Tariq alias Tahru vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2754 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.

Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Complainant had made dishonest improvements in her statement before the Trial Court because in the previous trial of co-accused of the appellant, she got recorded her statement wherein she had not nominated the appellant and that fact was duly confronted to her---When the witnesses improved their statements to strengthen the prosecution case and the moment it was concluded that improvements were made deliberately and with mala fide intention, the testimonies of such witnesses become unreliable---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it cannot identify the assailant. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Abscondence alone insufficient for conviction---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Abscondence alone was not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account but in the present case, substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account had been disbelieved, therefore, no conviction could be based on abscondence alone---Absconsion of the accused might be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Edifice of prosecution's ocular account was structured upon the statements of complainant/real mother of deceased and real brother of other deceased---Firstly, it was mandatory for the said eye-witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time through some cogent reason but they had failed to establish their presence at the relevant time and place of occurrence, rather they were related and chance witnesses---No specific injury was attributed to appellant rather collective role was attributed to the appellant along with his co-accused---If the said witnesses were present at the time and place of occurrence, they should have described the specific injuries caused by the appellant on the bodies of deceased---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---In case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as a matter of right and not as of grace. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 12 hours in conducting the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the postmortem report, the autopsy on the dead body of deceased son of complainant was conducted on 22-03-2007 at 06:00 a.m. thus, there was a delay of 12 hours in conducting the autopsy on the dead body of said deceased, after the occurrence---Keeping in view the said gross delay in the post mortem examination, an adverse inference could be drawn that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating a story after preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification of delay for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 45 minutes in lodging the FIR---First Information Report lodged after deliberation and constitution---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the prosecution, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 21-03-2007 at 06:00 p.m., about 02 kilometers away from Police Station and the same was reported by complainant through application on the basis of which formal FIR was chalked out on 21-03-2007 at 06:45 p.m.---During cross-examination, complainant had stated that Police came at the spot after about 15 minutes of occurrence---Complainant stated that he could not tell that who informed the police regarding the occurrence---Police remained present at the place of occurrence for about 01 hour at the time of first visit---At that time, complainant along with police did not go to the police station and he went there afterwards---Complainant went to police station at about 08:00 pm after departure of the police from place of occurrence---Complainant along with four/five persons went to police station in vehicle, however, many people were already present in police station before their arrival---Complainant remained in the police station for half an hour at that time---During that period complainant and others remained busy in registration of case---In such circumstances, Court was quite confident to hold that the FIR had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Tariq alias Tahru VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on the basis of same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the prosecution case, co- accused of the appellant to whom effective role was attributed was acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court while extending the benefit of doubt to him, which fact had also been admitted by the said witnesses during the course of their evidence, as such the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were capable of falsehood---Admittedly, no appeal against acquittal of said accused had been filed by the State or the complainant---Once prosecution witnesses were disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then they could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they were substantiated by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and which was unimpeachable in nature but that was not available in the present case---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances.

Tariq alias Tahru vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR