Zulfiqar Khan vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 142 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.

Zulfiqar Khan VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflictions---Accused were charged for making indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and one person sustained firearm injury---As per contents of FIR and statement of complainant, appellant was attributed role of causing pistol fire shot on the chest of injured but Medical Officer at 01:40 p.m. on 20.09.2020 medically examined injured and observed two injuries on the body of injured---Medical Officer further stated that said injured made his statement before him that he was shot by some person at 01:00 p.m. on 20.09.2020---On medical examination, injured was fully conscious and oriented in time, place and person---Medical Officer in his cross-examination stated that there were two injuries on the body of injured, i.e. one entry wound and second exit wound---Injury No.2 was the entry wound whereas injury No. l was exit wound---Injury No.1 was not an independent wound rather it was result/exit wound of injury No.2---Blackening was observed on injury No.2 of injured---Blackening occurs when the shot is fired from close range within 3 feet---Pictorial diagram also depicted that injury No.2 was on the left back side of the deceased which as per statement of the Medical Officer was entry wound---According to site plan, injured was present at Point-1 whereas appellant made fire shot at him while standing at Point-4---Distance between Point-1 and Point-4 was about 08 feet whereas as per postmortem report, burning was present, therefore, ocular account furnished by the two eye-witnesses was not inconsonance with the medical evidence which clearly contradicted the statements of the eye-witnesses---Contradiction in the ocular account of the occurrence as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence furnished by the Medical Officer clearly established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zulfiqar Khan vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 142 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR