Saeed akhtar vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 105 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.

Saeed akhtar VS State Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing---After the occurrence which took place at 11:00 a.m. the said witnesses remained at the spot with the dead body till 07:00 p.m.---If complainant was having mobile phone at the time of occurrence then she should have immediately made call to 1122 or 15 service after the occurrence instead of making call to a given up witness and waiting for his commands---Furthermore, during the cross-examination both the eye-witnesses claimed that they shifted the deceased to the hospital on an ambulance/vehicle but they did not disclose the registration number of the ambulance/vehicle or name of the driver of that ambulance/vehicle which also made the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence doubtful---Complainant during her cross-examination deposed that the dead body was initially shifted out of the forest on a cot as the main road was at a distance from the alleged place of occurrence and a car/vehicle could not reach at said place but admittedly neither blood stained clothes of the witnesses nor cot were taken into possession by the Investigation Officer and no explanation in his behalf had been advanced by the prosecution, hence testimonies of complainant and her nephew were not only improbable, but also got no support from the record---Furthermore, the presence of the eye-witnesses became doubtful on perusal of the postmortem report as well---Post mortem report transpired that the eyes of the deceased were found half open, which could not happen in the presence of eye-witnesses---Said fact was also mentioned in inquest report that the eyes and mouth were half opened---Had the eye-witnesses present at the crime scene, they would have shut the eyes of the deceased, while taking them to the hospital and thereafter---Moreover, both the witnesses of ocular account deposed that immediately after the occurrence they informed a given up witness and stayed at the place of occurrence till his arrival and waited for his commends---During cross-examination on complainant it surfaced that brother of said given up witness was murdered by brother-in-law of the appellant, thus, it could safely be inferred that complainant party might have falsely implicated the appellant on the asking of given up witness---In such situation, the prosecution had failed to prove aplausible justification for presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence, hence ocular account furnished by them being chance witnesses replete with contradictions and improvements due to their unnatural conduct was not free from doubt and could not be relied upon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Saeed akhtar vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ