Ejaz Ahmed vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 451 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.

Ejaz Ahmed VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Ocular account of the incident was narrated by two witnesses---One of the deceased persons was the brother of the eye-witness and paternal uncle of the other eye-witness---Said witnesses were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---According to eye-witnesses, both of them had their residence at a distance of about two kilometers from the place of occurrence---In this manner, both the said witnesses could be termed as chance witnesses and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place and time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---However, the witnesses failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place---Being conscious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place on a road which was at a distance of about two kilometers from their residence, both the witnesses stated that the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence was that they had proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers and when they were returning to their house from the mosque situated within the area of "BS", they happened to arrive at the place of occurrence and saw the assailants attack both the deceased who were at that time travelling on a separate motorcycle---Statements of said witnesses revealed that the reason given by them for having proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers was a sham---Both the said witnesses admitted that there were several mosques within the area of their residence where Juma prayers were also offered, however, could not explain their choice of not offering the Juma prayers in the said mosques on the day of occurrence and proceeding to the area of "BS", which mosque was at a distance of as much as four kilometers from their house---In this manner, it was abundantly clear that the prosecution witnesses had no reason to have proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers and the said reason was invented to provide justification for their subsequent arrival at the place of occurrence---Admitted fact that not even a single person joined the investigation of the case to verify the fact that prior to the occurrence, the prosecution witnesses had indeed offered Juma prayers in a Mosque situated within the area of "BS"---Failure of the witnesses to prove the reason for them to have proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers, proved that the very inception of the prosecution case was shrouded in doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ejaz Ahmed vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 451 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR