Ameer Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 466 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.

Ameer Hussain VS State Ss. 302(b), 452, 427, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 11-hours and 35-minutes in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the father of complainant---Although as per contents of the FIR, the occurrence took place on 18.12.2007 at 06:30 p.m. and was alleged to have been seen by witnesses and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 08:00 p.m., however, postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 19.12.2007 at 06:05 a.m. i.e., with the delay of about 11 hours and 35 minutes---In the postmortem report of deceased, Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body, had mentioned probable time between injuries and death as immediate and between death and postmortem as within 12 hours---Thus, there was a delay of 11 hours and 35 minutes in conducting autopsy on the dead body of deceased---Complainant was son of the deceased and eye-witness was paternal nephew of the complainant and both the said witnesses of ocular account were the residents of the same vicinity---In such a situation if the said witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and also witnessed the scene of occurrence then such an inordinate and unexplained delay would never have occurred---So it was a case of delayed postmortem, which casted serious doubt and the inference could be drawn that the intervening period was consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after the preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification for sending the police papers on the next day---There was no explanation at all available on record for what happened during the intervening period which delayed the postmortem examination for about 11 hours and 35 minutes---Such noticeable delay in post mortem examination of the dead body was generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses before preparing police papers necessary for the same---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ameer Hussain vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD