Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2242 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 Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of motorcycle from witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Perusal of complaint revealed that deceased, injured and another person were going to the house of their friend while riding on two motorcycles---However during investigation only one motorcycle belonging to deceased was taken into possession, whereas no description of any of the motorcycles, upon which the witnesses were riding, was provided---Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the motorcycle of the witnesses in order to verify the contents of complaint to connect the accused with the alleged offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 02 hours and 25 minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Incident took place on 28.12.2019 at about 2:15 p.m.---Though FIR in that case was registered within 02 hours & 25 minutes of the incident---Said aspect was canvassed as the strong point of prosecution but the perusal of record shed doubt upon the acclaimed time of imparting information of crime to police---In that regard, firstly it was noticed that after the incident Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared inquest report and in its column No. 3 mentioned only the date of incident as 28.12.2019 and did not describe the time of occurrence---Said fact was admitted by Investigating Officer during his cross-examination---Thus, it could conveniently be held that by the time the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the time of incident was not known to him---Such facts gave indication that the FIR was not registered at the time mentioned in the relevant column---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Dishonest improvements made by witness---Scope---Witness who polluted his evidence through dishonest improvements indeed compromised his own integrity which rendered him unworthy of any credence. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Injured not produced for evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Depositions of both the eye-witnesses were falsified from the fact that as per prosecution case during the incident friend of deceased received a firearm injury at the right heel allegedly caused by acquitted accused---Admittedly, as per FIR the occurrence took place on 28.12.2019 at 2:15 p.m., however no Medico-Legal Certificate of that injured was available on the record---According to the statement of Medical Officer, he on 29.12.2019 at about 10:00 a.m. after conducting medico legal examination of the injured issued Medico-Legal Certificate and noted a lacerated wound on the edge of heel of right side of foot---However, said injured did not appear before the Trial Court in support of the injury received by him and to explain delay in conducting his medical examination despite receiving firearm injury---No attempt on part of the prosecution to call injured as Court witness was oozing from the perusal of record---Legitimate inference which could be drawn from the withholding of such important piece of evidence was in accordance with Art.129 Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which was to the effect that had injured appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive, not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---As per contents of FIR, the motive behind the occurrence statedly was that on 28.12.2019 at about 1:00 p.m. a vituperative language was exchanged between friend of deceased and the accused on mobile phone---Although both the eye-witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court deposed in line with the motive, however the same was not attributed to the appellants---In fact the motive was ascribed against friend of deceased who was not given even a scratch by the appellants---Moreover, in the complaint the complainant did not mention the name of the accused with whom friend of deceased exchanged abusive language on mobile phone---Besides that, during investigation the complainant party did not adduce any evidence in support of the motive---In such circumstances, the motive set out in the FIR remained unproved---Moreover, once the motive was set up by the prosecution and same was not proved, the prosecution would suffer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence leads to tell the cause of death but does not provide the detail about the actual culprit. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Insofar as the recovery of .30 bore pistols at the instance of appellants was concerned, it was observed that on his first visit at the place of occurrence on the eventful day Investigating Officer took into possession four crime empties of .30 bore pistol through recovery memo---Forensic Science Agency Report revealed that the pistols recovered from the appellants were examined and found to be in mechanical operating condition, however it was opined by the expert of Forensic Science Agency that because of differences in individual characteristics the cartridge cases could not have been fired in the pistols---Thus, the recovery of pistols at the instance of appellants was inconsequential and was of no use to the prosecution for considering it a corroborative piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---In the present case, both the eye-witnesses were residents of a place situated at a distance of 15/16 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Said fact was admitted by eye-witness during his cross-examination---Moreover, both the eye-witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court had failed to give any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot, rather simply claimed to be in the company of deceased and uttered not a single word for their reason of being so---Presence of both the eye-witnesses at the spot, in the manner they claimed, made them chance witnesses and their deposition suspected evidence---Thus, the depositions of eye-witnesses were to be discarded from consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 08-hours in conducting autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Despite the information of crime having been conveyed to police before 4:40 p.m. still the autopsy of deceased was conducted at 9:45 p.m.---Intervening duration of about 8-hours between the time of incident and autopsy remained unexplained---Medical Officer, who performed autopsy upon the body of deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that the police papers were received by him at 9:30 p.m.---Unexplained delay in submission of police papers to the Medical Officer and holding autopsy was always considered fatal for the prosecution case and led to conclude that the story of the prosecution was cooked up after procuring the attendance of false eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---As per complaint, complainant narrated the tale of incident in a way to give impression that he along with witnesses had seen the occurrence but nowhere mentioned that he was not present at the spot and whatever he narrated in the complaint was on the asking of someone---Perusal of record showed that eye-witness in his examination-in-chief stated that the deceased and the injured were shifted to THQ Hospital where complainant reached and the entire occurrence was narrated to him---Occurrence took place at 2:15 p.m. and FIR was chalked out at 4:40 p.m. and what precluded witness and other eye-witnesses from reporting the matter directly to police regarding a broad daylight occurrence, made the prosecution case highly doubtful---Moreover, the name of a person from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint was not found---Neither the scriber of the complaint was produced before Investigating Officer nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of complainant---Admittedly, complainant died prior to recoding of his evidence before the Court, though, in such circumstances, FIR could be brought on record through secondary evidence, yet it could not be termed as a corroboratory piece of evidence keeping in view the non-appearance of the complainant, who did not appear in the witness box and was not subjected to cross-examination---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Limitation, condonation of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Appeal against acquittal of two accused was filed---Notable that along with the appeal, the applicant also filed an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as the same was barred by time---Evident from the record that the impugned judgment was passed on 24.08.2021, and the applicant applied for its certified copies on 08.09.2021---Certified copies were delivered to the applicant on 14.09.2021, who filed the appeal in this Court on 08.05.2023---Appellant had not explained the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, provided the time limit for filing an appeal against acquittal was 30 days under S.417 (2-A), Cr.P.C.---Therefore, an application for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was not maintainable due to the bar contained in S.29(2)(a) and (b) of the Limitation Act 1908---In view of particular limitation of thirty days prescribed by the statute, the provision of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, had lost its applicability in the issue---Lapse of time was, in a criminal matter, sufficient to protect a person who had been acquitted against the other judicial process---Appeal against acquittal being time barred was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR