467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR