Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 420 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 Zafar Iqbal VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing fire arm injuries to the complainant---Complainant, though initially claimed that the appellant had developed an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and had also enticed her away, five six months prior to the occurrence---However, during cross-examination, complainant even denied that his brother/deceased was married to Mst. "S" and even denied that he had any knowledge about the marriage of Mst. "S" with deceased---Statement of complainant that it was incorrect that deceased was married to Mst. "S" opened up a gaping flaw in the prosecution's case in the manner that if Mst. "S" was not married to deceased then why the eye-witnesses had proceeded to the house of acquitted co-accused, on the day of the incident, ostensibly to bring back Mst. "S", who had arrived at the said house after having been beaten by the appellant---Said sole statement of complainant that Mst. "S" was not even the wife of his brother made the whole prosecution case completely doubtful and the circumstances in which the eye-witnesses proceeded to the house of acquitted co-accused, on the day of the incident, very sinister---Other eye-witness came up with another version regarding the relationship of deceased and Mst. "S" and claimed that the relationship between deceased and Mst. "S" was very cordial and furthermore deceased had never reported the matter of enticing away of Mst. "S" by the appellant to the police---Such statement of said eye-witness created a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case as to why the eye-witnesses proceeded to the house of acquitted co-accused on the day of the incident, if Mst. "S" was living a happy matrimonial life with deceased, as claimed by eye-witness himself---Investigating Officer also admitted during cross-examination that there was no dispute between the appellant and the eye-witnesses or the deceased prior to the incident---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD