Mazhar Hussain Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1986 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.

Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Ocular account produced by prosecution comprised of statements of complainant and eye-witness---Admittedly, said witnesses were not residents of the place of occurrence rather they were residents of other place---Complainant's residence was at distance of about 02-kilometers from the place of occurrence---Eye-witness stated that he was resident of a village, which was situated at a distance of 2½ kilometers from the place of occurrence---Therefore, said witnesses were chance witnesses and were thus required to establish valid and acceptable reason to prove their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Prosecution case was that both said witnesses were going to Katchery on the date of hearing but any Cause List or any other document to show that on the day of occurrence of instant case, it was the date of hearing fixed in said case, had not been brought on the record---Therefore, reason claimed by the complainant and other cited eye-witnesses regarding their presence/availability at the relevant "time & place" of occurrence could not be established---As per case of prosecution, complainant was sitting behind the deceased of the case on the motorcycle, accused persons came from behind and resorted to firing, fire shots had hit at behind ear and shoulder of the deceased but surprisingly complainant did not receive any firearm injury---Furthermore, it was case of prosecution that complainant and deceased fell from the motorcycle but complainant did not receive even a single scratch due to said falling---In such scenario, evidence of both said cited witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was suspect evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon, it cuts both the ways, it can also be a reason for false implication---When substantive evidence is discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant and eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Statement of Police Constable and Medical Officer clearly showed that complainant and other cited eye-witnesses did not bring dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital rather Police Constable along with Investigating Officer of the case brought the same there---Complainant and other cited witnesses did not try to immediately report the matter to the police despite the fact that Police Station was just at a distance of 1½ kilometers from the place of occurrence whereas office of Deputy Superintendent of Police was just at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence---Such fact raised question mark regarding presence of the complainant as well as other cited eye-witnesses at the relevant time at the place of occurrence---Any bloodstained clothes of complainant and other cited witnesses were neither produced during investigation nor during trial of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of the recovered pistols and crime empties not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Investigating Officer stated in categorical terms that on 18.11.2019, Moharrar handed over to him the parcels of pistols and live bullets for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency, which were deposited by him in the said office---However, it was strange and alarming to mention here that as per report of Forensic Science Agency, parcels regarding pistols submitted in Forensic Science Agency in this case were not mentioned as having any live bullets in the same---So it was crystal clear that according to case of prosecution, pistol along with two live bullets statedly recovered from the possession of appellant were sealed into parcel and similarly pistol along with two live bullets allegedly recovered from other appellant were sealed into parcel---If said parcels were deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency, then it must have been mentioned in the report that said parcels were containing live bullets also, however it was not mentioned so in said report---Meaning thereby that said parcels were not those parcels which were prepared at the time of recovery of pistols containing bullets as well---Hence, safe custody of parcels of pistols had been compromised and not proved, which had ultimately made report of Forensic Science Agency as inconclusive as well as inconsequential and of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 &34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---As per application for registration of FIR, occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. on 03.10.2019 at a Chowk, which was situated at a distance of one and half Kilometers from the Police Station as per column No.4 of the FIR---Mentioned in the FIR that deceased of the case succumbed to the injuries at the spot, however, matter was not reported to the police promptly---Even it was not mentioned in the application for registration of the case as well as in the FIR that complainant and cited eye-witnesses shifted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, however, even then as per case of the prosecution, application for registration of the case was written at 11:00 p.m. on 03.10.2019 i.e. after the delay of about three hours and five minutes of the occurrence and FIR was recorded at 12:05 p.m. on 03.10.2019---Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Sub-Divisional Police Officer was located just at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence---In such circumstances, matter had not been reported to the police promptly rather with considerable delay for which any plausible explanation had not been offered by the prosecution, which led to the conclusion that none of the cited witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence---Time was consumed for procuring, engaging and introducing witnesses, tailoring story for the case of prosecution and then registering the case in its present form---Perusal of postmortem examination report revealed that it had been mentioned in the same that as per police papers, time of death was at 07:45 a.m. on 03.10.2019---Medical Officer stated that on 03.10.2019 at 07:45 a.m. Police Constable brought dead body of deceased in the hospital---Police Constable stated that Investigating Officer escorted dead body of deceased from place of occurrence and reached hospital at 07.45 a.m.---Such state of affairs clearly reflected that when police brought dead body from the place of occurrence at 07:45 a.m., then occurrence was brought in the notice/knowledge of Investigating Officer and Police Constable before 07:45 a.m.---Such fact on the one hand negated that occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. and on the other hand also reflected that occurrence took place before 07:55 a.m. and it was in the knowledge/notice of the police---Even then case was registered at 12:05 p.m. for which no plausible, convincing and cogent reason could be rendered by the complainant---In such circumstances, FIR, which was cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, could not provide any support to the case of prosecution and superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---As per case of prosecution, deceased received three firearm injuries---Whereas, as per Postmortem Examination Report, the deceasedreceived four firearm wounds and one exit wound---However, fourth injury could not be explained by the complainant as well as eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Record showed that co-accused who was attributed equally effective role of causing firearm injury to deceased of the case had been acquitted of the charge in the case while disbelieving evidence of the prosecution witnesses through the same impugned judgment---Said acquittal was still holding the field and the same had even not been challenged uptill now---Thus, said evidence could only be relied and used against present appellants if same was strongly corroborated by the independent evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither can provide any corroboration nor was of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---In the crime report, it was mentioned that motive behind the occurrence was murder of "MS", FIR was registered in said regard against brother of the complainant who was confined in jail---Complainant and his brother were pursuing said case and on the day of occurrence, complainant and deceased of the case were going to Katchery on date of hearing in said case whereas brother of the complainant and other were also following them on motorcycle---Complainant mentioned in the FIR that he and his deceased brother were pursuing said case, meaning thereby that if it was grudge of committing that occurrence by the accused persons, then it was also equally attributable to the complainant because he was also pursuing said case along with his brother---As per statement of prosecution witness that deceased of the case and his brothers, complainant and eye-witness were accused of the murder case of "MS" deceased---Such state of affairs further showed that complainant and eye-witness, who had appeared as eye-witnesses in this case along with other persons, were accused in murder case of "MS"---If it was motive for the occurrence, then it was equally alleged against complainant and eye-witness but then why they had been spared and not targeted by the accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mazhar Hussain Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons of offence from accused---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Record showed that 30-bore pistols were recovered from the accused persons---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, pistol allegedly recovered from appellant was only found in working condition and empties secured from the place of occurrence were not found as having been fired from the same---Hence said recovery was of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Mazhar Hussain Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR