Muhammad Sibtain vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 262 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 Sibtain VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about 12-hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by inflicting hatchet blow---From an in-depth analysis of record, it surfaced that the occurrence leading to the death of deceased took place on 31.03.2016 at about 09.30 p.m.---Perusal of column No.4 of FIR revealed that police station though was connected with the crime scene by a metalled road of 15 kilometers but still the details of the incident were imparted to police through oral statement of complainant on the following morning at about 09.00 a.m.---Complaint after twenty minutes of its completion was transcribed into formal FIR---If correctly calculated, there was a delay of about 12-hours noticed in the registration of FIR thus, the prosecution was legally obliged to satisfactorily explain it for providing strength to the hypothesis about the truth of its contents---Apparently, the complainant was well cognizant of discharging the burden of addressing the delay in registration of FIR and accordingly came forward with the stance that deceased was firstly taken to THQ Hospital from where he was dispatched to DHQ Hospital due to his critical medical condition---Such explanation turned out to be fragile and did not help the cause of prosecution for addressing the delay in registration of FIR---Admittedly, complainant had a mobile phone in his possession at the eventful time which he could conveniently use for intimating the police about the unfortunate incident but he opted not to use it, for reasons not disclosed by him---Such omission gained more significance when seen in the context that complainant requisitioned a vehicle at the crime scene through a call made from his own mobile phone for shifting deceased to hospital---Complainant initially did not inform the police about the occurrence, but still he could have done the same after reaching THQ Hospital but surprisingly nothing as such was done by him---Complainant without offering any reason candidly conceded that the task of intimating the police about the crime was performed on the following morning at about 06.00 a.m.---Without a speck of reluctance, it could be concluded that the enormous delay of 12-hours in the registration of FIR remained unexplained, a fact which shed doubt upon the truth of accusations set-out by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Sibtain vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ