| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2440 2026 SLD 2440 = 2026 YLR 864 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 526-J, 527-J and Murder Reference No. 33 of 2021, decided on 22nd November, 2023.
Presented By: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram and Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, JJ
Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel. Hafiz Sohaib Altaf for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 527-J of 2021). Khawaja Qaiser Butt for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526-J of 2021). Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Asif Saeed for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 526-J, 527-J and Murder Reference No. 33 of 2021, decided on 22nd November, 2023.
Presented By: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram and Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, JJ
Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel. Hafiz Sohaib Altaf for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 527-J of 2021). Khawaja Qaiser Butt for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526-J of 2021). Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Asif Saeed for the Complainant.
KASHIF NOUMAN alias Kashi and another---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b), 34
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(g), 122
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 103
(a) Criminal trial Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence---Circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused could be reached. (b) Criminal trial Evidence---Scope---Suspicion, however grave can never be treated as a substitute for proof. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Joint extra-judicial confession---Not admissible in evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---As per record, on 30.11.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., when two witnesses were present in the house of one of the witnesses, both the appellants came to the house of said witness and confessed their guilt of having committed the qatl-i-amd of deceased---Said statements of the prosecution witnesses were reflective that the appellants jointly confessed to their guilt---It was not mentioned by the prosecution witnesses as to which of the two appellants disclosed which fact, because both the appellants could not have uttered the same words---So, no reliance whatsoever could be placed upon the alleged joint extra judicial confession of the appellants, allegedly made before the prosecution witnesses as the same was a joint extrajudicial confession which was neither a relevant nor an admissible piece of evidence---Facts remained that on 30.11.2019, the prosecution witnesses were clueless regarding the circumstances of the death of the deceased and in that scenario there hardly existed any reason for the appellants to have confessed their guilt when they were not even facing any scrutiny or even suspicion with regard to the death of the deceased---Conduct of the prosecution witnesses was noticeable that both the witnesses, though being the real brothers of the deceased, did not react at all to the said alleged confessional statements of appellants and calmly allowed the appellants to leave the house of the prosecution witness after hearing the…