Muhammad Imran vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2683 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 Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 29 hours and 20 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential--- accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Perusal of record revealed that regarding the occurrence which took place on 14.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m., FIR. was got registered on 15.01.2013 at 06.20 p.m.---Fact remained that the distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station was of 03-kilometers---Therefore, immediately after the incident the matter could conveniently be reported to the police by the complainant but no such effort was made in that regard---Even from the date of occurrence i.e. 14.01.2013 to 15.01.2013 neither complainant appeared before the Investigating Officer nor made any application for the registration of FIR---It was proved from record that Investigating Officer received any information about the occurrence from wireless or any source---Information regarding the incident was imparted to the police by the complainant after a considerable delay and that too after due consultation and deliberation---Thus, a cautious approach ought to be adopted by the Courts for evaluating the evidence---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence not seen by the witnesses---accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Investigating Officer admitted that on the pointing of the complainant and witnesses, he got prepared un-scaled site plan---If the presence of the accused was considered at point No.2 i.e. haveli, then it was not possible for the witnesses to witness the occurrence of receiving of firearm injury to injured who at the eventful time was shown to be present in the wheat crop---Un-scaled site plan also did not demonstrate the total distance between the accused and complainant's party and if witnesses were present at considerable distance from the place where injured received injuries by the hands of assailants and grown up wheat crop was intervening the places then witnesses' deposition with specification of roles of assailants qua inflicting firearm injuries was not believable because if accused were present in the haveli, then, in the presence of wheat crop, it was not possible for witnesses to see the incident with specification---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inordinate delay in recording the statements of witnesses---Consequential---accused- petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that witnesses did not record their statements immediately after the registration of FIR which was registered on 15.01.2013---as per statement of Investigating Officer the witnesses got recorded their statements on 20.01.2013 and prior to that they did not appear before him in proof of allegations levelled by the complainant---Injured got recorded his first statement on 31.01.2013 i.e. with the further delay of 11 days from the date of recording the statements of witnesses and 15 days after the date of registration of FIR for which no cogent explanation was offered by prosecution---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that though four accused were nominated in the occurrence, out of which three accused were acquitted by the Trial Court and their acquittal order was not challenged by the complainant at any forum and only petitioner was convicted on the basis of similar set of witnesses disbelieved to the extent of remaining accused---Under such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold petitioner alone responsible for the commission of offence---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Scope---Variation in the medical and ocular account totally mars the case of the prosecution. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Confliction---accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that medical examination of the injured was conducted by Medical Officer and Medico-Legal Certificate was crystal clear of the fact that injured was produced for his medical examination at 08.10 p.m. and keeping in view the fact that injured allegedly received firearm injury at the hands of accused, who was in critical condition, then why complainant waited for long eight hours in getting the injured for his medical examination to the hospital---Likewise, though in his complaint, complainant alleged that petitioner inflicted a fire shot from his pistol which hit on the right shin of injured and went through and through, however, Medical Officer admitted that in his opinion, many metallic pieces were found in the area of injury---Thus, it might be pieces of many bullets or pellets---Such statement of Medical Officer was further corroborated by the other Medical Officer---Said portion was crystal clear of the fact that the injury was not caused through a .30 bore pistol rather it was caused through a different weapon containing cartridges and the said conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony was so severe that it travelled to the roots of the matter and knocked the bottom of the prosecution's case against the accused---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of incriminating material---accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that .30 bore pistol along with two live bullets was allegedly recovered at the time of arrest of the petitioner but there was no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that the weapon had matched with the crime empties because no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence which could be matched with the weapon recovered---Similarly, no blood stained earth was taken into possession to prove the place of occurrence, therefore, there was no incriminating recovery in the case available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and recovery had become inconsequential in circumstances---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Imran vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2683 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR