ALI MIR SHAH vs State S — 2024 YLR 1376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ALI MIR SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Discrepancies---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of complainant by hatchet blows---According to the complainant and a witness, who were brothers, the incident took place at about 3.00 p.m. and victim died at the spot and they took the dead body to the hospital and arrived in hospital at 5.30 p.m., but as per the report of the Medico-Legal Officer, she started post mortem at 9:15 p.m. whilst the dead body arrived at the hospital at 8:00 p.m., thus there was serious discrepancy in their story, which was fatal to the case of the prosecution---Another troubling aspect of the case was that the Medico-Legal Officer in her examination had admitted that rigor mortis was visibly present in the body---Usual duration of rigor mortis was 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer---As the incident took place in winter and dead body already showed signs of rigor mortis, it suggested that the death must have taken place any time in the past 24 to 48 hours, which contradicted the prosecution's story---Another alarming aspect of the case was that Medico-Legal Officer did not mention time of the death and she did not indicate that what was the gap between the incident and death, as she only had mentioned time of death as 4.00 p.m. (as stated by the relatives of the deceased) meaning thereby she neither bothered to find out what was the exact time of the death nor chose to mention it in the post mortem---Such unholy alliance with prosecution was confidence bulldozing, least to say---Said witnesses stated that the deceased was five months pregnant and she was keeping roza at the time of incident, however, during the course of post mortem, said aspect as to whether the victim was five months pregnant was not substantiated and her stomach was found with semi digested food material, meaning thereby that she was probably not even fasting---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ALI MIR SHAH vs State S — 2024 YLR 1376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR