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---Recovery of certain articles not proved in accordance with law---Accused were charged for committing murder of step daughter and granddaughter of complainant and in addition to that stealing some household articles---Record showed that certain articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the accused---However, complainant had not given any details of said articles during registration of FIR rather through his supplementary statement claimed that household articles which included mobile phone, LCD, gold ornaments, passport etc. were allegedly stolen by the accused/appellants---Such supplementary statement dated 22.04.2014 in the form of written application was available in the record but had not been exhibited---Non-exhibition of such supplementary statement (in written form) seemed result of mala fide because in such application names of appellants were mentioned as accused persons despite the fact that source of their nomination was not available with the prosecution, as by then witnesses of wajtakar did not name any of the accused persons---Details of articles which were stolen could not be brought on record except in the form of recovery, later shown from the accused/appellants---Witnesses of wajtakar though had stated to have seen the accused/appellants with a LCD and household articles but one witness explained in examination in chief that household articles were in a cloth in the form of a bale---After recovery such articles were allegedly identified by the complainant, his son and mother of deceased---Complainant did not appear as witness as he had died, and mother of deceased was not produced, whereas son of complainant neither narrated in his statement about the details of all articles nor he was the resident of house of occurrence so as to correctly identify such articles---Even otherwise process of identification of an article was also required to be conducted by the Magistrate in the same fashion as he did for identification of a suspect---In the instant case the identification of recovered items had not been properly conducted, rendering the entire recovery a nullity in the eyes of law, therefore, it could not be said with certainty that the recovered articles were the same which were allegedly stolen---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