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---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of assailants in sparing a witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---According to the prosecution witnesses one of the deceased persons used to help the complainant party of the case FIR No.324 of 2014 with regard to qatl-i-amd of the brother of given up prosecution witness and as the appellant was an accused in the said case, therefore, the incident took place---In these circumstances, the given up witness should have been the prime target of the assailants---Furthermore, according to the prosecution witnesses the given up witness was in clear view, at a meagre distance, from the assailants and unarmed, whereas the accused were allegedly armed with various firearm and other weapons---In this situation, it was hard to believe that the given up witness would have been shown the courtesy of being not fired at all when he should have been the prime target of the assailants---In the midst of the firing by the accused persons, the given up witness did not receive even a single scratch on his body during the whole occurrence nor was even targeted at all---If the given up witness had been present in view of the assailants, then he would not have been spared---Blessing the given up witness with such incredible consideration and showing him such favour, when he was the only person with whom the assailants had a direct dispute with, was implausible and opposed to natural behaviour of any accused---It was more illogical that being perceptive of the fact that if the witnesses were left alive, they would depose against the accused, even then the appellant and his co-accused did not cause any injury to them---Such behaviour, on the part of the accused ran counter to natural human conduct and behavior---Article 129 of the Qanun-Shahadat Order, 1984, allowed the Courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case---Thus, by virtue of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, O., 1984, the conduct of the assailants was opposed to the common course of natural events and human conduct---Hence, it was held that the prosecution witnesses did not witness the occurrence---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