Shakeel Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2337 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.

Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by the witnesses---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---Ocular account in the case was furnished by complainant and three eye-witnesses/injured---Record showed that one of the witnesses of ocular account did not provide any ocular account of the actual assault and only testified to recovery proceedings---Thus, the ocular account was effectively confined to complainant and one injured female---Though the said two witnesses were having stamp of injuries on their persons yet they could not be considered to be the truthful witnesses solely on the ground of their being injured---Testimony of said two witnesses was found to have some legal flaws as well---Both the eye-witnesses put forth the details of incident which inspired no confidence---Both the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvement in their testimony---Such witnesses lost their credence on account of having polluted their deposition---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness---Effect---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---Ocular account in the case was furnished by complainant, and three eye-witnesses/injured---Though, one of the injured female recorded her examination-in-chief but later on she was given up by complainant being wonover---By withholding the cross-examination of such an important witness, an adverse inference in terms of art.129 Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was drawn that had she appeared for cross-examination, she would not have supported the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---During trial, both the eye-witnesses consistently attributed the fatal head injury of deceased to co-accused, who had been acquitted by the Trial Court by giving him the benefit of doubt---No appeal against acquittal of co-accused had been filed, thus the acquittal of co-accused had attained finality---So far as the present appellant was concerned, he was simply burdened with the accusation of having inflicted sota blow on left arm of female injured/eye-witness---Careful review of the testimony of female injured revealed that although she claimed that the appellant hit her with a sota blow but it did not inspire the confidence required for conviction of the appellant in the case, in the absence of independent corroboration, especially considering the overall inconsistencies that led to the acquittal of principal accused---Moreover, the injury allegedly attributed to the appellant on the head of female injured was simple in nature and the possibility of misidentification or exaggeration during a chaotic incident involving multiple assailants could not be ruled out---In the interest of justice benefit of doubt must also be extended to the appellant regarding the charge of hurt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-E---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Initial plea of guilt---Conviction based on intial confession---Scope and principles---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---Record showed that the Trial Court, having recorded the appellant's alleged confession under S.265-E, Cr.P.C., did not immediately act upon it but opted to proceed with recording the prosecution's evidence under S.265-F, Cr.P.C.---While a Trial Court had the discretion to convict on a guilty plea under S.265-E, Cr.P.C., if it had chosen to record prosecution evidence under S.265-F,Cr.P.C., that discretion must be exercised with utmost care, and ordinarily, awarding a capital sentence solely on such an admission should be avoided, with the prosecution's evidence being recorded in the interest of justice---Once a Trial Court opted to record the entire prosecution evidence, its decision must be grounded in the evidence produced during the trial, and not solely on the initial confession---In the present case, the Trial Court appeared to have acted contrary to these established legal principles and the evidence on record by convicting the appellant based on his initial plea of guilt after having conducted a full trial---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence casting doubt over the prosecution story---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---Medical evidence was furnished by Female Medical Officer, who medically examined female injured on 02.02.2015---Said Medical Officer had mentioned probable time between injury and medical examination as four days---Such enormous delay casted serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story---Though the Female Medical Officer observed contusion of about 04 x 3.2 cm on victim's left forearm on posterolateral aspect near elbow joint yet that was simple in nature---In the given circumstances, the medical evidence did not provide any strength to the prosecution case so far as it related to the case of appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Delay of twenty two hours and thirty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting sota blows and also caused injuries to three other inmates---according to the complaint lodged by complainant, the occurrence in the case took place on 29.01.2015 at about 1:30/2:00 P.M. and the matter was reported to police on the following day i.e. 30.01.2015 at about 12:35 p.m. at police station situated at a distance of 15 K.M from the place of occurrence---Thus, there was an unexplained delay of about twenty two hours and thirty five minutes in lodging of the FIR---Said delay in the registration of FIR had given reasonable clue that either the incident remained un-witnessed or narrator of ocular account had no previous acquaintance with the actual assassin---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising out of the case. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Shakeel Ahmad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 427, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of sota on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting sota blows and also causing injuries to three other inmates---Record showed that a sota was recovered on the disclosure and pointing out of the appellant---However, it was a daily use item and was not forwarded to the Forensic Science agency for its forensic analysis, thus it could not be used against the appellant---Moreover, when the ocular account was discarded, there remained nothing to be corroborated through recoveries---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Shakeel Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2337 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR