MUHAMMAD USMAN vs State S — 2025 YLR 857 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD USMAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in lodging FIR---Plausibly explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of his father and mother---Alleged occurrence took place on 19.07.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., and the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2021 at about 3:30 p.m., with a delay of one day---Delay in lodging the FIR was fully explained by the prosecution witnesses---According to complainant, after receiving injuries, the deceased were shifted to hospital and after their burial and other formalities, they lodged the FIR on 20.07.2021---Deceased were the parents of the complainant as well as the appellant, and first, they shifted the deceased to the hospital---Complainant stated during cross-examination that they reached at the Civil Hospital at 9:00 pm.---Risaldar Levies also reached at Civil Hospital at 9:30 pm.---Complainant also stated during cross-examination that he gave the report to Risaldar Levies orally---Risaldar Levies stated in his statement that on 19.07.2021, he received information about firing upon the deceased, and thereafter, he proceeded to Civil Hospital and prepared the injury report of the deceased and handed it over to the doctor---Risaldar Levies further stated that he also prepared the inquest report of the deceased and handed over the dead bodies to the legal heirs of the deceased---On the next date on the written report of the complainant, FIR was lodged---Investigation Officer and Officials of Levies were present at the Civil Hospital and they prepared all the necessary documents on the day of the occurrence---Area where the incident took place was a remote area, and it was also B-Area, which was within the jurisdiction of the levies Station---Since the Officials of Levies Thana received information about the occurrence on the same date and time, it was the duty of Risaldar to have lodged the report promptly, but he did not do so, and the delay only occurred in the registration of the FIR due to negligence of the Levies Officials---Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case were self-explanatory with regard to the delay in lodging of FIR, and the defense could not succeed in proving any consultation, deliberation, or premeditation on the part of the complainant to falsely charge the appellant in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

MUHAMMAD USMAN vs State S — 2025 YLR 857 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR