Ali Raza vs State acquittal of co-accused on same set of evidence — 2025 YLR 2187 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.

Ali Raza VS State acquittal of co-accused on same set of evidence---Scope---Once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they are supported by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and must be unimpeachable in nature. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Benefit of doubt---Conviction---Conjectures and probabilities---Scope---Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof---If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice with the consistent approval of the constitutional Courts, will be reduced to a naught. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If the prosecution fails to discharge its obligation and there remains a reasonable doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the guilt of the accused person, the benefit of this doubt is to be given to the accused person as of right, not as of concession. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Ss. 302(b),109 & 34---Qatl-i-amad, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive, not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive alleged by the prosecution was grudge of murder of appellant's brother---Statements of eye-witnesses account had already been disbelieved, therefore, no need to dilate upon the motive part of the occurrence, even otherwise, such like motive was a double-edged weapon, which, at one edge might be the reason for the assailant to commit the offence, but at the same time, it should equally be considered a reason for false implication of appellant on account of previous ill-will---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Ss. 302(b),109 & 34---Qatl-i-amad, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Pistol 30-bore was recovered on the disclosure and pointation of the appellant from the wall of a CNG pump---However, said recovery was not helpful to the prosecution, firstly, the same was recovered from an open place and secondly, the report of Forensic Science Agency was confined only to the working condition of pistol allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant---Thus, this piece of evidence was inconsequential---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State absconsion---Scope---abscondence alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can only be used as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account---abscondence of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Ss. 302(b),109 & 34---Qatl-i-amad, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per story of prosecution, firstly appellant and thereafter co-accused made three repeated fire shots each, which landed on the left side of chest of deceased---In such scenario, a man could not remain static after receipt of single pistol fire shot on the left side of his chest and as such other eight entry wounds at the same locale were not possible, that fact also made the prosecution story highly doubtful in nature---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Ss. 302(b),109 & 34---Qatl-i-amad, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Witnesses of ocular account were neither witnesses of inquest report nor postmortem report pertaining to deceased---If said witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time, they would have escorted the dead body to the hospital being brother and relative of deceased and their names would have been incorporated in the post mortem report in the column of identification of the dead body---Said facts had also constrained to hold that said witnesses had not been present at the time and place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Ss. 302(b),109 & 34---Qatl-i-amad, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution story, on 17.04.2008 at about 04:30 p.m. complainant along with deceased and eye-witnesses after attending the investigation of case FIR No. 596 of 2007 at SP, Office, F-(Faisalabad), came to H-(Hafizabad)and went to the house of deceased---Complainant stated that he was permanent resident of a village "R" which was 106 km from the place of occurrence---Eye-witness had also admitted that he was resident of village "R" and during the days of occurrence he was serving as Secretary Union Council of a Chak which was situated at a distance of 100 to 150 km from the place of occurrence---Said witness further stated that in the vicinity of place of occurrence neither he had any residence nor any business---Investigating Officer had admitted in his cross-examination that complainant and eye-witness were resident of "R" and it was an un-witnessed occurrence---Eye-witnesses had no occasion to go to "H"-(Hafizabad)---If it was admitted as correct that said witnesses joined the investigation at SP, office, "F"(Faisalabad) then after attending the inquiry, they should return to their own homes otherwise there should be cogent and valid reasoning to accompany deceased, which was lacking in the case---Moreover, the prosecution had failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence of any Police Official before whom they joined the investigation of case FIR No.596 of 2007---Both the eye-witnesses while appearing in the dock had not described the place of occurrence---Thus, eye-witnesses had failed to establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time rather they were related and chance witnesses and as such their evidence was not reliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Ali Raza vs State acquittal of co-accused on same set of evidence — 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR