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---Medical evidence contradicting ocular account---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries---Medical evidence in this case was furnished by Veterinary Officer and two Medical Officers---One of the Medical Officers medically examined the deceased then injured along with five other injured persons---During the medical examination of the deceased then injured, Medical Officer observed one firearm punctured wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of head just above the left ear---Contrarily, other Medical Officer during autopsy of deceased noted two firearm entry wounds each measuring 1 cm x 1 cm present on the left ear---On dissection, the Medical Officer observed that there were two holes in the skull, corresponding to the both wounds---In this way, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account whereby the single firearm injury from .30 bore pistol was attributed to appellant---In such scenario, the existence of second shot at the skull of the deceased which was not attributed to anybody casted a colossal doubt on the prosecution case---as per record, complainant along with injured witness and deceased, the then injured, were referred to DHQ Hospital, for further treatment---Thus, it was crystal clear that the three injured remained under treatment in the DHQ Hospital but no record therefrom was produced nor any Medical Officer under whose supervision they remained admitted appeared in the dock to support the prosecution case---Moreover, the injuries of complainant and injured were declared by Radiologist as Ss. 337-F(iii) & 337-F(v), P.P.C but no Radiologist was produced---Once Radiologist was not produced in proof of the x-ray report qua the declared injuries, the same could not be used for maintaining the conviction of the accused---Case of the prosecution was further falsified from the fact that as per prosecution case the shot fired by appellant hit at the head of deceased---However, during postmortem examination of deceased he was found in receipt of two firearm injuries and during postmortem examination two foreign bodies were recovered---Subsequent thereto, those two foreign bodies were dispatched to the office of Forensic Science agency and report was received therefrom---Perusal of Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that the said metallic pieces did not match with the weapon recovered from appellant---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