Ihsan Illahi alias Shani vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 221 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.

Ihsan Illahi alias Shani VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 31 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 01.11.2017 at about 2:00 p.m. in a Mauza situated at a distance of 4-kilometers from Police Station---Law regarding that occurrence was set into motion through written application of complainant presented before Police Officer on 02.11.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. in the police station which was transformed into formal FIR---From this aspect, it manifested that the matter was reported to police with the delay of about 31 hours---Nothing was found to explain such an unwarranted delay in the registration of FIR---Prosecution though made an endeavour to cover this delay by portraying that firstly deceased in injured condition was taken to DHQ Hospital, for the purpose of medical treatment from where he was referred to General Hospital, L-(Lahore), thus the delay in reporting the matter to the police was ignorable---However, in this regard, it was noticed that when deceased in injured condition was shifted to DHQ Hospital, he was given medical treatment by Medical Officer and according to Medical Officer, the injured was brought by Head Constable on 01.11.2017 at about 3:20 p.m.---To bring the injured to the hospital by a Police Official showed that the matter had already come in the knowledge of the police within 1-hour and 20-minutes---However, it was not the case of prosecution that the complainant tried to get recorded his statement to police who refused to reduce it into writing to set the criminal law into motion---Apart from the statement of injured who gave the medical history to Medical Officer regarding the criminal assault by two unknown persons till filing of complaint, no version was recorded by the complainant to police while nominating the accused with specification---Claim of the prosecution was that two eye-witnesses saw the incident and they informed it to the complainant---Question in such circumstances arose that what made the eye-witnesses to keep mum for about 31-hours in reporting the crime to the police---Moreover, complainant during cross-examination categorically admitted that he got drafted the application from an individual from district Court/Katchari---Name of the such person was not found on record from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint---Furthermore, neither the scribe of the complaint was produced before the Investigating Officer nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of the complainant---Admittedly the complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident and whatever he mentioned in the complaint was told to him by the alleged two eye-witnesses---In these circumstances, the delay of 31-hours in chalking out the FIR raised eyebrow regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case---Delay in reporting the matter to the police gave rise to possibility of concoction and fabrication of facts mentioned in the crime report warranting more cautious approach from the Court---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ihsan Illahi alias Shani vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 221 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD