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---Improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by inflicting hatchet blow---Medico-Legal Certificate showed that deceased was brought to THQ Hospital in injured condition at 12.12 a.m. on 01.04.2016 by Mr. "M"---Admittedly, said Mr. "M" was related with deceased and co-accused (since acquitted) as father-in-law and father respectively---Even while appearing in the dock, Medical Officer admitted in clear terms that deceased was brought to hospital by none other than Mr. "M" as was evident from his cross-examination---Question arose that if at all, eye-witnesses shifted deceased to THQ Hospital in injured condition having knowledge about the involvement of co-accused in the crime then why they let Mr. "M" incorporate his name in the Medico-Legal Certificate as the person accompanying the victim---Answer to such query was neither offered during arguments nor was found discerning from record, which otherwise was silent on such point---Indeed, the said fact badly reflected upon the truth of deposition offered by eye-witnesses and in fact gave an undeniable clue about their absence from the spot---Last but not the least, it was observed that while appearing in the dock, eye-witnesses realizing the importance of lacuna emerging from the Medico-Legal Certificate wherein Mr. "M" was mentioned as attendant, they made material improvement in that regard---Complainant made addition in his Court statement to address the shortcoming emerging from Medico-Legal Certificate by saying that upon their arrival to THQ Hospital, they had seen co-accused and her father Mr. "M" sitting in the room of the doctor---Such improvement was duly attended by the defence and both the witnesses were accordingly confronted with their police statements in which no reference was made to such event---Even otherwise, if at all, Mr. "M" managed incorporation of his name in the Medico-Legal Certificate by using his good offices with the doctor, the complainant should have stoutly agitated that issue from the very inception of the case but nothing as such was done---Said omission shed light upon the truth behind the deposition of Medical Officer and the contents of Medico-Legal Certificate---As a necessary consequence, the presence of Mr. "M" in the hospital as the person who brought deceased to hospital in injured condition left no doubt that eye-witnesses indeed acquired knowledge about the incident much after it occurred---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