Muhammad Umar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 197 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 Umar VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of step daughter and granddaughter of complainant and in addition to that stealing some household articles---Prosecution produced two witnesses of wajtakar, who claimed their arrival at the place of occurrence at about 7:00 a.m. and they had seen two persons coming out of said house on a motorcycle along with some household articles which were tied in a cloth in the form of a bale along with, television L.C.D.---Both the witnesses also claimed that they had a dialogue with said two persons and asked from them about "MAW" to which they responded that neither they knew "MAW" nor "MAW" had come to that house and both the said persons thereafter went away---Presence of these two witnesses was not proved at the relevant date and time due to the reason that they had not stated the reason of their meeting with "MAW" and also did not tell the link of "MAW" with the house of occurrence---Further they did not explain features of two persons whom they met nor stated that in their presence both the accused had also locked the house and then went away (because according to prosecution, house was locked from inside)---Further their story of moving from place "MT" to place "JT" on foot and reaching there within half an hour was also not believable because both the places were at quite a distance---Fact of their relation with "MAW" was also a missing link due to non-appearance of "MAW" as witness---Said witnesses conceded that they could not produce any proof regarding their visit to see "MAW" on the day of occurrence---Both the said witnesses during their cross-examination conceded the fact that they never pointed out the house of occurrence or the house of "MAW" to the Investigating Officer---Said witnesses had not mentioned any weapon (danda) etc. carried by accused/persons of the case while leaving the house of occurrence because prosecution did not claim availability of crime weapon at the place of occurrence on first inspection---Statements of said witnesses were also not worthy because they did not see the accused/appellants in a situation when they were allegedly committing the murders---Claim of these witnesses of their appearance before the police on the same night i.e., 22.04.2014 after registration of FIR also did not appeal to reason because no supplementary statement of the complainant was available of said date and draftsman conceded during cross-examination that on site plan, the Investigating Officer had written in red notes that accused were not known till 28.04.2014---Further when these two witnesses appeared during identification parade, they might have given some statements but identification parade with complete proceedings was not produced in evidence, therefore, it did not help the prosecution to use such identification parade as explanatory evidence---Investigating Officer further conceded during cross-examination that neither he obtained CDR of these witnesses nor collected any ticket etc. of their bus---Thus, presence of said witnesses could not be established as claimed by them---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Umar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 197 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR