Record transpired that both the witnesses were resident of some other place, had visited the place of occurrence in connection with getting some labour work

Citation Name : 2019 MLD 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NOOR NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, ABETMENT , common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statement of witnesses---Effect---Statements of witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C. were recorded with a delay of two days without any plausible explanation, which had reduced their value.

Citation Name : 2019 MLD 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NOOR NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ABETMENT , common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Motive behind the incident was that the deceased had developed illicit relationship with the wife of the son of the accused---Ocular account in the present case consisted of the statements of two witnesses---Record showed that accused was not named in the crime report rather the same was lodged against co-accused---Complainant, through supplementary statement, involved the accused on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Facts remained that both the witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence were also closely related to the complainant as well as the deceased---Record transpired that both the witnesses were resident of some other place, had visited the place of occurrence in connection with getting some labour work---One witness during trial had admitted that he was running a general store in his village including items of bakery---It did not appeal to reason that said witness would visit a place 500-kilometers away from his residence for getting labour, particularly when the deceased had allegedly got labour job against the wages of a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000---Similar was the position with other witness who during the course of trial had admitted that he was operated upon at his right kidney, however, it did not appeal to reason that said witness would go for search of labour work while covering such a huge distance in presence of his health condition---Both the said witnesses had claimed that the accused had made firing upon the deceased in their eye view---Despite the fact that they were cousins of the complainant but there was nothing on record that why they did not opt to report the matter to complainant although they had his mobile number---Said witnesses even did not disclose the details of the occurrence to other family members in which a young boy was done to death---Other witness had stated that soon after the occurrence they disappeared from the place of occurrence and rushed towards lorry adda where they stayed overnight; however, they did not inform the local police or even made call at Emergency-15---Such passive conduct subsequent to the occurrence by not informing the complainant, other family members or police when they were closely related to the deceased, had spoken volumes and led to the conclusion to believe that they were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---No specific role was assigned to the accused rather he was not even named as accused, therefore, the same was of least importance in the present case---Nothing was recovered from the place where accused had thrown away his pistol, therefore, mere memo of pointation could not be given any legal credence---Moreover, on the same set of evidence three persons arrayed as accused in the crime report had been acquitted of charge and no appeal against acquittal was filed by the prosecution---Prosecution had failed to prove culpability of the accused in the present case through reliable trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside the sentence and conviction recorded by the Trial Court.

Citation Name : 2019 MLD 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NOOR NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, ABETMENT , common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about eleven hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Record showed that there was an inordinate delay of 11 hours in lodging crime report for which no plausible explanation had been rendered by the prosecution---Allegedly, occurrence had taken place on 16.12.2015 at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. while the matter was reported to the police on 17.12.2015---Facts remained that inter se distance between the place of occurrence and police station was only one and half kilometres---Such inordinate delay would be sensed with suspicion.