Imran alias Mana vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 116 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.

Imran alias Mana VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the instant case, according to complainant, he was a resident of acolony, which was situated at 8/9 streets from the place of occurrence---In the given circumstances, when the presence of complainant at the crime scene was not in accordance with the daily pursuit of his life, he was legally obliged to put forth some compelling reason for his acclaimed attendance, but that burden was not discharged during the trial---Similarly, as per his own stance, eye-witness was a resident of vicinity, about 10 kilometers from place of occurrence---Said eye-witness simply claimed to be in the company of complainant and uttered not a single word for his reason of being so---Presence of both the eye-witnesses at the spot, in the manner they claimed, made them chance witnesses and their depositions suspect evidence---Depositions of said witnesses were to be discarded from consideration---Moreover, none of the eye-witnesses gave any detail as to how they shifted the deceased to the hospital in injured condition---Furthermore, according to both eye-witnesses, the accused came to the spot while riding on a rickshaw and a motorcycle, but neither described the model, make, colour and the number of motorcycle nor the rickshaw---During the course of cross-examination, the witness was confronted with his statement got recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C and he admitted that the story narrated during the course of examination-in-chief was not narrated in the same manner at the time of recording of his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., before police and the witness made dishonest improvement just to strengthen the case of prosecution against the accused---Said aspect led to conclude that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot---According to the complainant, deceased after sustaining injuries fell on the ground---Complainant along with two other witnesses shifted deceased to hospital in injured condition and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries---However, such astance of the complainant negated the statement of Medical Officer, who deposed that probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate---Moreover, none of the eye-witnesses gave any detail as to how they shifted the deceased to the hospital in injured condition---Furthermore, according to both eye-witnesses, the accused came to the spot while riding on a rickshaw and amotorcycle, but neither described the model, make, colour and the number of motorcycle nor the rickshaw---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Imran alias Mana vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR