Muhammad Riaz alias Baddi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 362 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 Riaz alias Baddi VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Both the eye-witnesses, in their statements under Ss. 154 & 161 Cr.P.C, respectively and even in their examinations in chief claimed that appellant made two fires with his rifle which hit on the back of right shoulder and head of deceased---Similarly, the eye-witnesses also claimed that two fire shots by co-accused hit on the back of left shoulder and head of deceased but perusal of medical evidence rendered by Medical Officer made it clear that the deceased was not having any firearm injury on his head---Said Medical Officer also affirmed the possibility of sustaining injuries on head by the deceased by fall on the ground and he very clearly mentioned that those injuries could be caused by any blunt weapon---According to site plan, the distance between appellant and the deceased at the relevant time was 33 feet and similarly, between the deceased and co-accused, was more than 34 feet but when going through the description of two bullet entry wounds reflected in the postmortem examination report as injuries Nos. 2 and 3, it became clear that injury No.3 was having blackening around the inverted margins that was not possible by a fire shot from the distance of 33 feet---According to statement of the complainant, she was at a distance of 5/6 karams' from the deceased at the relevant time but marginal point No.6 of the scaled site plan revealed that the distance between the two was about 165 feet, about 30 'karams'---Being inconsistent with the medical evidence, the complainant also stated that the accused persons were standing close to the deceased at a distance of less than one feet---Said fact also controverted the distance given in the scaled site plan and the distance claimed by the other eye-witness---Said discrepancies of the ocular account with the medical evidence available on record made the same doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Riaz alias Baddi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 362 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ