Wasif Saeed vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1716 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.

Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the complainant and witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---As per story of FIR, the complainant, eye-witness and the friends of deceased took the injured then deceased to "S" Hospital for treatment and after his death also escorted the dead body to the mortuary---Admittedly, no blood stained clothes of the witnesses and the friends of the deceased were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and no explanation in that behalf had been advanced by the prosecution---Stance of the complainant and eye-witnesses was not only improbable, but also got no support from the record, thus, the prosecution had failed to prove the presence of the complainant and the eye-witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Record showed that it was night time occurrence---Neither any source of light was mentioned in the FIR nor in the site plan of the place of occurrence nor the Investigating Officer collected or gathered any such evidence, meaning thereby, source of light in night occurrence was missing in this case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence only being corroborative piece of evidence cannot be made basis to record or sustain conviction because medical evidence can only give details about the locale, dimension, kind of weapon used, the duration between injury and medical examination or death and autopsy, etc. but never identifies the real assailant. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Record showed that on the same set of evidence, co-accused persons, who had been shown present at the place of occurrence and co-accused who were shown present at the place of occurrence while armed with a pistol, stood acquitted---Therefore, present appellant could not be convicted under the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---For giving benefit of doubt to an accused, a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Material witnesses not produced for evidence---Adverse presumption---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Complainant admitted during examination in chief that three friends of her husband of whose names were not known to her went to the house of female accused "RS"---Said friends of the deceased were in a position to make statements qua the occurrence and they being the most natural witnesses of the occurrence had not been produced by the prosecution---Prosecution frankly conceded that neither their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. were recorded during the investigation of the case nor they ever appeared before the Trial Court, therefore, the prosecution had withheld the best piece of evidence, hence an adverse inference within the meaning of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the witness box then their evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the instance of accused doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution story the accused/appellant slipped away from the place of occurrence along with crime weapon i.e. pistol 30-bore---Said weapon of offencewas recovered on 12.11.2018 i.e. last day of the remand from residential room of accused located at third floor of his house lying underneath of bed---However, it was somewhat difficult to believe that an accused having committed such a serious crime like murder though succeeded in fleeing away from the crime scene along with weapon of offence, would not get rid of such weapon, rather would keep the same in safe custody for its subsequent recovery and use against him---Besides, ocular account had already been disbelieved, such recovery would not be sufficient for recording conviction of an accused on capital charge, because this type of corroborative evidence was always taken into consideration along with direct evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two hours and 15 minutes in reporting the matter to the police---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 02.10.2018 at 09.00 pm and was alleged to have been seen by complainant and brother of the deceased, but matter was reported to the police on the same night at 11.15 pm i.e. with delay of about two hours and 15 minutes, despite the fact that police station was just 03-kilometres from the place of occurrence--- Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the element of delayed registration of FIR was clear indicator of the fact that in fact it was a blind murder and inference could be drawn that the intervening period was consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after the preliminary investigation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Mode and manner of the occurrence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Record showed that complainant admitted in her cross-examination that she was second wife of the deceased---Complainant was earlier married to "MA" from whom she got divorce on the basis of Khula---Complainant further admitted in her cross-examination that deceased was already married with "A" who after divorcing "A" contracted marriage with the complainant and that it was her love marriage as well as arranged marriage with deceased---Complainant further stated that she came to know about Nikah of her husband with female accused "RS" about 18/20 days prior to the occurrence---Complainant alleged that on receiving the telephone call from the accused, she along with deceased and other witnesses went to the house of female accused "RS"other wife of the deceased---It was an important factor and phenomenon in our society that first wife specifically tries to keep the new wife away from her family and she cannot tolerate her at any cost---By comparing four typical but contrasting marriages and examining the rules about the formation and breakup of polygamous marriages, the role of the pre-existing and new wife's consent (or not) and the economic consequences of poly-formation in ongoing and divorcing marriages, it was clear that the surpluses generated and distributions currently in place could both benefit and harm the co-wives---It did not appeal to the mind of a prudent man that why first wife i.e. complainant, who was also a school teacher, had accompanied her husband for reconciliation with her husband's co-wife, when her parents were not happy with their marriage and what necessitated the complainant to sit in the punchayat, which was not comprehendible---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Dishonest improvements by witnesses in their evidence---Effect---Dishonest improvements made by a witness in his statement to strengthen the prosecution case would cast serious doubt about veracity of his statement and make the same untrustworthy and unreliable. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive part of the occurrence---Unhelpful for prosecution---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---Allegedly, the complainant's husband contracted Nikah with "RS" secretly and due to that grudge the accused committed his murder while inviting him at their house---Stance of the appellant regarding motive in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C was that when deceased contracted marriage with "RS", the complainant pressurized the deceased to divorce "RS" and on the day of occurrence, the complainant came to the house of the appellant along with his companions where the deceased was also present---Complainant asked the deceased to divorce "RS" but when the deceased refused rather threatened to divorce the complainant, the complainant's companions who were notorious persons committed the murder of the deceased---Motive even if proved, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, may act as a double edged weapon---If motive could be a reason for the accused to commit the crime, it could also be used by the prosecution as a tool to implicate an innocent person---Therefore, after disbelieving the ocular account, recovery as well as medical evidence, the motive set up in this case was of no help to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery proceedings---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---After the arrest of appellant, the crime weapon was shown recovered on his lead on 12.11.2018 and the recovery memo showed that such recovery proceedings were supervised by Investigating Officer and witnessed by two police witnesses---Said recovery could not be relied upon for the reason that Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the recovery of such 30 bore pistol on the lead of accused/appellant, which was clear violation of S.103 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---Therefore, the evidence of such recovery could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused/appellant, being evidence that was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Wasif Saeed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 15 hours and 30 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---In the postmortem report of deceased, the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 03.10.2018 at 01.30 pm had mentioned probable time between death and postmortem as 15 hours and 30 minutes---Thus, if that time was considered for the purposes of time of death, the occurrence would might be happened at 10.00 pm whereas as per prosecution's case the occurrence took place at 09.00 pm---As per prosecution's own case, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to "S" Hospital and if so, why the dead body remained in "S" Hospital for a sufficient time for which no explanation had been offered by the prosecution and in that regard no report of any Medical Officer of the "S" Hospital, had been brought on the record---Another fact was very important and was missing that why the dead body of the deceased was escorted to the "G" Hospital even though postmortem of the deceased could have also been conducted at the attached mortuary of "M" Hospital, which was near "S" Hospital---Thus, there was obvious delay in sending the dead body to mortuary, as according to postmortem report, the police papers were received at 01:00 p.m. at the mortuary and thereafter postmortem examination was conducted at 01:30 p.m.---Complainant and brother of deceased were closely related inter-se to the deceased and both the witnesses of ocular account were the residents of the same vicinity---In such a situation if those witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and also witnessed the scene of occurrence then such an inordinate and unexplained delay would never have occurred---Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the element of delay in preparation of police papers and also delayed post mortem were clear indicator of the fact that in fact it was a blind murder and inference could be drawn that the intervening period was consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after the preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification for conducting the postmortem examination with such a delay---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Wasif Saeed vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR