Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 420 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.

Muhammad Zafar Iqbal VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing fire arm injuries to the complainant---According to the statements of both the eye-witnesses, they were residents of places which were at a distance of 10-15 kilometers from the place of occurrence, however they had no reason to be present at the place and time of occurrence---Most importantly, the occurrence took place in front of the house of acquitted accused, the co-accused of the appellant and according to the statements of both the eye-witnesses, they themselves proceeded to the house in front of which the occurrence took place---Being conscious of that fact that there did not exist any justifiable reason for the said prosecution witnesses for having proceeded to the house of acquitted accused, the co-accused of the appellant, in front of which house the incident took place, the prosecution witnesses came up with a stance that they had received atelephonic call from said acquitted co-accused of the appellant, to come to his house and take away the wife of deceased who had been sent to the house of acquitted co-accused of the appellant by the appellant after having given her a beating and it was only after receiving the said call from acquitted co-accused that the prosecution witnesses along with other witnesses proceeded to the said place---During cross-examination, both the eye-witnesses made such statements proving that the said reason for their proceeding to the house of acquitted co-accused of the appellant was absolutely false---In the first instance, complainant admitted during cross-examination that acquitted co-accused of the appellant had not called him, however, had called his brother/deceased, deviating from the stance taken by him in his examination in-chief wherein he had specifically stated that it was he who had received the call from acquitted co-accused---Investigating Officer of the case also admitted during cross-examination that during investigation it was not proved that acquitted co-accused had made any call either to the eye-witnesses or even the deceased asking them to come to his house to take away wife of deceased---In this manner, the eye-witnesses were exposed to having fashioned out a false reason for their proceedings to the house of acquitted co-accused on the day of the incident---If there was no dispute between the appellant and the eye-witnesses or the deceased prior to the incident then the eye-witnesses should have explained as to why they proceeded to the house of acquitted co-accused on the day of the incident---More importantly, Mst. "S" neither appeared during the investigation of the case nor was summoned by the Trial Court as a witness to determine the fact as to whether Mst. "S" was ever married to the deceased on the day when the incident took place or whether the Mst. "S" had ever taken refuge in the house of acquitted co-accused on the day of the incident and whether Mst. "S" had been given a beating by the appellant---Failure to produce Mst. "S" as awitness had fatal consequences for the prosecution's case and presently the same was not only highly doubtful but also mired in uncertainties---Very inception of the prosecution case was put in doubt due to the identified flaws of the prosecution case---In this manner, both the eye-witnesses failed miserably to establish the reason for their departure to the place of occurrence and their subsequent presence at the place and time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD