Muhammad Irfan alias Pomi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 201 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 Irfan alias Pomi VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---It was alleged by defence that complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that no one from the complainant's side ('us') was eye-witness in the case---After scrutinizing the entire statements of complainant and eye-witness, it was observed that mentioning of word "us" in the quoted line from the cross-examination of the complainant was a typographical error due to casual and careless attitude of the Presiding Officer while dictating the evidence---Complainant had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that appellant made straight fire shots which hit victim on left side of his abdomen and left shoulder and due to the firearm injuries, he fell down---Complainant along with eye-witnesses came forward and witnessed the occurrence---During cross-examination, defence put some questions to complainant regarding the place of occurrence and its location, whereupon he replied that place of occurrence was surrounded by inhabited houses and in that sequence, a question was put to him upon which he replied that "none from us was eye-witness in the case"---Said fact clearly manifested that in a sequel of cross-examination aquestion was put about the availability of inhabitants of locality and not about the presence of the complainant as well as eye-witnesses mentioned in the crime report and due to the carelessness of the Presiding Officer instead of word "them" word "us" had been typed---Similarly, such type of question was also put to eye-witness wherein correct word "them" had been used and not "us"---Moreover, during cross-examination on complainant, aspecific suggestion was put to him that he and other eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence---Complainant categorically denied that fact and clarified that they were present at the time and place of occurrence---Thus, it appeared that typographical error had occurred while dictating cross-examination of complainant---If the Urdu translation of the evidence had been prepared during the same sitting as well as in the presence and hearing of the Presiding Officer and all parties involved, then the correct answer could have emerged clearly on the record---Evidence of any witness was to be taken into consideration as awhole, not in bits and pieces---Said witness during examination-in-chief as well as in the cross- examination had fully supported the case of prosecution---Law did not permit the Court to pick and choose a sentence from the entire evidence and based its decision while reading only that sentence in favour of the appellant, in isolation to the remaining evidence available on record---Circumstances established that the prosecution proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Irfan alias Pomi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ