Muhammad Imtiaz vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 763 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 Imtiaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Statements of the witnesses doubtful---Accused were charged that they while armed with knives assaulted on the complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died and one person was injured---In the inquest report, even the names of the complainant, given up witness and the injured witness, had not been mentioned---Inquest report was not signed by any of the eye-witnesses or the complainant---Injured witness till then was not medically examined, as his arrival time for medical examination was mentioned in the column of the Medico-Legal Certificate at 06:50 p.m. on 11.01.2020, whereas, Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report at5:45 p.m. as mentioned in column No.3 of the time and date of receiving information of the death of the deceased---Investigating Officer incorporated police proceedings at the bottom of the written complaint at 6:15 p.m., at the THQ Hospital who referred the written complaint to the police station, through a Constable (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, aformal FIR was chalked out by Police Officer on11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.---In column No.1 of the inquest report, it was mentioned that the dead body was recovered in the area of "AS"---Investigating Officer deposed that on receiving information of the occurrence, he reached THQ Hospital, and received a written complaint---Thereafter, Investigating Officer inspected the deadbody and prepared the inquest report---If Investigating Officer visited and prepared inquest report and had actually met with the complainant, witness (given up), and the injured witness, there was no reason why the details found missing from the inquest report should not have been there---Absence of those details was indicative of the fact that the prosecution's story was still in the embryo and had not been given any shape and that the FIR was recorded later on, after due deliberations and consultation and was then antedated to give it the color of a promptly lodged FIR---Even at the end of the column of a brief history of the inquest report, it revealed that particulars of the FIR were mentioned, and the deadbody was referred to THQ Hospital for postmortem---Inquest report was prepared at 05:45 p.m. on 11.01.2020---At the same time, the details of the FIR were mentioned at the end of the brief history column---Whereas FIR was registered at 6:30 p.m., the Investigating Officer testified that after recording police proceedings on written complaint at 6:15 p.m., he referred the written complaint to police station, through a Constable (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, a formal FIR was chalked out by Police Officer on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.---When the inquest report was prepared, the FIR had not been registered and its details were not written on its face---However, at the end of the brief history column, the details of the FIR were mentioned---Said fact created doubt about the registration of the FIR---Considering all those facts, there was no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution had not been able to prove on record that the incident was reported at the time at which it was claimed to have been recorded---Thus, in view of the said circumstances, the question of said witnesses being truthful witnesses became highly doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Imtiaz vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 763 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ