Muhammad Arshad vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 410 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 Arshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 364, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping and abducting a person in order to murder, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after kidnapping him---As per record, one of the witnesses of the kidnapping was very close relative of the complainant whereas other was from his brotherhood---Both the said witnesses made certain improvements in their statements which were alien to their earlier narrations before police---Improvements made by those witnesses were duly confronted to them during cross-examination---Contents of complaint nowhere indicated that in the entire episode of abduction of deceased, he was subjected to physical torture by the accused persons---One of the witnesses in his cross-examination, however, stated that deceased abductee was also tortured by the accused persons---Said witness stated that deceased abductee was being beaten up by the accused for around four minutes and he also introduced anew stance by stating that sota blows and butt blows were received by abductee---Such whole narration qua physical torture on abductee by accused persons during his alleged abduction, at one hand was in conflict with the contents of complaint and on the other a weapon like sota had also been introduced which nowhere found mention in the complaint---According to the contents of complaint, when witnesses attracted to the spot, on seeing them accused persons abducted the son of complainant and took him towards "A"---However, complainant in his examination-in-chief introduced an altogether strange version that witnesses identified the accused persons and warned them whereupon accused persons extended them threats---According to the contents of complaint, complainant when received information from witnesses qua abduction of his son, he convened Punchayat for recovery of his son---In his examination-in-chief, complainant however introduced a different version by stating that he demanded return of his son from "A" in presence of said witnesses and he four times demanded return of his son from accused persons through Punchayat---As per prosecution's case, said witnesses were shown to have attracted to the spot when abducttee raised noise to save his life as he was encircled by five duly armed accused persons owing to previous enmity---Venue reflected by the prosecution as the place where abducttee was abducted by the accused persons, as per own showing of witnesses, was at a distance of around three acres from the abode of witnesses---Undeniably, 20-25 houses of other people were also situated near the place of alleged abduction but strangely enough, nobody except two witnesses, related to complainant was shown to have attracted to the spot on hearing the noise raised by abducttee---In view of the discrepant version of the complainant and witnesses, the first episode of crime introduced in this case qua abduction of abducttee by the accused persons on 07.08.2014 in presence of witnesses was a highly doubtful affair and was not proved through confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Arshad vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR