Sheroz Yousaf vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2091 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.

Sheroz Yousaf VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report lodged with promptitude---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant and committing murder of his wife and causing firearm injuries to his son and daughter---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place on 16.08.2020 at 3.15 p.m. in which wife of the complainant, son of the complainant and daughter of the complainant received firearm injuries---After leaving deceased and injured persons/witnesses in the hospital, complainant went to Police Station where he submitted application for registration of case and on the basis of the same, FIR was recorded at 6.00 p.m. on 16.8.2020, therefore, there was no undue delay in the registration of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any doubt, however due to mitigating factors, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sheroz Yousaf VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant and committing murder of his wife and causing firearm injuries to his son and daughter---Ocular account furnished by prosecution in the case comprised of statement of complainant and injured witnesses---All the said witnesses deposed about details of the occurrence in straight forward manner---Evidentiary value of the testimony of said witnesses could not be diminished/minimized and their credibility also could not be impeached in spite of searching cross-examination made over them---Complainant was natural witness whose presence at the spot was quite natural as in his house occurrence took place---Similarly, injured son and injured daughter of the complainant were also residents of the place of occurrence who received injuries during occurrence, therefore, they were also the natural and star witnesses---Moreover, it was Sunday on the day of occurrence, therefore, presence of the complainant in his house was also quite natural on the holiday---Admittedly, parties were known to each other and residents of the same vicinity, therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity, particularly, when occurrence took place in broad day light---Even otherwise, any cogent and plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant could not come on the record---Substitution of the real culprit was rare phenomenon---Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies do occur/appear in the statements of witnesses with the passage of time---Since it was natural that memory of any person with the afflux of time might have faded, therefore, such inconsistencies/ discrepancies could not destroy the case of prosecution when same were not hitting vital aspects of the case---Ocular account had been found as confidence inspiring and trustworthy---Medical evidence had duly supported/confirmed the ocular account---As per application for registration of the case, dead body of the deceased was shifted by complainant in the hospital along with his injured children and then he came to the Police Station for registration of the case---Perusal of first column of inquest report revealed that dead body of the deceased was available in the dead house of the hospital which also supported ocular version in that regard---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any doubt, however due to mitigating factors, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sheroz Yousaf VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in ---Mitigating factors---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant and committing murder of his wife and causing firearm injuries to his son and daughter---Motive alleged by the complainant in application for registration of the case was that accused persons were making firing in the street who were refrained/forbidden due to which they became furious, and entered into house of complainant, and made firing ---However, it was nowhere mentioned in said application that complainant or deceased of the case or injured witnesses or other eye-witnesses/inmates of the house went into street, refrained the accused there from firing and came back into house---Furthermore, any empty shell/cartridge case was not found from the street and any other resident of the street was not produced in support of said motive---In the scaled site-plan though street had been shown but the place where accused persons were making firing in the street had not been mentioned---So much so, any separate site plan of the street where accused persons were making firing had not been prepared---If complainant refrained accused persons from making firing, and accused persons became exasperated/ infuriated and committed the occurrence, even then possibility of sudden flare up in the heat of passion and committing the occurrence could not outrightly be ruled out---When all those factors were taken into consideration in totality then it constituted mitigating factor for reduction in quantum of sentence---Thus, death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sheroz Yousaf VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence, crime empties and blood from the place of occurrence---Reliance---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant and committing murder of his wife and causing firearm injuries to his son and daughter---Appellant made disclosure and in pursuance of the same got recovered pistol .30 bore along with two live bullets on 25.08.2020---Sealed parcel was prepared, taken into possession by Investigating Officer vide recovery memo., attested by two Police Constables and sent the same to Forensic Science Agency, for comparison/examination---Blood was obtained through cotton from the place of murder of deceased of the case, secured through sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo.---Blood secured through cotton from the place injured received injuries was sealed into parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo.---As per report of Forensic Science Agency with respect of parcel of blood of deceased, the same was identified as human blood which confirmed the place of occurrence---One projectile of bullet secured during autopsy of deceased was also taken into possession along with her clothes vide recovery memo.---Junior Forensic Scientist secured one bullet projectile and four cartridge cases from the place of occurrence and sealed the same into two separate parcels vide recovery memo. which was attested by witnesses---Last worn clothes of the deceased and one bullet core/led bullet contained in bottle/phial were taken out from dead body of the deceased during autopsy---Said articles were also sent to Forensic Science Agency, for comparison---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, pistol recovered from the appellant was found in mechanical operation condition, three cartridge cases, out of four, were identified as having been fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant---However, 4 empty cartridge cases due to lack of sufficient suitable corresponding microscopic markings were not found as fit for comparison to identify or eliminate that it was fired from pistol or not---Projectile bullet was identified as having been fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant, however, bullet core was found as not suitable for comparison, therefore, said recovery had provided corroboration to the ocular account---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any doubt, however due to mitigating factors, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Sheroz Yousaf vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR