Muhammad Dilshad vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 286 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 Dilshad VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence highly unnatural---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by knife stabbing---Ocular account of the incident in question had been furnished by complainant/father and brother/ eye-witness of the deceased---According to the statements of said witnesses, the appellant borrowed money from deceased for the marriage expenditure of his sister and deceased demanded his money back, whereupon accused appellant stabbed knife on the right side of the back of deceased, due to which he fell down in an injured condition---Witnesses shifted injured to hospital and soon after reaching the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries---Complainant was aged about 80 years at the alleged time of occurrence and he had not stated that he used to sit at the shop with his deceased son---Investigating Officer of the case had admitted that eye-witness was employee of agricultural department, however, he did not produce any certificate of his leave, if any, before him prior to registration of FIR---Noteworthy that according to the prosecution evidence complainant and eye-witness shifted deceased in injured condition to THQ, Hospital, on a car---Seats of car were not stained with blood---Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that they did not try to wrap the injury of his son with any piece of cloth, i.e. dhoti, turban or other types of clothes---Eye-witness deposed during his cross-examination that their clothes were not besmeared with the blood while attending to the deceased in injured condition---Said depositions of the eye-witnesses were not appealing to a prudent mind because how was it possible that when a person handles any injured person having severe stab wound on his body, the clothes of handling person would not be blood stained and similarly the seat of car wherein the injured person was shifted would not have blood stains, especially in the light of statements of eye-witnesses that they did not wrap injury of deceased---In such circumstances, it could be concluded that both the witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence---Story of following the deceased mentioned by eye-witnesses just before the occurrence did not appeal to common sense because no reasoning had been given by the said witnesses to go behind the deceased--- According to the prosecution story, complainant and eye-witness escorted deceased in injured condition to the hospital but both the witnesses were not witnesses of identification of dead body in the inquest report---Similarly, if witnesses were present in the hospital, question was why they had not identified the dead body of deceased at the time of his post mortem---Such fact showed that said witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Dilshad vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ