Muhammad Dilawar vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 824 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 Dilawar VS State Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that pistol .30, wrist watch, wallet and ring of deceased were recovered from the possession of appellant "D"---Accused/appellant was arrested on 10.12.2019 and thereafter on 13.12.2019 at 12:00, the appellant in presence of Police Official, on his disclosure and pointing out got recovered weapon of offence pistol 30 bore, wallet, wrist watch and ring of the deceased from his house---As regards recovery of crime weapon on the lead of appellant "D", it was observed that according to the prosecution case the appellant had succeeded in fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with crime weapon and then on his arrest he was said to have got recovered the crime weapon i.e. .30 bore pistol from the baithak of his house---Firstly, it was not believable that an accused having committed a serious crime like murder and successfully managing escape along with crime weapon, would keep it safe for its subsequent recovery and use against him as evidence---Thus, the report of Forensic Science Agency was inconsequential---Such recovery was also in clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the evidence of such recovery could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused/appellant, being evidence that was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary role of evidence---Even otherwise, it was highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of recovery, which even otherwise was a corroboratory piece of evidence and relevant only when the primary evidence i.e. ocular account inspired confidence, whereas in the present case, the ocular account was doubtful---It was an admitted fact that both the witnesses were not witnesses of the recovery, even otherwise, the recovery of said articles was effected on the pointing out of appellant "D" from Baithak of his house which was accessible to every inmate of the house---As per statement of a witness, such like articles were easily available in the market, coupled with the fact that there was clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. as both the recovery witnesses were Police Officials and no private person from the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings---Thus, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that as to why the accused would keep such articles of the deceased with him for aperiod of more than one month after the occurrence---Said recovery in the circumstances could not be used against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Dilawar vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ