Irfan Haider vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 605 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.

Irfan Haider VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with dealy weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of ten hours and fifteen minutes in conducting the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased---Consequential---Time of lodging of FIR doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his uncle---Medical Officer conducted a postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.11.2012---Medical Officer had not deposed the time when he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---On perusal of the postmortem report, it was revealed that the dead body was received in the dead house on 18.11.2012 at 02:00 a.m., complete documents and police papers were received at 02:00 a.m., and an autopsy was conducted at 02:15 a.m. on 18.11.2012---Record revealed that the postmortem was conducted with a delay of ten hours from the time of reporting the incident to the police---Identifier of the dead body of the deceased deposed during cross-examination that at about 04:00 p.m., the dead body of the deceased was shifted to the THQ Hospital---If the dead body was moved to the hospital for postmortem examination at 04:00 p.m., then there was a delay of 10 hours and 15 minutes in conducting postmortem examination---Inspector (since dead) received the written complaint at 04:15 p.m. on 17.11.2012---Prosecution witnesses did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---Medical Officer deposed that the time elapse between death and postmortem was 15 hours, meaning that death occurred between 11:15 a.m. on 17.11.2012 and 02:15 a.m. on 18.11.2012---Thus, this proved that the death occurred sometime after 11:15 a.m. on 17.11.2012 onward---Such circumstances suggested that the FIR was ante-timed---Delay in conducting the postmortem examination also led to the conclusion that the FIR was not recorded when claimed to have been recorded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Irfan Haider vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 605 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ