Muhammad Zahid alias Billa vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 2013 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 Zahid alias Billa VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit will be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Zahid alias Billa VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, recovery of stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of pistols from the accused persons---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery proceedings---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---As per record, pistols were recovered from the possession of accused persons---However, said recovery could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the recovery of pistol from the accused persons which was in clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the evidence of the recovery of the pistols from the appellants could not be used as incriminating evidence against the appellants, being evidence that was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Moreover, the appellants were arrested on 06.03.2018, the pistol from one appellant was recovered on 27.03.2018 and the pistol was recovered from other appellant on 02.04.2018, however, the empty shell of the bullet taken into possession from the place of occurrence was sent to Forensic Science Agency on 10.04.2018---There was no reason for keeping the empty shell of the bullet, which was taken into possession on 01.03.2018, at the Police Station and not sending it to the office of Forensic Science Agency till 10.04.2018, after the arrest of the appellants and the recoveries of the pistols---In such manner the said report of Forensic Science Agency had no evidentiary value as the possibility of fabrication was apparent---Therefore, the recovery of the pistols from the appellants did not further the case of the prosecution in any manner---In view of the said facts, the recovery of the pistols from the appellants were not proved and the same could not be used as a circumstance against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Zahid alias Billa VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, recovery of stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence alone not sufficient for conviction---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Medical evidence was of no assistance in this case as medical evidence by its nature and character, could not recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved incident---As all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case had been disbelieved and discarded, therefore, the appellants' conviction could not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Zahid alias Billa VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, recovery of stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Blatant improvements made by the eye-witnesses in their statements---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Record showed that the eye-witnesses made blatant improvements to their previous statements in order to bring the ocular account in line with the observations of Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and went on to claim that during the occurrence only one accused fired at the deceased and the deceased also suffered one firearm entry wound on his body though initially the eye-witnesses had stated that two of the assailants had fired at the deceased, hitting him separately---Said witnesses made a deliberate and dishonest departure from their earlier narrations of the occurrence while deposing before the Trial Court---By improving their previous statements, the eye-witnesses impeached their own credibility---As the eye-witnesses introduced dishonest, blatant and substantial improvements to their previous statements and were duly confronted with their former statements, hence their credibility stood impeached and the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Zahid alias Billa VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, recovery of stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Test identification parade---Eye-witnesses already aware of particulars of accused before test identification parade---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---In order to prove the identities of the appellants as being the accused involved in the occurrence, prosecution got eye-witnesses examined, who both stated that on 16.03.2018 they had identified the appellants during the test identification parade proceedings held to establish the identities of the appellants---Names of the assailants were not mentioned in the oral statement of eye-witness and the FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons---Subsequently, both the eye-witnesses got recorded their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C on 03.03.2018, wherein they not only named the appellants as accused who had committed the occurrence but also gave all the details with regard to their particulars---Eye-witness even claimed that he had named the appellants in his oral statement---Other eye-witness in his statement before the Court stated that he nominated the appellants in the case in the police station---Said portion of the statements of the eye-witnesses clearly reflected that the identities and the particulars of the appellants were in the knowledge of said witnesses, therefore, there did not exist any reason for the said witnesses not to have named the appellants as accused on the day when the FIR was being registered---Moreover, when every detail regarding the assailants was disclosed by eye-witnesses through, their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. on 03.03.2018, then the holding of the test identification parade proceedings even otherwise was an exercise in futility---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Zahid alias Billa VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, recovery of stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Ocular account of the incident had been given by two witnesses---Said witnesses were not the residents of the place of occurrence---One witness was resident of other district whereas the residence of other witness was at a distance of 12-15 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Admitted aspect of the prosecution case was that both the prosecution witnesses had their residences or their places of business at quite a distance from the place of occurrence, thus both the witnesses could be validly termed as "chance witnesses"---Prosecution witnesses claimed that on the day of occurrence they had gone to the city B-(Burewala) and when they were returning from the said city, the occurrence took place on their arrival within the area of place of occurrence---Perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of the trial revealed that they could not prove their stated reasons for their visit to the city B-(Bureala) and return from the said city to their arrival within the area of place of occurrence---One of the eye-witnesses candidly admitted during cross-examination that he provided no reason to the Investigating Officer of the case for his visit to the city B-(Burewala) and his subsequent return from the said city and his arrival at the place of occurrence---Similarly, the other prosecution witness only stated that he was coming back from city B-(Burewala) to his own house when the occurrence took place, however, he did not explain any reason available with him for having visited the city B-(Burewala) on the day of the incident and that too with the deceased when admittedly other witness was the resident of other district---Moreover, during the investigation of the case, no statement of any witness was recorded with whom the prosecution witnesses had entered into any transaction on the day of occurrence which would have substantiated the claim of the said witnesses that on the day of occurrence, they had visited and were returning from the city B-(Burewala) when the incident took place---Alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned in column No.4 of the inquest report as being the ones who were present at the time of preparation of the said inquest report by the Investigating Officer---Said witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the postmortem examination of the same---Dead body of the deceased was identified by other witness, who admitted during cross-examination that he was not even related to the deceased---Moreover, it had not been explained and was also implausible that when prosecution witnesses were ostensibly present at the place of occurrence at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case and the departure of the dead body to the RHC for the purpose of its post mortem examination then why it was found necessary to get the dead body identified by other witness, who was not even related to the deceased---Said witnesses also admitted that they did not accompany the dead body of the deceased to the RHC when the same was taken from the place of incident---Such conduct of the witnesses where they failed to accompany the dead body of the deceased to the hospital revealed their absence at the place of occurrence---Admitted part of the prosecution case was that though the occurrence had taken place at about 05.45 p.m., however, according to Medical Officer, the dead body of the deceased was brought to the hospital at 11.00 p.m.---Even one of the eye-witness admitted that after the occurrence, the dead body remained at the place of occurrence for about 2-2½ hours---Delay in dispatching the dead body to the RHC was indicative of the fact that the said time was consumed to procure the attendance of prosecution witnesses from their houses---All the said facts were conspicuous and telling of the fact that eye-witnesses were not present at the place and time of occurrence and their attendance was procured subsequently---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Zahid alias Billa vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 2013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR