Farhan Saleem vs Anwar Hussain Ss — 2025 YLR 2612 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.

Farhan Saleem VS Anwar Hussain Ss. 302(b), 336, 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of injured not plausible---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing injuries to the complainant---According to the statement of the appellant, he was injured by two respondents, when he was present at the place of occurrence however, it was also a fact that the Investigating Officer of the case did not take into possession any blood-stained earth from the place where the appellant had been injured---Moreover, Medical Officer observed that the injuries which the appellant had suffered could have been a result of falling from the motorcycle after being hit---Other Medical Officer had also observed that there were grazing wounds on the finger and leg of the appellant, which wounds by their own description were not a result of the appellant being hit by any stone but were a result of the appellant falling from a motorcycle---Even the appellant admitted during cross-examination that after being hit by the vehicle he had fallen on the road---Fact remained that there was allegation against one of the respondents that he had hit the appellant with a stone, however, the said respondent was declared to have been falsely involved by the appellant and was not even summoned to face the trial of the case---Appellant in his statement recorded by the Trial Court never stated that he was taken to the hospital after the occurrence or that he was examined by any Medical Officer---In the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by Patwari, the place where the appellant had suffered from the injuries had not been marked---Implausibility of the narrative of the incident as given by the appellant, making the same not worthy of any reliance, was proved by the fact that the appellant stated that he ran away from the place where he had been hit while on foot, whereas the accused, who had arrived at the place of hitting of the appellant while riding a vehicle, instead of pursuing the appellant on their own vehicle, continued to follow him on foot---Most importantly, according to the appellant, when the accused had caught up with the appellant, they, instead of firing at the appellant, fired at his brother/ deceased---Said very improbability of the narrative of the occurrence as stated by the appellant was in itself sufficient to reject the same---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Farhan Saleem VS Anwar Hussain Ss. 302(b), 336, 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-udw, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing injuries to the complainant---According to the appellant, the motive of the occurrence was that the appellant had married the daughter of the respondent, however as the said respondent was not happy over the said marriage therefore his wife left him and filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage as against the appellant and that was the only fact that the occurrence took place---In that scenario, it was hard to believe that the appellant would have been shown the courtesy of not being harmed at all during the incident in which deceased was fired at twice and died, when the appellant should have also been the target of the assailants---During the incident in which deceased was fired at twice and died, the appellant did not receive even a single scratch on his body rather was not even targeted at all---If the appellant had been present in the view of the assailants, then he would not have been spared---Blessing the appellant with such an incredible consideration and showing him such favour, the person with whom the assailants had a direct dispute, was implausible and opposed to the natural behaviour of any accused---Thus, motive of the occurrence as alleged was not proved---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Farhan Saleem VS Anwar Hussain Ss. 302(b), 336, 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 103 & 417(2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing injuries to the complainant---In the present case, the recoveries of the weapons from the respondents could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the said recoveries which was in clear violation of the provisions of the S.103, Cr.P.C---Provisions of this section, unfortunately, were honoured more in disuse than compliance---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Farhan Saleem VS Anwar Hussain Ss. 302(b), 336, 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 6-8 hours in conducting post mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing injuries to the complainant---According to the post mortem report as well as the statement of Medical Officer, there was a lapse of about 6-8 hours between the death and the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased---Perusal of the post mortem examination report as well as the statement of Medical Officer clearly established the fact that the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was delayed---No explanation was offered to justify the said delay in conducting the post mortem examination---Said fact clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post mortem examination was used to procure their attendance and formulate a false narrative after consultation and concert---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Farhan Saleem VS Anwar Hussain Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of the accused facing criminal charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the Court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or perverse.

Farhan Saleem vs Anwar Hussain Ss — 2025 YLR 2612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR