Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 2270 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.

Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her throat---Record showed that two co-accused were acquitted, who were named as accused and specific roles were also attributed to them of holding the deceased during the incident, however, both were acquitted by the Trial Court after their application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., was accepted---Acquittal of said two co-accused had attained finality as neither the State nor the complainant or any other aggrieved person had filed any appeal against the acquittal of the said accused of the appellant---Admittedly, common set of witnesses could be used for recording acquittal and conviction against the accused persons who were charged for the commission of same offence---If a witness was not coming out with the whole truth, then his evidence was liable to be discarded as a whole---Meaning thereby that evidence of such witness could not be used either for convicting the accused or acquitting some of them facing trial in the same case---All the prosecution witnesses attributed specific roles to both the co-accused of the appellant of holding the deceased during the incident, however, the said witnesses were found to have made false statements with regard to the co-accused of the appellant---Thus, court neither found any independent corroboration of the prosecution case against the appellant nor to distinguish the case of the appellant from the case of the acquitted co-accused as the evidence with regard to the appellant and with regard to her acquitted co-accused was similar---Hence, there was no reason to believe the statements of the witnesses with regard to the appellant in the absence of any reason to do so---Therefore, the evidence of eye-witnesses had no worth and deserved outright rejection---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her throat---Ocular account of the occurrence as furnished by the eye-witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence as furnished by Medical Officer and flawed beyond mending, resulting in disfiguring the complexion of the whole prosecution case beyond reparation and recognition---According to the statements of the witnesses, they had seen the appellant, pressing the neck of the deceased with her hands and kept pressing the same till the deceased died---However, Medical Officer, on examining the dead body of deceased did not observe any marks of violence on the neck of the dead body of the deceased---Had the deceased been throttled in the manner as stated by witnesses then Medical Officer must have observed the evidence of marks of pressure by the thumb and the fingertips, fingertip bruises, linear or crescentic marks produced by the fingernails, abrasions and bruises on the mouth, nose, cheeks, forehead, lower jaw or any other part of the body, however she did not---Oral account of the occurrence, as given by eye-witnesses, could not be said to be in accordance with the medical evidence, rather was proved to be contrary to it---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Evidence, corroboration of---Principle---One tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State S. 161---Delayed statement of witness---Scope---Delayed recording of the statement of a prosecution witness under S.161, Cr.P.C., reduces its value to nothing unless there is a plausible explanation for such delay. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her throat---Record showed that the alleged eye-witnesses made no effort either to save the deceased or to apprehend the accused when they were three in number and could have easily restrained the accused---Claim of the witnesses that the accused, a woman, was not even armed with any weapon and still they did not make any effort either to apprehend the accused or save the deceased---Unnatural and unbelievable that the alleged eye-witnesses did not even move a limb to protect their near and dear one---No person having ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would remain watching the proceedings as mere spectators for as long as the occurrence continued without doing anything to rescue the deceased or to apprehend the assailant---Such fact only proved that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailant and no one was there to save her---Such behaviour, on the part of the witnesses, ran counter to natural human conduct and behavior---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her throat---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the witnesses was that the deceased and the appellant had an altercation just before the occurrence due to the damage to the plate put on the oven by the deceased which resulted in the said incident---However, the eye-witnesses failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as stated by them---Investigating Officer of the case on his visit to the place of occurrence did not find any such damaged plate (Thaal) present at the place of occurrence nor any such damaged plate (Thaal) was produced before him during the investigation of the case as proof of the motive of the incident---Investigating Officer of the case on his visit to the place of occurrence took into possession all the available evidence from the place of occurrence, however, did not take any such damaged plate (Thaal) even observed any such damaged plate (Thaal), amply proving that the motive alleged was absolutely false---Perusal of the statements of the witnesses amply proved that there was no evidence on record that deceased was facing any threat to her life at the hands of the appellant prior to the occurrence rather, to the contrary, she was living with the appellant and other relatives till her tragic death---Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling the Court to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---Moreover, there was a poignant hush with regard to the particulars of the motive alleged---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her neck---Perusal of the prosecution evidence revealed that the ocular account of the incident was narrated by the complainant and two eye-witnesses---Only one of the witnesses was the resident of the place of occurrence---Said witness did not join the investigation of the case on the day of occurrence, even after the FIR. had been registered---Admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the statement of the said witness was recorded with substantial delay, however, at the same time, the various prosecution witnesses made different claims regarding the date of recording of the statement of the witness under S.161, Cr.P.C---Said witness stated that after the occurrence, he was present at the place of occurrence when the police came and inquired from him regarding the incident---Contradicting the said claim of the said witness, the Investigating Officer of the case stated that the statement of the said witness was recorded for the first time on 28.12.2016 i.e., after as many as four months and eighteen days of the occurrence---No explanation, much less probable, had been given by the prosecution witnesses for the eye-witness not getting his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., recorded immediately and therefore no value could be attached to his statement---Remaining two eye-witnesses also could not prove their arrival at the place and time of occurrence and their witnessing the incident---Said eye-witnesses were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---Accordingly to the prosecution, both of the said witnesses had their residences at a distance of about as much as about 5-6Acres from the place of occurrence---In that manner, both the remaining witnesses could be validly termed as "chance witnesses" and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place and time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---Alleged eye-witnesses claimed that on the day of occurrence, they had gone to the place of occurrence in order to measure a newly constructed room there---During the cross-examination, prosecution witnesses were badly exposed with regard to that there did not exist any reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence---Proven failure of the said witnesses to prove their reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence, on the very day of the incident, had repercussions, proving that there was no reason actually for the witnesses to be visiting the place of occurrence---Very inception of the prosecution case was thus put in doubt due to the said abject failure of the witnesses---Prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only that the witnesses had a reason to proceed to the place of occurrence however, failure of the prosecution to prove the said fact had vitiated the trust of this Court in said witnesses as being truthful witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by pressing her throat---Eye-witnesses claimed that the occurrence took place exactly at the time when they had arrived at the place of occurrence---Said narrative of the witnesses that the accused kept waiting for the arrival of the witnesses at the place of occurrence and thereafter committed the same wasunnatural and could not be believed---Moreover, it opposed to human conduct that an assailant would keep waiting for the arrival of the witnesses prior to the commission of the offence---All the more illogical that being perceptive of the fact that by pending the matter the accused run the risk of the arrival of the witnesses and their deposing against the accused, even then the assailant kept waiting for their arrival---Such behavior, on the part of the accused, as deposed by the witnesses, ran counter to natural human conduct and behavior---Hence, being perceptive of that strain of human conduct, the Court was holding that the witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State abscondence---Scope---abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence.

Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai vs State Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR