Muhammad Ansar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1628 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.

Muhammad Ansar VS State Ss. 376-a & 377---Kidnapping of minor, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Source through which accused identified not established---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the complainant after abducting him---Record showed that not only the victim but two other witnesses also stated that when the occurrence took place on 08.06.2020, the appellant was not known to them and the name of the appellant was disclosed to them on 23.08.2021 i.e. after more than one year of the incident---Moreover, the identity of the source which enabled the said witnesses to identify the appellant by his name was also not disclosed by any of the witnesses---In the absence of the identity of the source which enabled the witnesses to identify the appellant by his name, the prosecution case suffered from a fatal flaw---Moreover, the said witnesses made no effort to identify the source who told them about the appellant and also made contradictory statements with regard to the circumstances whereby they came to know about the involvement of the appellant in the incident---Victim of the case, in his statement, stated that he himself did not know about the identity of the appellant, rather was told about the same by the other witnesses and also stated that it was some DSP police who had told the witnesses about the name of the appellant---Statement of victim fully denuded the creation of false evidence against the accused---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ansar 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 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ansar VS State Conviction--- Scope---Conjectures and probabilities---Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ansar VS State Ss. 376-a & 377---Kidnapping of minor, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence--- Contradictions---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the complainant after abducting him---Though victim alleged that the appellant had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him, however Medical Officer did not observe any evidence of such act---Medical Officer on examining victim found no marks of violence on any part of the body of victim at the time of examination---Medical Officer did not observe presence of any laceration, abrasion, contusion on any part of the body especially on elbows, thighs, or backside of victim---Being thrown on hard ground would necessarily have resulted into marks of violence appearing on the body of victim---Said observations of Medical Officer, after examining victim, also negated the statements of the witnesses---appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ansar VS State Ss. 376-a & 377---Kidnapping of minor, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Mode and manners of the incident doubtful---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the complainant after abducting him---according to the prosecution witness, on 08.06.2020, he had witnessed the appellant taking away victim on a motorcycle, however, it was also admitted that neither said witness raised any alarm over the appellant taking victim on a motorcycle with him nor made any effort to stop the appellant from taking away the victim---It was admitted by said witness that he was maternal grand-father of victim and that the appellant was not known to him at all---Despite the claim of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant was not known to victim still victim opted to accompany the appellant on a motorcycle, without any reason and without raising any question---Victim admitted that during his whole journey from the place of abduction to the place of incident, he did not raise any hue and cry---During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case did not prepare any site plan of the place from where victim was abducted---Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had kidnapped victim for the purpose of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ansar VS State Ss. 376-a & 377---Kidnapping of minor, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of the shirt (qameez) of victim to the laboratory doubtful---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the complainant after abducting him---Prosecution failed to prove the safe transmission of the qameez of victim to the Forensic Science agency, making the value of the report of the Forensic Science agency of no worth---Medical Officer never stated in his statement before the Trial Court that qameez of victim was handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case---Similarly, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that any of them had handed over the qameez worn by victim on the day of incident either to the Investigating Officer of the case or to the Medical Officer---Similarly, the prosecution did not produce any witness who would have stated that it was he who had taken the parcel containing the qameez to Forensic Science agency---Strangely enough, both the Investigating Officers of the case did not utter a single word of having taken into possession any qameez worn by victim on the day of incident or having taken any such qameez worn by victim to the Forensic Science agency---No DNa profile of the appellant was generated from the internal and external anal swabs sent for analysis---In this manner, the safe custody and the safe transmission of the qameez of victim to the Forensic Science agency, was not proved and in absence of this evidence no reliance could be placed on the report of Forensic Science agency---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ansar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR