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---Improvements made by witnesses in their statements---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries---as per complaint when the accused entered the house of complainant, they maltreated the women-folk present there and thereafter the whole incident took place---However, complainant when appearing before the Trial Court, did not utter a single word regarding the maltreatment of his women-folk---Though injured witness in his examination-in-chief stated that the accused gave slaps to their ladies, however during cross-examination admitted that he did not produce any lady before any of the Investigating Officers for recording of her statement---Besides that no Medico-Legal Certificate of any of the women was available on the file---all the narration of said facts spoke volume that either no woman was present at the crime scene or the story of maltreatment to the complainant's women folk was introduced just to aggravate the incident by giving it a colour of ghairat (honour)---Investigating Officer during evidence stated that he had taken blood with the help of cotton from different places i.e. four places---Contrarily, the memo through which the blood through cotton was taken into possession showed that the same was done from one place---all the witnesses of ocular account made dishonest improvements, thus it was not safe to rely upon them---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