Muhammad Umar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 197 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 Umar VS State Ss. 302(b), 460 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---DNA profile---Accused were charged for committing murder of step daughter and granddaughter of complainant and in addition to that stealing some household articles---In this case, main stay of prosecution was DNA profile matching and matching of finger prints---Samples for DNA and LFP were collected by the crime scene unit of Forensic Science Agency---Junior Forensic Scientist stated that he collected 22 exhibits from the place of occurrence mentioned in exhibit sheet and deposited the same before ERU (evidence receiving unit) of Forensic Science Agency on 23.04.2014---First anomaly as observed was of direct depositing of samples by the expert which was not the mandate of Forensic Science Agency---Neither such samples were recorded in register No.19 of police station for their custody and then dispatched to Forensic Science Agency nor Forensic Science AgencyReport mentioned the name of any scientist who deposited such samples except the expression 'received from crime scene unit'---Forensic Science Agency had also not mentioned the nature of seal over such samples---Some of the samples were also deposited by a constable firstly on 28.04.2014 and then on 5th May, 2014 as mentioned in the Forensic Science Agency Report without specifying the nature of samples in the report---If constable was the man who deposited the samples and that too on 5th May, 2014, then prosecution case became zero because by then accused had already been arrested on 29.04.2014---No seminal material was detected on the vaginal swabs of victims/deceased ladies which indicated a different story, if the victims were at the mercy of accused for whole night---No drug or poison was detected from the water rinse bottles which were transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Agency for analysis---Despite the fact that human DNA was obtained from different items, no DNA profile matching was done---All this indicated something adverse to prosecution case, disclosure of which might have run against the culpability of accused persons and it could safely be said that it was an attempt to hide or conceal something to save the actual culprits responsible for such murders---Thus, prosecution had not come up with the complete truth---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Umar vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 197 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR