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---Identity of accused not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by inflicting hatchet blow---Record showed that complainant and an eye-witness acquired knowledge about the incident much after its happening, thus, were clueless about the identity of the perpetrator---Fact remained that crime scene was situated at an isolated place and had no electricity connection, which further gave vent to the possibility that occurrence remained un-witnessed and the complainant after acquiring knowledge about it consumed the duration of 12-hours in knitting a false story---While dilating upon the prosecution case, it was found to be mainly structured upon the depositions of complainant and an eye-witness who were related with deceased as brothers-in-law---Admittedly, none out of them witnessed the actual incident and they simply claimed to have seen deceased coming out from the room wherein the crime scene was situated---Evidence of both the witnesses pertained to the event of coming across (waj takkar) the acceptance of which was urged by the prosecution on the principle of res gestae---Above all, the event of res gestae must be brought on record spontaneously and without lapse of any unnecessary delay---Though in the instant case, the incident of homicide and event of res gestae occurred in close proximity of time with each other but the fact remained that the detail of these two episodes was reported to police with an unexplained delay of 12-hours---Standard of proof for accepting the res gestae involved stringency of appraisal so as to exclude all the hypotheses of fabrication through consultation---In the instant case, the FIR mainstay of which was event of res gestae, was registered with enormous delay of 12-hours for which not even a frail explanation was offered---Due to such reason, the stance of both the witnesses was found doubtful---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