Irshad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1934 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.

Irshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(1) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of niece of complainant and also causing injuries to his sister---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant, injured and an eye-witness---According to the prosecution story when the eye-witnesses reached at the house of occurrence, appellant firstly made fire shot with his 30 bore pistol upon deceased and thereafter made fire shot upon the neck of injured---If the appellant had intention to murder deceased then there was no reasoning to wait for the arrival of eye-witnesses---Moreover, the prosecution had not produced any cell phone or cell phone data of injured upon which she received phone call of her daughter---According to the statement of injured, she did not remember the cell number through which deceased made a phone call to her, however, that cell number was of mother-in-law of deceased---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that if (acquitted co-accused) had any intention to get the deceased murdered at the hands of appellant, why she gave her cell phone to deceased to inform her mother that her husband was quarrelling with her and intended to murder her---According to the testimony of Medical Officer,injured remained admitted in hospital from 01.05.2020 to 08.05.2020 but no such document to that effect was produced during the course of evidence---Moreso, complainant during his cross-examination stated that medical examination of injured was conducted on 13.05.2020---Contrarily, injured during her cross-examination stated that her medical examination was conducted after 04 days of the occurrence---Although, according to the record, Investigating Officer submitted an application on 04-05-2020 to Woman Medical Officer, for permission to record statement of injured, which was allowed by the concerned doctor with the observation that she was fit for recording her statement, thereafter her statement under Section 161,Cr.P.C., was recorded on 04-05-2020 with the delay of three days of the occurrence but there was no evidence that she was not in a position to get recorded her statement from 01-05-2020 to 03-05-2020---Apart from the above, the presence of so-called eye-witnesses at the spot was further falsified as according to the scaled site plan, which was prepared by draftsman, the distance between the Point No.1 (from where deceased received injury) and point No.2 (where the appellant made fire shot on the body of deceased) was eight feet but Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, observed burning on the injury No.1---Thus, the medical evidence being in direct conflict with the ocular evidence was also not safe to rely on the statements of the eye-witnesses, in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(1) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 122---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Husband accused of murdering his wife in their matrimonial house---Onus on husband---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of niece of complainant and also causing injuries to his sister---In the present case, onus had shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances in which his wife had died an unnatural death in his house which part of the onus had not been discharged by the appellant---When every other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution has been found to be utterly unreliable then the accusedcan not be convicted for the alleged murder simply on the basis of a supposition---In all such cases the initial onus of proof always lies upon the prosecution and if the prosecution fail to adduce reliable evidence in support of its own case then the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of lack of discharge of some part of the onus on him---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Direct evidence---Conviction---Scope---Unless direct or substantive evidence is brought on record, a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of such evidence, howsoever convincing it may be. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(1) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of niece of complainant and also causing injuries to his sister---Complainant during his cross-examination stated that as per application for registration of FIR, occurrence took place in the courtyard of house of deceased but in his supplementary statement, complainant stated that occurrence took place in the room of deceased---As per statements of complainant and injured, they reached at place of occurrence at 01:35 p.m. whereas according to the inquest report deceased died on 01-05-2020 at 02:00 p.m.---Contrarily, as per evidence of eye-witness, the occurrence took place on 01-05-2020 at 03:45 p.m.---In that way, there was a material contradiction about the time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(1) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of pistol at the instance of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of niece of complainant and also causing injuries to his sister---Record showed that pistol 30 bore was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the house of occurrence lying in kitchen like room, vide recovery memo on 17-05-2020 and positive report of the Forensic Science Agency thereof---Said facts were not helpful to the prosecution for the reasons that it would not appeal to any prudent mind that once the appellant decided to conceal the same as was the case of the prosecution then there was no occasion that he would keep the same in such safe custody so as to get the same recovered at a subsequent point of time and hand over to the police as a souvenir---Therefore, the alleged recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant was not proved by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State S. 161---Delay in recording the statement of witness by police---Scope---Recording the statement of a witness under S.161,Cr.P.C, at a belated stage casts serious doubt on the version of the prosecution. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creats doubt regarding prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Motive---Scope---If prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Irshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(1) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant and witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of niece of complainant and also causing injuries to his sister---After scanning the crime report, it manifested that no time of occurrence had been described therein---If complainant and witnesses were present at the time and place of occurrence then the time of occurrence must have been mentioned in the FIR---Said fact constrained to hold that the witnesses were not present at the time of incident for the reason they were not sure about the time of occurrence, otherwise there was no justification for non-describing the same in the FIR---In the column No.3 of the inquest report of deceased, time of death had been mentioned as 02:00 p.m. on 01-05-2020 and according to the postmortem report, the autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted on the following day at 03:00 a.m. i.e. with the delay of 11 hours after the occurrence---Keeping in view the said gross delay in the post mortem examination, an adverse inference could be drawn that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating a story after preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification of delay for conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Irshad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1934 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR