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---Delay of three hours and thirty minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged that they while armed with knives assaulted the complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died and one person was injured---Record showed that Medical Officer conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased on 11.01.2020 at 10:00 p.m., which showed that the postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted with a delay of three hours and thirty minutes from the time of reporting the incident to the police---Medical Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that rigor mortis was developed and putrefaction was present---If the incident occurred at 5:45 p.m. on 11.01.2020 and a written complaint was submitted at 06:15 p.m. on the same day and the postmortem examination was conducted on 11.01.2020 at 10:00 p.m., then it was strange that the prosecution did not explain the presence of rigor mortis and putrefaction within four hours and forty-five minutes---Putrefaction was the fifth stage of death, following pallor mortis, livor mortis, algor mortis, and rigor mortis---With the onset of putrefaction, rigor mortis passed off and secondary relaxation occurred---Secondary relaxation occurred at around 36 hours after death due to the breakdown of the contracted muscles due to decomposition---Rigor mortis was the post-mortem stiffening/rigidity of the body, which set in within two hours from the time of death and was completed in 12 hours---Rigor mortis lasted 24-48 hours in winter and 18-36 hours in summer---Medical Officer admitted during cross-examination that he clearly observed putrefaction on the dead body of the deceased before postmortem---Incident had since taken place in the winter, the coldest month, and the post-mortem was conducted on the same day; there was no chance for the body to have started putrefaction or decomposition---Thus, it could only start after the period of rigor mortis was over; thus, medical evidence did not support the prosecution's story---Putrefaction of the dead body would start within four hours and forty-five minutes from the time of death---Said circumstance alone was sufficient to discard the whole prosecution story---Such circumstances would go to suggest that the FIR was ante dated---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