Muhammad Waqas vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1644 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 Waqas VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Time of occurrence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Complainant alleged that he took his nephew to "J" hospital; the Medical Officer confirmed the death of his nephewat "J" hospital and they returned back along with the dead body---Mandatory requirements under the law, specifically to inform the police of the unnatural death of the deceased, were not fulfilled---According to S.44 Cr.P.C., the attending Medical Officer was legally obliged to inform the police about the arrival of a medico-legal case---No record indicated that the deceased was admitted to or referred to "J" Hospital and that the medical examination was conducted---Mandatory requirements under the law to inform the police of the medico-legal case and the unnatural death of the deceased were not fulfilled---Not possible that if a police case comes to the hospital, the Medical Officer would not inform the police about it, rather after declaring unnatural death at "J" Hospital, by the Medical Officer, the doctors neither informed the police about the receiving of injured in serious condition nor they intimated to police about the unnatural death of deceased---Instantly, Medical Officer and doctors allowed the complainant to take away the dead body from the hospital---Complainant was unable to refer to any document or reference slip or any document of admission, discharge, or handing over of a dead body by the hospital authorities---On perusal of the inquest report, it revealed that the information about the incident was received on 22.07.2011 at 08:40 p.m., and the dead body was identified by a witness and brother of the deceased, who deposed during his examination-in-chief that he identified the dead body of deceased at the time of autopsy---Complainant deposed that on the night of occurrence, he had not visited the place of occurrence---If the complainant had not visited on the night of the incident at the place of occurrence, then how did he bring back the dead body to the place of occurrence---More significantly, the time of the incident and the reporting to police claimed by the prosecution became doubtful---In the inquest report, which was prepared at 08:40 p.m. on 22.07.2011, the Investigating Officer mentioned in Column No.4 the names of the persons who identified the dead body of deceased, which outrightly suggested that the complainant, eye-witnesses were not present when the inquest reportcase was prepared---Said circumstances suggested that the FIR was antedated and the inquest report of the dead body of deceased was not prepared at the time it was alleged to have been recorded, creating doubt about the time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Waqas vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ