Sadaqat vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2724 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.

Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by the eye-witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---In fact, it was conspicuous from record that the anomaly between medical and ocular evidence was not the only one rather there was another conflict between the two emerging from the statement of eye-witness---Appellant "S" was ascribed the role of inflicting fire shot injury on the right side of the back of deceased---Same stance was taken in the FIR as well as during trial by both the eye-witnesses in their examination-in-chief---During cross-examination of said eye-witness, it emerged that in fact in his S.161 Cr.P.C statement he described the locale of said injury on the left side of the back---Moreover, it could inescapably be gathered that said eye-witness made an intentional improvement in his Court statement to bring it in line with the medical evidence and to get rid of a variation with the opinion of the Medical Officer which was arising out of his police statement regarding the locale of one of the injuries attributed to appellant "S", hence, through such dishonest improvement eye-witness compromised his integrity which left a question mark upon the intrinsic worth of his deposition---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that Medical Officer candidly conceded during cross-examination that no police paper was provided to him before the autopsy and for obvious reason it was not signed by him---Question of vital importance arising was that if at all till the start of postmortem examination, the complaint and inquest report had been drafted then why those documents were not furnished to Medical officer---Complaint was drafted at the crime scene and was dispatched to police station through Police Constable for the registration of formal FIR but neither he was cited as witness in the prosecution case nor was produced during trial as such---Claim of registration of FIR without delay was a factor which was not to be projected through rhetoric but was to be substantiated through impeccable evidence---Since according to the claim of the prosecution, Police Constable transmitted the complaint to police station at 01:15 p.m. then the foregoing fact should have been proved by leading some evidence and not otherwise---Investigating Officer was duly cross-examined by the defence on the point but he remained speechless to explain the questioned omission of not citing said Police Constable as witness in the case---In the given circumstances, they were highly skeptical about the prompt registration of FIR rather the attending circumstances gave a clue that the needful was done much after the postmortem examination---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-production of motorcycled used by the eye-witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---According to eye-witnesses, they reached the spot on a motorcycle, the deceased arrived there after sometime on his own bike and the assailants were already sitting in ambush adjacent to the crime scene---Keeping in view the fact that eye-witnesses were residents of a place situated at the distance of 20-kilometers from the spot, thus the description of the motorcycle used by them was essentially required to be brought on record---None of the eye-witnesses lifted veil from the make, model, colour or registration number of the bike so used by them for reaching the crime scene nor it was taken into possession by the police during investigation---Moreover, the motorcycle of the witnesses found no place in the site plan which was prepared on their own pointation---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Motive---Scope---Motive could be considered as a justification for the commission of crime as well as reason for false implication in a crime, thus could not be conclusively used for any purpose, moreso when the narrators of the ocular account were disbelieved. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Eye-witnesses canvassed their presence at the spot on account of their visit to agricultural land---Intriguingly for the prosecution, even the incident had not taken place on or adjacent to the land belonging to the complainant rather occurred at the distance of 2½ squares therefrom---Realizing the importance of the distance in between the place of occurrence and the land owned by the witnesses, during trial they took the stance that beside the eventful place they had obtained on lease another piece of agricultural land from a Patwari but no oral or documentary supporting evidence in that regard was tendered by them---Though, eye-witnesses admitted to possess the mobile phones but came forward with the astonishing stance that at the eventful time those were in the use of some other persons---Said version though was preposterous but was intentionally taken as according to the respective grid reports, none out of the said two mobile phones was present in the vicinity where the questioned felony took place---Such stance of the witnesses stood exposed from the complaint wherein complainant himself mentioned his contact number---In such circumstances, the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot was doubtful---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Effect---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---In the present case, the eye-witnesses held three accused persons "S", "B" and "M" responsible for actively participating in the occurrence which culminated in the murder of deceased----To be precise all the three assailants were burdened with the specific allegation of inflicting firearm injuries to deceased at various locales---So far as co-accused "M" was concerned, he was ascribed the role of inflicting a fire shot injury on the abdomen of deceased through .12 bore weapon---From the medical evidence furnished by Medical Officer, it turned out that though he observed a lacerated wound just above umbilicus but on account of everted margins described it as an exit wound of a firearm injury on the back---Such anomaly prevailed upon the trial Court and accordingly while disbelieving the eye-witnesses to the extent of co-accused "M", acquitted him from the charge---Question of vital importance arising was that to what extent the evidence of same set of eye-witnesses could be relied upon for upholding the conviction awarded to accused "S" and "B"---Unambiguously, both the eye-witnesses, were proved to have deposed falsely on a material point, thus it would be a fallacious approach to structure the conviction of accused "S" and "B" upon the depositions of same witnesses---Inexorably both the eye-witnesses had no margin of error while describing the locale of firearm injury inflicted by co-accused "M" (since acquitted)---According to the eye-witnesses, after the receipt of three shots fired by the appellants, the victim fell on the ground and co-accused "M" (since acquitted) fired shot from his .12 bore caliber weapon targeting abdomen of the victim while standing upon him but on the given locale Medical Officer observed an exit wound---When the eye-witnesses had been disbelieved to the extent of co-accused "M" and that too for cogent reasons, then what would be the fate of their depositions with regard to the appellants---Unambiguously, the acquittal of co-accused "M" had polluted the purity of the evidence given by both the eye-witnesses, thus conviction of the appellants could only be sustained on the same ocular account if it received independent strong corroboration from some other source of irreproachable nature---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Site plan not supporting the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---According to the site plan, the crime scene was situated on a plain agricultural terrain and according to the prosecution case, the assassins were sitting in ambush even before the arrival of deceased---Eye-witnesses reached the place of occurrence even before the arrival of deceased---Question of foremost importance pertained to the place where the three assailants were hiding but that query remained unaddressed in the prosecution evidence as well as during arguments before the Court---Even in the site plan no point was highlighted where the appellants and their acquitted co-accused had hidden themselves---Unless it was proved that the site plan was prepared on the pointation of eye-witnesses it could not be used to contradict them or for any other legal purpose---On the contrary, if the site plan was duly proved to have been drafted on the pointing out of the eye-witnesses, it provided an insight about the nature of crime scene, the location of witnesses, the distance between victim and assailants, besides that it enabled the Court to draw a vision about the actual genesis of the occurrence---Eye-witness unequivocally admitted that the site plan was prepared on the pointation provided by him and the other eye-witnesses---In these circumstances the site plan did not remain a simple piece of paper rather gained evidentiary value so as to be legally and legitimately used by the Court---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sadaqat VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence inconsequential due to non-recovery of empties from the spot---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution case, accused "S" and "B" were arrested on 01.03.2020 and they led to the recovery of .12 bore pistols on 05.03.2020---Both the weapons were dispatched to Forensic Science Agency for analysis but only the weapon recovered from accused "B" matched with one of the empty casings of .12 bore recovered from the spot as was evident from the Forensic Science Agency Report---Positive report of Forensic Science Agency lost its significance when seen in the context of columns Nos. 22 & 23 of inquest report according to which no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence---Possibly, the crime empties were planted by the police so as to knit an evidence for corroborating the statements of eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Sadaqat vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR