Muhammad Ramzan vs State S — 2026 YLR 361 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 Ramzan VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Ocular account produced by the prosecution comprised of statements of complainantand an eye-witness---As per own case of prosecution, mentioned in the application for the registration of the case, occurrence took place in the area of "NS" whereas complainant and eye-witness were residents of other village, therefore, they were chance witnesses and were thus required to establish valid, cogent, plausible and acceptable reason to prove their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Complainant, cited eye-witnesses and deceased of the case were four in number at the relevant time, at the place of occurrence whereas as per own case of prosecution, appellant was all alone and not equipped with any sophisticated firearm weapon rather as per allegation, he stopped the motorcycle, took out hatchet from the water channel attacked father of the complainant/now deceased of the case, gave several blows of hatchet to him---If such was the state of affairs, then question arose that when there was enmity existing regarding land between deceased and appellant, then firstly why complainant went with the appellant and secondly when complainant and cited eye-witnesses had seen father of the complainant going with appellant on his motorcycle, then why they did not immediately stop them and inquired about reason from father of complainant for going with the appellant---Though it was claim of the complainant in application for registration of the case that he along with cited eye-witnesses was going for some personal work but nature and detail of personal work was not disclosed/mentioned by them---Therefore, said reason claimed by the complainant and other cited eye-witnesses regarding their presence/availability at the relevant time and place of occurrence could not be established---Complainant claimed that when witnesses attended his father, their clothes became stained with blood but same were not handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case---If bloodstained clothes of the complainant and cited eye-witnesses had been produced during investigation, same provided strong corroboration to the ocular account regarding presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---In such scenario, evidence of both eye-witnesses, who could not establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was suspect evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Ramzan vs State S — 2026 YLR 361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR