Muhammad Akram vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2469 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.

Muhammad Akram VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 379, 427, 34, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, theft, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging FIR---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons made firing upon the complainant party, due to which the brother of complainant was hit and died, thereafter the accused persons destroyed the cotton and Jawar crops while ploughing the same---Occurrence in the case allegedly took place in the intervening night of 02/03-08-2014, at 1.00 a.m. (night) but the matter was reported to the police on 04.08.2014, at about 6.30 (p.m.) i.e., with the delay of about one day and sixteen hours from the occurrence---No plausible explanation for the said gross delay in reporting the matter to the police had been mentioned by the prosecution eye-witnesses---Complainant simply stated in the FIR that he remained busy in the medical treatment of his brother (deceased/the then injured), therefore, he could not lodge the FIR earlier---Complainant while appearing in the witness-box improved his statement to justify such delay in lodging the FIR by stating that the concerned SHO asked him to first bring the Medico-Legal Report of deceased/the then injured and thereafter, he wouldlodge the FIR but no such reason was given by the complainant in the FIR---As per prosecution case, as many as four prosecution witnesses were present at the spot at the time of occurrence but no one from them bothered to report the matter to the police, on the night of occurrence---If the complainant was busy in the medical treatment of his brother/deceased/the then injured, then the remaining prosecution eye-witnesses could have reported the matter to the police but none of the said witnesses informed the police about the occurrence, within reasonable time---Such gross delay in reporting the matter to the police showed that the occurrence was unseen and the FIR was lodged after issuance of Medico-Legal Report of deceased/the then injured, which (MLR) was prepared on 03.08.2014, at 2.30 a.m.---First Information Report was lodged after one day and sixteen hours of issuance of Medico-Legal Report of deceased/the then injured, therefore, possibility could not be ruled out that the FIR was lodged after deliberations, consultations and going through the Medico-Legal Report of deceased/the then injured, so as to bring the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses in line with the medical evidence, hence no sanctity could be attached to such FIR---Said gross delay further showed that the occurrence was unseen---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Akram vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2469 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR