Allah Rakha vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 762 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.

Allah Rakha VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(v) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of ten hours in conducting the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his other brother---Postmortem report of the deceased revealed that death took place at 07:30 p.m. on 25.06.2014; the dead body was brought to the dead house at 05:20 a.m. on 26.06.2014; complete police documents were received at 05:25 a.m., and the autopsy was conducted at 05:30 a.m. on 26.06.2014---However, it was the prosecution's case that the incident occurred at 5/6:00 p.m. on 25.06.2014---As per the postmortem report, the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate, whereas between death and postmortem was within 10 hours---Injury statement for conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased revealed that the same was received by the Medical Officer on 26.06.2014 at 05:10 a.m.---As per the prosecution case, the FIR was registered at 09:00 p.m.---However, no plausible explanation had been rendered as to why the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was delayed by 08 hours and 30 minutes from the time of registration of the case---Admittedly the FIR was registered at 09:00 p.m., but the reference to the same had not been given in the inquest report---There was no reason for the prosecution not to send the copy of the FIR along with said documents for conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased to Medical Officer---In addition, in column No.4 of the inquest report prepared by Investigating Officer, the names of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant had not been mentioned---Such facts outrightly suggested that the complainant and eye-witness were not present at the time the inquest report in the case was prepared and the FIR was ante-timed---All the said facts threw a cloud of doubt that the FIR was recorded with a delay, and the FIR had not been recorded when it was claimed to have been recorded---Considering all such facts, it could be concluded that the prosecution had not been able to prove on record that the incident was reported when it was claimed to have been recorded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allah Rakha vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 762 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ