Muhammad Fayyaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2372 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 Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement, recording of---Infirmities---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate with an application that accused wanted to record his confessional statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. and he was sent to judicial lockup and his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., was recorded on 14.06.2022---Judicial Magistrate who recorded the judicial confession stated that it was not in his notice that at the time of recording statement of accused under S.164, Cr.P.C.,he remained on fourteen days physical remand---Judicial Magistrate stated that in the order dated 14.06.2022, it had been mentioned that all the concerned people had been ordered to leave the Court Room, however, it had not been specifically mentioned that Naib Court and Investigation Officer was also asked to leave the Court Room---No doubt the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., indicated that the accused was produced from District Jail, however, the attendance of Investigating Officer was marked, when the accused was asked to record his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., not asking the Investigating Officer as well as otherpolice personnel specifically to leave the Court Room was a seriousloophole and all the concerned people had been ordered to leave the Court room was not enough to satisfy the legal requirement when it was not mentioned that especially the Investigating Officer had left the Court room and more importantly when the accused was even not told that he would not be remanded to the police after making a statement---Thus, it appeared that important legal requirement escaped from the consideration of Judicial Magistrate---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Record showed that weapon of offence was recovered from accused, however no independent witness from the place of recovery was associated by the Investigation Officer and in all the recoveries complainant as well as his brother (since not produced) were shown recovery witnesses---Said part of the evidence could not produce the corroboration---Even otherwise, the recovery was deemed to be corroborative in nature and it was used to corroborate the direct or circumstantial evidence---Moreover, whenever direct evidence was disbelieved it would not be safe to maintain conviction on confirmatory evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Single accused---Substitution---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---No doubt, substitution of single accused in a murder charge was a rare phenomenon but at the same time to put the rope around the neck of an accused charged singly, there must be circumstantial evidence/ocular account of unimpeachable character, trustworthy and confidence inspiring corroboration from the other pieces of evidence---Moreover, it was not the requirement of the law or the justice to consider the evidence of the prosecution as gospel truth if it was a case of sole accused rather it was the judicial duty of the Court to assess the intrinsic worth of the evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence may have confirmed the ocular account/circumstantial evidence with regard to the receipt of injury and kind of weapon but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of crime. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Call Data Record---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Prosecution produced Police Officer/ASI to prove Call Data Record; the said witness on cross-examination stated that neither Call Data Record had been signed by any person nor the name of the officer who prepared the same was appearing---For the said sole reason such evidence was hardly helpful for the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---DNA and Serology Analysis Report---Doubts qua involvement of accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Prosecution placed reliance on the reports of DNA and Serology Analysis Report, whereby prosecution tried to prove the place of occurrence---Crime Scene Unit had secured blood stain found on eastern wall of north-western room of "DERA"---Accordingly, to that extent report of Forensic Science Agency was supporting the case of prosecution in terms that the accused had also pointed out the said place as 'place of murder' of the deceased---Swabs taken from 'Iron Bar' (the alleged weapon of offence) got recovered by the accused was also sent to Forensic Science Agency for DNA report---Conclusion of Forensic Science Agency was not certain about presence of DNA of accused found on the said 'Iron Bar'---So, to that extent, said segment of prosecution evidence was doubtful qua involvement of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence not supporting prosecution's case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Medical evidence was furnished by Medical Officer, who observed 'semi digested healthy food' in large intestine and its contents---Post mortem was conducted on 13.05.2022 at 12:00 night whereas the probable time' between the death and the post mortem was stated as 11-12 hours---Deceased went to the tuition on 12.05.2022 at about 3:30 p.m. and was missing thereafter---Medical Officer stated that deceased had taken meal prior to 10-12 hours; the said time did not coincide with the time of missing/murder claimed by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Record showed that the complainant and a witness/tuition fellow of the deceased had not seen deceased in the company of the accused throughout the fateful day or even entering in the 'Dera', venue of the crime, with him---Strange enough, the tuition fellow to the deceased had not intimated to the complainant on the fateful day his query from the accused; not on the next day when the dead-body was recovered/found on 17.05.2022; not when the complainant implicated the appellant vide his application; rather his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., was recorded on 19.05.2022, after around seven days of tragedy of murder---In said eventuality, silence of witness about the fact for seven days casted serious doubt on his testimony---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Voluntariness not established---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Accused had stated in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.,that he had nothing to do with the murder---Accused further stated that local police arrested the accused in the car park the day after the incident and kept him in illegal detention---It was alleged by accused that later police tortured him and forced him to confess to the said crime otherwise the police would arrest his brother and sister-in-law and implicate them in the case and he had been forced to give a statement in the Court---Complainant implicated the appellant through his written application dated 17.05.2022---After three/four days of registration of the FIR, the said vital witness was cross-examined relating to his said application, how he implicated the appellant---Exact words of his answer were that he had not nominated the accused on the basis of suspicion rather he had nominated the accused on his disclosure qua murder of his son---Subsequent application was filed by the complainant on 17.05.2022, it was not the case of prosecution that appellant had made any extra judicial confession before complainant or others then how the disclosure was made by the accused on 17.05.2022---Said shared portion of the complainant supported the stance of the accused thathe was arrested the day after the incident---Version of the accused was near to the truth due to said shared answer, he was arrested shortly before filing of that application on 17.05.2022 whereas his arrest was shown by the Investigation Officer on 31.05.2022---In the said peculiar fact, the omitted questions were more mandatory and required---Prosecution failed to establish the segment of judicial confession as being without duress, coercion, compulsion, threat, ill treatment or any other extraneous consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Last seen evidence---Scope---Last seen evidence is one where two persons are seen together alive and after an interval of time, one of them is found alive and the other dead---If the period between the two is short, presumption can be drawn that the person alive is the author of the other's death---Fundamental principles of last seen evidence are probability, cause and connection and requires a cogent reason that (i) the deceased in normal and ordinary course is supposed to accompany the accused; (ii) proximity of the crime scene; (iii) small time gap between the sighting and crime; (iv) no possibility of third person interference; (v) motive; (vi) time of death of victim---Circumstances of last seen together do not by themselves necessarily lead to the inference that it is the accused who committed the crime---There must be something more, establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Fayyaz VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---One circumstance creating doubt is enough to extend benefit of same to the accused.

Muhammad Fayyaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR