Ameer Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 466 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.

Ameer Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b), 452, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of witnesses at the relevant time doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the father of complainant---Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had shown presence of eye-witness outside the gate in rough site plan---Said witness further admitted that the place of occurrence was ahaveli and occurrence took place inside a room of that haveli and when he visited the place of occurrence, the door of room was closed and he noticed that holes on the door occurred as a result of firing---Said witness further deposed that deceased was inside the room when firing was made and the assailants made firing from outside the door of that room---Said witness further admitted that from inspection of crime scene it appeared that firing hit deceased while passing through the door of the room---Investigating Officer did not find any broken door at the place of occurrence---Scaled site plan showed that the occurrence took place in the room whereas the accused were shown to be present in the veranda and eye-witness allegedly witnessed the occurrence on the other corner of the Dera which was at a distance of ninety feet---Thus, it was not believable that eye-witness who was standing at a distance of ninety feet outside the main gate of the Dera coupled with the fact that it was night time, how he witnessed the occurrence inside the room and even with detailed description of the accused with their specific names and roles---From the statements of both the said witnesses, the presence of both the said witnesses at the place of occurrence on the date and relevant time was doubtful in nature because they did not receive even a scratch during the incident---Said witnesses did not make an abortive attempt to save the deceased from the clutches of appellant and his co- accused---Moreover, both the said witnesses had utterly failed to bring anything on the record establishing their claimed presence with the deceased at the relevant time at the place of occurrence---Eye-witness stated that he lifted the deceased from place of occurrence and put him in a mini jeep---At that time, his clothes became stained with blood and he produced those clothes before the Investigating Officer---Admittedly, neither any blood was collected from the jeep nor blood stained clothes of that witness were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and no explanation in that behalf had been advanced by the prosecution---Stance of this witness was not only improbable, but also got no support from the record, thus, the prosecution had failed to prove the presence of the eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ameer Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD