| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1615 2026 SLD 1615 = 2026 YLR 293 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Criminal Appeal No. 698-J of 2020, heard on 25th June, 2025.
Presented By: Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
Muhammad Farooq for Appellant. Umar Farooq Khan, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 698-J of 2020, heard on 25th June, 2025.
Presented By: Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
Muhammad Farooq for Appellant. Umar Farooq Khan, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
ZAHOOR HUSSAIN---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 22A,22B,154
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 406,420
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----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 a convincing 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…