Wishal Munawar vs State S — 2025 YLR 548 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.

Wishal Munawar VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the venue not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of paternal nephew of the complainant by firing---As per prosecution, the incident had taken place inside the house of appellant, as such presence of the acclaimed eye-witnesses at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time was highly questionable---Reason explained by the eye-witnesses that after lapse of 15/20 minutes when the deceased did not turn back from the house of appellant, they became worried and rushed towards the house of appellant did not appeal to reason---Admittedly, incident had taken place on the occasion of Eid-ul-Adha and in our social set up, usually male friends spend whole day with each other and even till late night and no surprise is ever thrown by the elders qua their absence from the home---As such reasons of the eye-witnesses for their attraction at the venue of occurrence was not justified at all---Another aspect which raised serious question qua presence of the eye-witnesses was that the complainant while lodging the FIR in unequivocal terms alleged that the appellant made a single fire shot at the chest of deceased, whereas, according to the post mortem examination report there were two fire arm injuries on the person of deceased---Had the eye-witnesses seen the occurrence with their own eyes, such major anomaly would never occur---Although in order to cover that lacuna, statedly the complainant made a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer, which was confirmed by Investigating Officer---Amazingly neither any such statement was brought on record nor the same was exhibited either in the statement of the complainant or the Investigating Officer---Thus the only inference that could be drawn was that story of recording of supplementary statement was concocted by the prosecution just to bring the ocular account in line with the medical evidence---Claim of the eye-witnesses was that they shifted the injured to the hospital but the Medico-Legal Certificate of the deceased while in injured condition did not reflect the name of the person, who was accompanying the injured at that time---Even according to the condition of dead body portrayed in the Inquest Report, the eyes of deceased were completely open while his mouth was semi open, which also showed absence of eye-witnesses at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time, otherwise, on coming to know the demise of a dear one, first step taken by the legal heirs was to close the eyes and mouth of deceased---Such facts projected a clear picture that both the acclaimed eye-witnesses were not present at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time and they were subsequently planted just to knit the net around the neck of the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Wishal Munawar vs State S — 2025 YLR 548 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR