Muhammad Azam vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2312 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 Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not supporting ocular account---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per site plan of place of occurrence, appellant fired shot with pistol 30-bore at deceased from a distance of four feet---If length of his arm and barrel of pistol are deducted from said distance, then from the remaining distance there should have been at least blackening at the wound of the deceased but it was not observed---Any Medico-Legal Certificate, referral slip from RHC, or DHQ Hospital, was not produced by the prosecution and it was mere version of the prosecution---Any document was not produced to show that deceased was provided any first aid in injured condition---As per ocular account accused fired shot which hit at the head of deceased---Similarly, co-accused fired shot at deceased which also hit at his head---In such state of affairs there should have been two firearm entry wounds on the head of the deceased but the Medical Officer stated that he had not mentioned injury No.1 as entry wound and he had also stated that he had not mentioned in the detail of injury No.2 as ante wound and it went without saying that margins of the wounds were irregular---On the one hand medical evidence had not supported the ocular account in stricto sensu whereas on the other hand medical evidence was mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence could tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it could not tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither provided any corroboration nor was of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer moved an application to Medical Officer, RHC, for having permission to record the statement of victim---Perusal of said application revealed that victim was brought in emergency at RHC at about 11:30 a.m. on 12.11.2020, meaning thereby that police was having the knowledge of occurrence at least at 11:30 a.m. or prior to that but even then case was not registered till then for which any reason appealing to the common prudent mind had not come on the record which reflected deliberation, consultation and procuring as well as inducing the witnesses on part of the prosecution and tailoring story for registration of the case on the one hand whereas negation of presence of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant on the other hand---Any document i.e. Medico-Legal Certificate or referral slip or medical treatment chart or death certificate to show that complainant or any other cited eye-witnesses was accompanying deceased when he was taken in injured condition to hospital was not brought on the record---Case of prosecution that victim was shifted in injured condition to RHC from where to DHQ Hospital and from there he was taken to General Hospital but any cloth of cited eye-witnesses or complainant smeared with blood of victim had not been produced during trial of the case---As per column No. 8 of inquest report, eyes of the deceased were open---Investigating Officer clearly stated before the Court that presence of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses was not verified by residents of the place of occurrence---Furthermore, role alleged against co-accused that he made firearm shot and caused injury to the deceased was not proved during investigation---Co-accused against whom allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased was levelled on the basis of same set of evidence and same circumstances, he had been acquitted---Thus, ocular account produced by the prosecution in the case was neither confidence inspiring nor reliable, hence same was discarded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Though two cartridge cases secured from the place of occurrence were found as having been fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant---However, as per report of Forensic Science Agency, two cartridge cases were received on 23.11.2020 whereas pistol was received on 07.12.2020---As per case of prosecution pistol was recovered from the appellant on 04.12.2020---As per case of prosecution, accused was arrested on 24.11.2020---Meaning thereby that empties were sent just one day prior to the arrest of the appellant i.e. on 23.11.2020 which made it a suspect circumstance---Furthermore, complainant clearly stated that accused was arrested in this case on the day of registration of case i.e. 12.11.2020---So, on the one hand, version of Investigating Officer regarding arrest of accused on 24.11.2020 had been negated whereas on the other hand it reflected that empties were sent to Forensic Science Agency after arrest of the accused---If accused was arrested on 12.11.2020 then after the statutory period provided under S.61 read with S.167, Cr.P.C., further detention of the appellant with the police was illegal and so pistol was allegedly recovered on 04.12.2020 from the appellant when he was in illegal custody which also raised question mark about legal efficacy of the recovery and all those factors made the report of Forensic Science Agency as non-conclusive and recovery as inconsequential---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 15 hours and 40 minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 13.11.2020 at 01:40 a.m. and it is also relevant to mention here that documents were also received from the police at 1:30 a.m. on 13.11.2020 which fact lead to the conclusion that documents were not ready, time was consumed by the prosecution for preparing the same, therefore postmortem examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased was delayed, which further showed that FIR was even not recorded at the stated time rather with much delay, however, anti-time had been shown in the record which negated presence/availability of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant at the time and place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 5800 - 5850 Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that it was not mentioned in the application for the registration of FIR that why deceased was called through phone to come at place of occurrence and any motive for the occurrence was also not mentioned in said application---However, dishonest improvement in that regard was made by the very same complainant when he filed complaint regarding the occurrence wherein he mentioned that co-accused made phone call to deceased and summoned him for taking his sister who was abducted by accused along with others and motive was also mentioned in the complaint that accused along with others abducted sister of the complainant on 01.10.2020, deceased uttered abuses to accused on telephone, exchanged of hot words took place and due to said grudge accused persons while deceitfully calling deceased committed his murder---However, neither any phone of co-accused was recovered during investigation of the case nor even produced during trial of the case---Alleged abductee was also not produced during trial of the case---Even allegation levelled by the complainant that co-accused summoned deceased through phone was found false during investigation of the case---Therefore, said aspect could not be proved during trial of the case, hence the very alleged cause regarding going of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses with deceased of the case to the place of occurrence could not be established---Nothing brought on record that in whose presence deceased uttered abuses to accused and in whose presence altercation took place between them, so that claim of prosecution also could not be proved---Thus motive could not be established---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Dishonest improvement made by witness---Scope---Witness who introduces dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, can not be relied. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in recording FIR---When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of nine hours and twenty minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at 10.00 am on 12.11.2020, however, application for registration of FIR was filed on 12.11.2020 at 07.20 pm and on the basis of said application, FIR was recorded at 07.20 pm on 12.11.2020---Though it was mentioned in application that after the occurrence, deceased was taken to RHC in unconscious condition where Medical Officer after medical treatment referred him to DHQ Hospital wherefrom after providing first aid he was referred to General Hospital and when complainant was taking his brother to General Hospital, he expired on the way to hospital---Record showed that neither any Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of deceased issued from RHC nor any Emergency Admission Register of RHC was brought on the record by the prosecution so much so any record showing medical treatment of deceased in RHC was also not available on the record; any record to show that deceased was referred from RHC to DHQ Hospital had also not been brought on the record; record about provision of any first aid to deceased in DHQ Hospital had not been produced---Similarly, any referral slip to show that deceased was referred to General Hospital was also not available on the record, therefore, any plausible reason to justify delay in registration of the case had not been brought on the record by the prosecution---Hence, there was unexplained delay in registration of the case which reflected that none of the cited eye-witnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence---First Information Report (crime report), which was cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, could not be termed as promptly recorded and such sort of FIR could not provide any support to the case of prosecution rather superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in the case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Azam VS State Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case comprised of complainant and an eye-witness---Both the said witnesses were neither residents of the place of occurrence nor were having any job/business place there, therefore were chance witnesses and it was necessary for them to establish valid reason regarding their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Complainant stated that he along with his deceased brother, his mother and father were resident of a village, situated at a distance of 12-km from the place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Azam vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2312 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR