Tahir Mahmood vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1171 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.

Tahir Mahmood VS State Ss. 302(b), 201, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, intentionally causing evidence of an offence to disappear or giving false information to screen an offender, abettor present when offence committed, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting toka blows---Ocular account of the incident was narrated by the witness/brother-in-law of the deceased---Said witness and complainant, since dead, were admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---According to the eye-witness, both he and complainant had their residences at a distance from the place of occurrence---Said witness also admitted that neither he had any residence nor any business set up near the place of occurrence---In this manner, the eye-witness could be validly termed as a "chance witness" and therefore was under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for his presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, and was also under a duty to prove his presence by producing some physical proof of the same---Said witness failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for his arrival at the place of occurrence and his presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place---According to the said witness, the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence was that after offering prayers at the mosque, the deceased started for the house of “A” to impart teaching of the Holy Quran to his children, whereas the eye-witness and complainant decided to follow the deceased on their own motorcycle and it was while following the deceased that they came to the place of the occurrence and then witnessed the same---Eye-witness admitted that he had no reason at all to follow the deceased to the house of “A”---Candid admission of the eye-witness that he had no reason to follow the deceased denuded the falsity of his claim that he had witnessed the occurrence---Then eye-witness also claimed that after offering prayers at the mosque, the deceased started for the house of “A” to impart teaching of the Holy Quran to his children however admitted that the said “A” never appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case to verify that claim---Furthermore, it was also claimed by the eye-witness that on the day of the occurrence he had offered prayers at a mosque with the deceased however also admitted that the said mosque was quite far from his house whereas another mosque where he normally offered prayers was close to his house at a meager distance---Additionally it was admitted by eye-witness that no person appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case to support the claim of the eye-witness that on the day of the occurrence he had offered prayers at the mosque with the deceased---In this manner, the eye-witness failed to prove the stated reason and complainant leaving their residences on the day of occurrence and their subsequent arrival at the place of occurrence---Notable that the eye-witness also claimed that he and complainant had been following the deceased on a motorcycle---However, eye-witness also candidly admitted that he never produced the said motorcycle before the Investigating Officer of the case---Non-production of the motorcycle used by the eye-witness and complainant to arrive at the place of occurrence and the failure of eye-witness as well as the Investigating Officer of the case to produce the same before the trial Court led to only one conclusion and that being that no such motorcycle was available---Had a motorcycle been used by the eye-witness and complainant to arrive at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case but it admittedly was not and it proved that a false claim was made by the eye-witness that he and complainant had arrived at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle---In this manner, the eye-witness failed miserably to prove that he had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, at the time when the same was happening---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Tahir Mahmood vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR