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---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting toka blows---Alleged eye-witnesses made no effort either to save the deceased---Both eye-witness and complainant were closely related to the deceased---Unnatural and unbelievable that eye-witness and complainant did not even move a limb to protect their near and dear one---It was strange and rather unbelievable that the accused still succeeded to inflict so many injuries to the deceased in the presence of eye-witness and complainant---Said witnesses did not act in any manner to save the life of deceased---Moreover, it was vexing to imagine that in what circumstances the accused succeeded in killing the deceased in the presence of eye-witness and complainant, without facing any resistance from said witnesses---During the whole episode wherein the deceased was done to death, eye-witness and complainant kept watching the accused and did not interfere at all---No person with ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would keep watching the proceedings as mere spectators for as long as the occurrence continued without doing anything to rescue the deceased or apprehend the assailant---Allowance of said witnesses to the assailant of causing the death of their near and dear relative spoke loudly that if eye-witness and complainant had been present, they would have definitely intervened and prevented the assailant from murdering their dear one---Said fact proved that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailants and no one was there to save him---Such behaviour, on the part of the witnesses, ran counter to natural human conduct and behavior---Thus, trusting the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Art.129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the conduct of the witnesses, as deposed by eye-witness was opposed to the common course of natural events, human conduct and the said witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence---Further, it had also been vexed by the conduct of eye-witnesses that they made no effort to take the deceased to a hospital despite the fact that according to the opinion of Medical Officer, the deceased remained alive after receiving the injuries for about 30 minutes---Clothes of the eye-witnesses were not stained or smeared with the blood of the deceased---If the eye-witnesses had been present, they would have definitely at least handled the deceased or made an effort to save his life but they did nothing, exposing the fact that the deceased was alone at the time of the occurrence---Both the eye-witnesses were not mentioned either in column No.4 of the inquest report as being the witnesses who had identified the dead body of the deceased nor were mentioned at page 4 of the inquest report as witnesses who were present at the place and time of preparation of the inquest report by the Investigating Officer of the case---Said fact also pointed towards the absence of the said witnesses at the place of occurrence, at the time of preparation of the inquest report by the Investigating Officer of the case---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