GHULAM ABBAS vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 99 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.

GHULAM ABBAS VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the deceased by inflicting hatchet blow---Motive behind the occurrence was that few days prior to the occurrence, the deceased quarrelled with the accused and also slapped him, as a result whereof, alleged incident took place---Record showed that the occurrence had taken place at 4.00 p.m.---Police station was one kilometre away from the place of occurrence---First Information Report was got registered on the oral statement of complainant on the same day at 4.20 p.m.--- Post-mortem examination was conducted by Medical Officer at 08:00 a.m. next day---Probable time lapse between injury and death was within 10 to 15 hours whereas between death and post-mortem was 06 hours--- Post-mortem examination report revealed that death took place at 02:00 a.m. the next day and dead body was brought to hospital at 06:00 a.m. the next day, which would mean that the occurrence could have taken place at any time and not at the time which complainant had claimed---Said aspect of the matter was sufficient to cast doubt about the authenticity of the FIR---No doubt delay in post-mortem alone was not fatal to the prosecution case but when court considered it with the other evidence available on the record along with post-mortem report, it did influence the mind of the Court and left the impression that there had been some wrangling about the time of registration of criminal case---Such fact created serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story including presence of the complainant at the scene of occurrence---Inquest report showed that the time and date of receiving information of death was mentioned in the column No. 3 at 4.30 a.m. the next day, which created doubt about the time of death of the deceased and when the complainant reported the incident to the police---Prosecution case was that inquest report was prepared after lodging of FIR, but in the inquest report there was no mention of description of FIR---Absence of the detailed description of the FIR in the inquest report outrightly suggested that FIR was not in existence at the time when inquest report in the case was prepared---Said circumstances suggested that the FIR was ante time---Said fact also showed that inquest report of the dead body of deceased was not prepared at the time it was alleged to have been recorded, which also created doubt about the time of occurrence---If such omissions were to be appreciated in the light of the delay in conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, it cast serious doubt and also led to the conclusion that the FIR was recorded with a delay and the FIR had not been recorded at the time at which it was claimed to have been recorded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

GHULAM ABBAS vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR