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---Recovery of weapons of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that during investigation, .222 bore rifles were recovered from three appellants and pistol .30 bore and pump action gun were recovered by other two appellants---according to reports of Forensic Science agency, .222 bore rifle, pistol .30 bore & pump action recovered from appellants were found wedded with the respective crime empties secured from the spot---However, the evidence of Investigating Officer had caused a serious dent in the case of prosecution who while recording his statement before the Court deposed that on 03.06.2017 he took into possession 8 crimeempties of 12 bore from the roof top of the house of injured witness which were converted into sealed parcel and were taken into possession vide recovery memo---However, recovery memo contained the fact that the said crime empties were taken into possession by Investigation Officer from thoroughfare and not from the rooftop of the house of injured witness---Similarly, Investigating Officer mentioned that he secured 12 crime empties of .12 bore, 3 crime empties of 12 bore, 4 crime empties of .222 bore from the street near the house of occurrence which were converted into sealed parcel and were taken into possession vide recovery memo whereas vide recovery memo 8 crime empties were taken into possession by Investigating Officer from the rooftop of injured person and not from the street near the house of occurrence---In this way the positive report of Forensic Science agency lost its evidentiary value whereas the reports of Forensic Science agency regarding the recovery of weapons of the remaining appellants were negative---Thus, positive reports of Forensic Science agency further lost legal acceptance as corroboratory piece of evidence when seen in the context the ocular account stood disbelieved---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