Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2585 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.

Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---According to the prosecution's narration in the FIR, on the day of the incident, deceased and injured witness were heading to the house of injured's sister, while complainant and eye-witness were following them---No plausible explanation had been provided by those witnesses for following the deceased and injured at the exact time when the appellants allegedly attacked and caused injuries to injured witness and murdered the deceased---Said lack of a reasonable explanation raised questions about the fact of following the deceased and the injured by the said witnesses---Akin to the above, complainant of the case was a resident of another place, which was 1-¼ kms. away from the place of occurrence, whereas the residence of eye-witness was at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he worked in a private company in "I", more than hundred kilometers away from his residence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene was not only highly improbable but also unnatural, and at best rendered their depositions as of 'chance witnesses'---No cogent reason had been provided by complainant of the case and eye-witness to justify their presence at the venue of the occurrence---Resultantly, the testimonies of said prosecution witnesses were discarded in view of the settled principle of law that when a single doubt reasonably shake the credibility of the presence of a witness at the venue of the crime, the same is sufficient to discard the entire testimony of said witness in its entirety---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Injured witness, evidence of---Not credible---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Although, the presence of the injured witness could not be doubted at the scene of the crime; however, the question remained whether injured was a truthful witness---Mere fact that injured sustained injuries did not automatically establish his credibility, especially when the existence of a source of light at the crime scene had been disbelieved, casting a significant skepticism on the accuracy of his identification---Alleged injuries would not stamp injured witness to be a truthful witness because of other discrepancies---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in recording the statement of injured witness---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Statement of the injured witness was recorded by Investigating Officer on the next day of lodging of FIR---Said material aspect of the prosecution's case regarding the one-day delay in recording the statement of injured witness under S.161, Cr.P.C., not only diminished the evidentiary value of his statement but also raised a reasonable doubt concerning the injuries he received, especially since the prosecution case was silent on the point as to whether the witness was unable to record his statement during that period---Even one or two days unexplained delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be fatal and testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Prosecution specifically alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a previous enmity between the parties---However, the alleged motive rested solely on the oral assertion of the complainant as no corroborative evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate its claim---Prosecution was not obligated to prove motive in every murder case, it was equally established that once the prosecution set up a specific motive, it assumed the burden of proving it---Failure to discharge that burden operated to the detriment of the prosecution, not the accused---Consequently, there was no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive behind the unfortunate incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offences on the disclosure of accused and crime empties from the spot---Not consequential as ocular account disbelieved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Appellant "J" was arrested on 05.06.2018 and no recovery was effected upon his disclosure, whereas rest of the appellants were arrested on 18.05.2018, who led to the recoveries on the basis of disclosures made by them on 30.05.2018---From "G", appellant, a 30-bore pistol and three live rounds were recovered, as mentioned in recovery memo---From "S", appellant, a 30-bore pistol and four live rounds, as mentioned in recovery memo and from "U", appellant, a 30-bore pistol and three live rounds were recovered, as mentioned in recovery memo which were deposited to the office of Forensic Science Agency, for comparison with the crime empties already secured from the place of occurrence---Although the Firearms & Tool marks Examination Report was positive but it was trite that once the intrinsic value of ocular account was disbelieved then rest of the corroboratory pieces of evidence, even of a higher degree, would automatically collapse---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Incident took place in darkness; in such a situation, the prosecution must establish presence of the source of light to rule out the possibility of mistaken identification, as that was a crucial rule of caution rather than a statutory requirement---Light enabled witnesses to identify the lineaments and physiognomy of the offender, whereas darkness left them unable to accurately recognize the perpetrator---In the present case, although the source of light (bulb) was mentioned in the FIR and site plan, but the fact remained that no source of light was seized during investigations by both the Investigating Officers, which reflected that no light was present at the crime scene---Therefore, it was held that the mention of the source of light in the FIR and the site plan appeared to be hypothetical, raising serious doubts about the presence of the light at the crime scene during the occurrence---Such inconsistency casted skepticism on the credibility of the witnesses who maintained that they witnessed the occurrence in the dark, and it significantly affected the veracity of the identification of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Photographic narration in FIR casting doubt over its authenticity---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Notable aspect of the case was that the FIR contained a detailed photographic narration of the entire occurrence, explicitly attributing specific injuries caused by firearms to the appellants---Account was presented with such precision that every element of the incident was perfectly specified---Such degree of specificity raised a substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the account, strongly suggesting that the complainant had fabricated the entire narrative as set forth in the FIR after consulting with the post-mortem examination report and medico legal examination certificate---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 11 hours and 30 minutes in conducting the postmortem---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and caused firearm injuries to another person---Perusal of the post-mortem examination report of the deceased revealed that the dead body was received in the morgue at 9:30 p.m. on 22.04.2018, while the complete documents from the police were also received at 7:30 a.m. on 23.04.2018---Medical Officer conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 07.45 am, after a lapse of approximately 11 hours and 30 minutes---Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant were unable to point any justifiable reason for the delay in carrying out the post-mortem examination of the deceased from the entire record---Such unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously access and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence---In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused persons and plant eye-witnesses of the crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 07 hours and 55 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person---Unfortunate occurrence, whereby one person lost his life and other was injured, took place at 8:15 p.m. on 22.04.2018 while the matter was reported to the police on 23.04.2018 at 4:10 am, with an inordinate delay of about 7 hours and 55 minutes despite the police station being merely 4 kilometers away from the place of occurrence---According to column No. 3 of the inquest report, the date and time when police got information about the death was scribed as 23.04.2018 at 4:10 a.m.---Such belated lodging of the FIR shattered the sanctity of the same and reflected that time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story, as no plausible justification or adequate explanation was furnished by the prosecution for this delay---Complainant of the case being dissatisfied with the police investigation filed a private complaint on 15.03.2019 with the delay of almost ten months and twenty-two days of the occurrence---Prosecution had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning that the private complaint had been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Arslan alias Abdul Hadi alias Moona vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR