Muhammad Aslam vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1391 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 Aslam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the present case was furnished through the testimony of complainant and an eye-witness---Both the eye-witnesses were real brothers inter se as well as of the deceased---According to the contents of the crime report and the statements of the eye-witnesses, the deceased was promptly shifted to the Rural Health Centre (RHC) for medical treatment, however, he succumbed to his injuries while being transported---Notably, both witnesses remained silent on whether the body was ever brought back to the place of occurrence thereafter---However, in contrast, the Investigating Officer stated in his testimony that upon reaching the scene, the dead body was present at the alleged place of occurrence, where he subsequently completed the police proceedings---Moreover, the claim of the eye-witnesses that they evacuated the deceased in an injured condition for medical aid was not supported by any corroborative evidence---Notably, neither of the witnesses handed over any bloodstained clothing to the Investigating Officer, despite it being natural and expected for their clothes to have been soaked with blood, given that the deceased was profusely bleeding and ultimately succumbed to haemorrhagic shock due to excessive blood loss---Presence of blackening and burning on the injury of the deceased, despite the admitted firing distance of 40 feet, rendered the prosecution case unreliable---Medical evidence in this case did not square with the prosecution theory of the case, thereby casting serious doubt on the credibility of the entire case---Such a glaring and irreconcilable contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence inflicted a serious blow to the credibility of the prosecution's case---It casts serious doubt on the credibility of the alleged ocular account provided by the eye-witnesses, as well as on their presence at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Aslam vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ