Zahoor Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 293 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.

Zahoor Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother and nephew of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident was narrated by the three prosecution witnesses---Relationship of the said prosecution witnesses with each other and with the deceased was admitted on record---Deceased "N" was the brother of two prosecution witnesses and the cousin of other prosecution witness, whereas deceased "W" was the son of deceased "N"---Admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses were not the residents of the place of occurrence, as the occurrence had taken place on a road---According to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the night of occurrence they were returning from "DIK" after closing their shops and were proceeding to their houses when the incident took place on the road---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that his house was at a distance of 17 kilometers from his shop, whereas the road/place of occurrence was between his house and his shop---Other witness gave the distance between his house and the place of the occurrence as three kilometers---Another witness gave the distance between his house and the place of the occurrence as three kilometers---In this manner, the prosecution witnesses could be validly termed as "chance witnesses" and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide aconvincing reason for their presence at the place and time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---Said witnesses failed to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place---Perusal of the statements of the said witnesses revealed that the reason given by them for following the deceased to the place of occurrence was that they all were returning to their houses from their shops, however the shops of the witnesses were never either shown to the Investigating Officer of the case nor were visited by the Investigating Officer of the case to verify their existence---No person appeared during the investigation of the case or before the Trial Court to prove the existence of any shops of the prosecution witnesses, from which shops they were returning when they happened to arrive at the place of the occurrence---Neither the place of occurrence was near the houses nor the shops of the prosecution witnesses nor the claimed existence of the shops of the prosecution witnesses was proved---In that manner, the prosecution witnesses were badly exposed with regard to the fact there did not exist any reason for their arrival at the place and time of occurrence---Complainant even admitted that he had not mentioned the reason for the presence of the prosecution witnesses in his statement given to the police---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zahoor Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 293 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR