Mst. AZIZ MAI vs State S — 2022 YLR 424 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.

Mst. AZIZ MAI VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of seven years old daughter of her brother/complainant by inflicting iron pipe blow---Medical Officer during examination of the dead body found only one injury i.e., an abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm---As per prosecution case, the injury was caused with iron blow pipe but the Medical Officer in her cross-examination deposed that possibility of receiving the injury by fall could not be ruled out---Pattern of injury in the case was swelling on the right side of head with clinical fracture of right temporal, frontal and occipital bones about 2 cm from the right ear pinnae, which showed that right, front and back side of skull was involved in the injury which obviously could not be caused with an iron blow pipe used domestically to flame the fire---Such type of injury was regarded as coup or counter coup injury---Injury observed by the Medical Officer during post-mortem was subjacent to the area of impact and not perfectly opposite to it, thus, it could be regarded as coup injury and not a counter coup, but confusion persisted that an injury with iron blow pipe could cause a simultaneous fracture of temporal, frontal and occipital bones, obviously not---If injury was caused by fall then there must be a counter coup injury which was missing in the case---However, it was probably due to the reason that bones of child of that age were soft and elastical and injuries usually caused greenstick fractures, thus, there must be depressed fracture in the case but Medical Officer observed otherwise---Injury probably was sustained when head struck against a hard surface, i.e., by fall, yet from a considerable height--- Investigating Officer didn't appear as witness to prove that there was hard surface at the place of occurrence---Hitting of blow pipe with force could not cause 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm injury, therefore, medical evidence contradicted the ocular which made the story of prosecution doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home guilt of the accused to the hilt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. AZIZ MAI vs State S — 2022 YLR 424 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR