Muhammad Ammar Shafi vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1681 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 Ammar Shafi VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Ocular account was furnished by complainant and his nephew---Eye-witness/nephew of complainant was resident of one city, whereas, the occurrence took place at an other city, about 100-kilometers away from his house---In his statement before the Court, said witness had failed to advance any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence in the wee hours of morning, as such he was a chance witness and his testimony could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence by itself does not throw any light on the identity of the offender---Such evidence may confirm the available substantive evidence with regard to certain facts including seat of the injury, nature of the injury, cause of the death, kind of the weapon used in the occurrence, duration between the injuries and the death and presence of an injured witness or the injured accused at the place of occurrence, but it does not connect the accused with the commission of the offence---Medical evidence cannot constitute corroboration for proving involvement of the accused person in the commission of offence, as it does not establish the identity of the accused person. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---CCTV footage---Contents of CD not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Prosecution produced evidence before the Court in respect of identification of the accused/appellants in the form of footage contained in a CD and photographs retrieved from CCTVs installed by Punjab Safe City Authority---Complainant talked about handing over of CD and photographs by the Expert/Incharge of Safe City Project to Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer deposed about handing over of CD only---No certificate of an expert was available nor he or any other witness appeared in the dock to depose about making of video or preparation of photographs from CCTV footage---Investigating Officer conceded that he did not submit application to SP investigation seeking permission to see CCTV footage at the office of Safe City Project---Investigating Officer also did not tender in evidence the copy of application made by him before said Incharge nor he recorded his statement---Claimed by Investigating Officer that though he examined the private CCTV as well which were installed at the place of occurrence, yet did not record the statement of any person in that respect nor took into possession the DVR etc.---Thus, it remained a missing fact that who prepared the CD and photographs---Photographs could be used as evidence yet it was essential to prove its source---No certificate of expert was tendered in evidence nor an expert appeared in the witness box to verify the sanctity/genuineness of the video---It was incumbent to get a photogrammetry test of accused/appellants from Forensic Science Agency in order to provide evidence that they were the person visible in video retrieved from CCTV footage---Moreover, neither the Court had examined such CD while playing it in the Court nor it was shown to any witness during his statement who could have identified the assailants in the video---Thus, Trial Court had not met the requirement of Arts. 71 & 139 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, because CCTV footage could be used either as the documentary evidence or the real evidence---When it was being used as documentary evidence it must be shown to the witness while recording his statement and when it was used as real evidence then Court must inspect it with some observations and mere marking it as "P" did not fulfill the requirement---Thus, prosecution had failed to prove the contents of CD in accordance with the principles of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i)& 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Un-natural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Alleged eye-witnesses manifested unnatural conduct at the place of occurrence---According to the prosecution case, the complainant party was comprising of four persons including the deceased, whereas, the appellants allegedly three in numbers were not armed with any sort of weapon and the eye-witnesses, being close relatives of deceased, did not dare to capture any of the accused persons nor made serious efforts to save the deceased during the occurrence---Eye-witnesses stood like silent spectators and gave free hand to the accused persons to inflict fist blows to their kith and kin and thereafter, fleed away from the spot---Thus, conduct of the eye-witnesses, who were closely related to deceased, was highly unnatural, therefore, their presence at the spot was doubtful and their evidence was not worthy of reliance---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unseen occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Complaint through which crime was reported did not bear any time of reporting and it was also not taken care of by the police because Police Official did not mention the time of receiving such complaint---Place of receiving complaint was also disputed in this case---Police Official claimed receiving of complaint at Government Hospital, whereas accompanying constable deposed receiving of such complaint at a roundabout---Such facts created a shadow of doubt on prosecution case from the very inception which in turn doubted the presence of witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence, particularly when the dead body was received in the mortuary after three hours at 8:45 a.m. but the police papers were given to the doctor with a further delay of more than four hours at 1:00 p.m.---Yet neither the name of complainant nor of eye-witness was mentioned in inquest report or the postmortem report---Therefore, transportation of deceased to the hospital by the witnesses through Rescue Service 1122 became an answered situation---Investigating Officer also conceded that he did not record the statement of any member of Rescue Service 1122 about that fact---Investigating Officer further conceded that no CDRs of the witnesses were obtained by him in order to verify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Thus, apparently it was an unseen occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Identity of the accused doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---While lodging the FIR, complainant had not mentioned the features of the unknown accused persons who had allegedly committed the occurrence though he claimed that the accused could be identified on seeing again---However, while submitting his application before the police in the form of his supplementary version, the complainant stated that he was informed by the police about the presence of the accused persons on 05.09.2018 before a Court and when the complainant party reached, accused persons escaped from there---In the said statement, the complainant not only improved his version by stating himself to be the injured of occurrence but also admitted the identification of the accused persons on the information of the police---In the supplementary version which was submitted by the complainant after about three months of the occurrence, the complainant had not only made dishonest improvement regarding his injury but the said statement was also self-contradictory because the complainant himself stated that on seeing the complainant party the accused/appellants fled away from the spot however, on second call of the Court they appeared before the Court and the complainant party identified them---It was not appealable to a prudent mind that had the accused fled away from the spot on seeing the complainant party then why would they have re-appeared in order to make them fully identifiable by the complainant party and to create evidence against them---In support of acclaimed version, neither the prosecution opted to produce copy of bail application of the accused/appellants nor the order sheet of the Court to show attendance of accused/appellants and the complainant on 05.09.2018---Under the circumstances, it was apparent that complainant had neither seen the accused/appellants in the Court nor at the place of occurrence, therefore, his testimony was under serious clouds of doubt which could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ammar Shafi VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit.

Muhammad Ammar Shafi vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR