Malik Muhammad Imran vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 231 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.

Malik Muhammad Imran VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 429, 337-a(iii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, mischief by killing or maiming cattle of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 04-days and 1½ hours in reporting the matter to the police---Consequential---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries---Incident in this case occurred on 30.05.2017 at about 4:30 p.m. but the matter was reported to the police on 03.06.2017 at about 6:05 p.m. i.e. after the delay of 04-days & 1½ hours but no plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution for such long delay---However, immediately after the occurrence Rapat No.18 dated 30.05.2017 was entered at 5:50 p.m. wherein it was specifically mentioned that injured persons, in injured condition came at Police Station and stated that appellant along with 12 other named and 7/8 unknown accused who were armed with dands, sotas and firearm weapons injured them---When the occurrence had already been reported in the form of Rapat No.18, there was no occasion for the complainant to re-report the matter through written application after the delay of more than four days---Evidently, first Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence after the incorporation of Rapat No.18 but no complaint was presented to him at the spot by complainant in order to get registered FIR as per version introduced later on---Such fact was very much relevant because had the incident taken place in the manner and mode the complainant narrated through application, it would have been reported immediately to said Police Official at the spot---Complainant party through a protracted trial remained fail in justifying as to what precluded them to report the crime to the police promptly---Rapat No.18 showed that the injured persons arrived at Police Station, however, in the said Rapat the description of injuries and the role assigned to the accused were missing---It was mentioned in Rapat No.18 that the accused caused injuries to the injured persons by using blunt as well as firearm weapons---Therefore, it could be concluded that in fact Rapat No.18 was the exact information which was conveyed to police immediately after the incident, however, later on the facts were concocted and the FIR was chalked out after deliberation and consultation---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Malik Muhammad Imran vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 231 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR