Muhammad Qasim vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2492 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 Qasim VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, jurhghayr-jaifahmunaqqilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence---No cartridges recovered---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his son---As per record, .44 bore rifle was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant---No cartridge case of .44 bore rifle was found from the place of occurrence and as per report of Forensic Science Agency, said rifle was only found in mechanical operation condition; hence said report was inconsequential and recovery of the rifle 44 bore was of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State S. 154---First Information Report---Scope---First Information Report is always considered as foundational element and cornerstone of the case of prosecution for the reason that it contains first hand detail of the occurrence presumably free from any adulteration/manipulation, addition or omission and if it is not so and there is no explanation in that regard, then superstructure raised on the basis of that FIR i.e. case of prosecution is bound to fall like house of cards. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, jurhghayr-jaifahmunaqqilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his son---As per ocular version, appellant fired straight shot with rifle which hit at the abdomen of deceased whereas perusal of medico-legal examination certificate revealed that there was a lacerated entry wound with "inverted and blackened margins" on the right flank of abdomen whereas an exit wound with everted margin was on the front and left side of abdomen 10cm above from umbilicus---As per ocular account, after the occurrence, complainant and eye-witnesses brought the then injured/now deceased of the case to THQ Hospital, but it was clearly negated by FIR and statement of Investigating Officer---Though Investigating Officer prepared injury statements of both injured persons and sent them through Constable to THQ Hospital for their medical examination as well as obtaining result from the Medical Officer on 25.06.2018, yet injured was not medically examined on said date i.e. 25.06.2018 and his Medico-Legal Examination Certificate was not obtained on that day---Furthermore, if injured was not sent to hospital by Investigating Officer through Constable rather he was directly brought from the place of occurrence by the complainant and other cited eye-witnesses to the hospital, even then he was not medically examined on 25.06.2018---Prosecution was absolutely silent and remained unable to give an iota of valid/plausible, convincing and acceptable reason in that regard, which was a big blow as well as a question mark on the veracity of case of prosecution---If son of complainant was injured and he came to the hospital along with complainant and eye-witnesses, then why he did not get himself medically examined then and there on the day of occurrence but the prosecution was mum and unable to reply that aspect rather injured himself smashed the case of prosecution on the vital aspect when he categorically stated before the Court that he went to THQ Hospital after eight days of the occurrence for his medical examination---Thus, it was also a question mark that as per case of prosecution, at least five accused persons gave beating to injured with sticks and hunters but any blood or mud or dust-stained clothes of injured were not produced during investigation or trial---Furthermore, any sign of flouncing or struggling made by injured when he was being tortured with sticks and hunters was also not available at the relevant place in the site plans of place of occurrence---As per case of prosecution, injured was given beating with sticks and hunters by so many persons, then why his clothes were not stained with any drop of blood and furthermore, why he went to THQ hospital, after eight days of the occurrence for medical examination according to his own statement recorded before the Court---These factors had created reasonable doubt regarding truthfulness of his testimony---Injured had not specified kind of weapon possessed by the accused persons at the time of occurrence and he had also not specified the injuries received by him in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Similarly, complainant in his statement before the police did not specify kind of weapon possessed by the accused persons at the time of occurrence---Complainant did not specify that who was having stick or having hunter at the time of occurrence---When all said factors were taken into consideration in totality, then the High Court had come to the definite conclusion that ocular account was full of major contradictions, neither supported/ confirmed in stricto sensu by the medical evidence nor confidence inspiring/truthful, hence, same could not be relied and was discarded---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, jurhghayr-jaifahmunaqqilah, 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 were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his son---Cricket bat, ball, wicket, gloves or pads which were used for playing cricket were neither secured during investigation from the spot nor shown at the spot in the site plans of the place of occurrence---Clothes of the complainant or any cited eye-witness stained with blood of the then injured/now deceased of the case were neither taken into possession during investigation nor produced during trial of the case---Any earth/soil stained with blood of injured was not secured from the spot---Name of complainant or any other cited eye-witness including injured was not mentioned as accompanying person in the medico-legal certificate of deceased rather name of his son was mentioned in said medico-legal certificate but name of son of deceased was neither mentioned in FIR nor in the statements of complainant as well as other cited eye-witnesses got recorded by them in the Court---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, jurhghayr-jaifahmunaqqilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his son---Record showed that it had been categorically mentioned in statement that accused persons were having old grudge with deceased brother of the complainant and due to that grudge, all accused persons with the intention to kill, made straight firing---However, any evidence could not come on the record to establish motive---So, in this case, motive could not be proved through any independent and cogent evidence/material---Furthermore, motive is a double edged weapon, it cuts both the ways, it can also be a reason for false implication---Even otherwise, when substantive evidence has been discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, jurhghayr-jaifahmunaqqilah, 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 were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his son---In this case, ocular account produced by the prosecution comprised of statements of complainant, injured son of complainant and two eye-witnesses---As per site plan of the place of occurrence, neither house of eye-witnesses including complainant and injured witness nor their job/work place was at or adjacent to the place of occurrence---Draftsman categorically stated that he had not mentioned the house of complainant in the site plan---Therefore, said witnesses were chance witnesses and thus were required to explain and establish plausible as well as valid reason regarding their presence at the "time and place" of occurrence---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Qasim VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/ confirmatory type of evidence, it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same can neither provide any corroboration nor is of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Muhammad Qasim vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR