AMJAD vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1388 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AMJAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 377, 341, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Re-appraisal of evidence---Delay of thirty one hours and thirty minutes in lodging the FIR---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of the minor son of complainant after committing sodomy with him---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Record showed that there was a considerable delay of more than 31½ hours in lodging of the FIR---Moreover, it was also a matter of record, rather it was an admitted position on the part of the complainant, that the FIR was registered after due consultation with two persons and the local police---From the deposition of complainant, it was evident that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted before lodging of the FIR---Complainant had admitted that after leaving the dead body at the spot he did not go to the Police Station for lodging of the FIR rather he went to the Nekmard and his uncle to inform them about the incident---Even after picking the dead body from the spot complainant made no effort to lodge the FIR as again he went to the hospital and had the postmortem conducted, and finally after completing the burial of the deceased, he went to the Police Station for lodging the FIR, causing a delay of 31½ hours---First Information Report, was to be lodged at the very initial stage of the incidents, that the legal process might be put into motion---In the instant case however, the FIR was registered after some events, i.e. informing co-villagers, taking them to the spot, taking the deceased's body to the hospital, getting postmortem and medical checkup done and finally the burial of the deceased---Thus, it was only after all these episodes the FIR was lodged after due consultation and preliminary investigation/enquiry of the Police on the spot, which, had put a major dent on the case of the complainant as well as that of the prosecution---In this case, it stood admitted that the FIR was registered after due consultation with private persons and the police and after conducting an enquiry, due to which it lost its evidentiary value---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

AMJAD vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1388 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR