Zahid Hussain vs State S — 2025 YLR 2359 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.

Zahid Hussain VS State S. 363---Kidnapping---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material witness---Effect---Accused was charged for kidnapping the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the only incriminating material put-forth by the prosecution to connect present appellant with the commission of offence was the statement of wife of co-accused incorporated by Investigating Officer in his case diary who deposed that her husband and appellant brought the minor in her house and handed over it to Mst. "K"---Significantly, wife of co-accused would have been the best witness for the prosecution to strengthen their case, however, she was not called as a witness to give evidence for the prosecution nor any statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., was got recorded by the Investigating Officer---Non-associating of said female in investigation process was intentional, apparently to suppress the actual facts of the incident and had she appeared before the police or Court, she would not have supported the case of prosecution, thus adverse inference could be drawn as per Art.129, illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Zahid Hussain VS State S. 363---Kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Accused was charged for kidnapping the minor son of complainant---Appellant made extra-judicial confession about the commission of offence---However, the evidence of extra judicial confession is always regarded as weak in nature and is generally fabricated in cases where requisite incriminating evidence is lacking---For this good reason, the evidence of extra judicial confession is not considered sufficient for awarding conviction---Court was aware of the fact that the whereabouts of minor were still unknown and he was still missing but since the Courts were creation of law, hence, had to decide the fate of cases in accordance with available evidence and not being driven through sentiments and emotions---No doubt conviction could be awarded to an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence but if the incriminating circumstances are knitted with each other, then failure of one link destroys the entire chain---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Zahid Hussain VS State S. 363---Kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for kidnapping the minor son of complainant---Perusal of record revealed that regarding the occurrence which took place on 04.05.2010, FIR was got registered on 07.05.2010 i.e. with the delay of three days---Complainant during cross-examination had himself admitted that distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station was of 03-kilometers---Therefore, immediately after the incident the matter could conveniently be reported to the police by the complainant but no such effort was made in that regard---Even from the date of occurrence i.e. 04.05.2010 to 07.10.2010 neither complainant appeared before the Investigating Officer nor made any application for the registration of FIR---Moreover, it was not proved from record that Investigating Officer received any information about the occurrence from wireless or any source---Information regarding the incident was imparted to the police by the complainant after a considerable delay and that too after due consultation and deliberation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Zahid Hussain VS State S. 363---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused was charged for kidnapping the minor son of complainant---Complainant had implicated as many as sixteen individuals in the case, however, all of them, except the appellant, were either discharged during the police investigation or acquitted by the Trial Court and despite naming numerous individuals, the complainant had not attributed any specific roles to any of them or clearly identified the actions performed by each accused during the incident---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zahid Hussain vs State S — 2025 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR