AFTAB HUSSAIN vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1585 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.

AFTAB HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 324, 337-a(i), 337-a(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 337-H(2), 336, 452 & 34---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, rash and negligent act, itlaf-i-salahiyat-i-udw, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---accused were charged that they entered into the shop of complainant and made firing, due to which the complainant and a witness were hit and got injured---Prosecution's story in FIR was quite specific that an accused made a fire with 12-bore gun that hit on the legs of complainant---In addition thereto it was also alleged that complainant received injuries with the pistols butt and iron rod---Complainant was medically examined on the same day and surprisingly in his Medico-Legal Report although the Medical Officer observed ten injuries but none of those was the result of firearm---Medical Officer even in Court was firm in his opinion that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapons---In cross-examination the Medical Officer without any reservation responded that the injuries sustained by the injured could be sustained by falling on hard surface---In FIR it was alleged that two accused made firing and the fires hit on the mouth of injured---Same Medical Officer at the same time had also medically examined injured and issued Medico-Legal Report---according to Medical Officer injury No.1 was an entry wound on the lips whereas injury No.2 was an exit---Injury No.3 was loss of central incisor upper soft tissue whereas injury No.4 was swelling on centre of the nose, so it was not difficult to understand that apparently injuries Nos.2 to 4 were ultimate outcome of injury No.1---Medical Officer while facing the test of cross questioning about injuries No. 3 and 4 also replied that possibility could not be ruled out that injury No. 4 could be the result of falling or striking on hard/blunt surface---Injury No. 3 could also be the result of striking with blunt weapon---Thus, it could be finally held that there was only one firearm injury on the person of injured---Complainant neither at the stage of investigation nor during the process of trial made any attempt to challenge the opinions of Medical Officer with regard to kinds of weapon and even no request was made to the trial Court to declare the Medical Officer as hostile or seeking permission for his re-examination which meant that the prosecution had not disputed the opinions formed by the Medical Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

AFTAB HUSSAIN vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR