Karamat Ali vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 266 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.

Karamat Ali VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven hours and ten minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the wife of complainant and caused injuries to the witness---as per case of prosecution, occurrence in this case took place on 31.08.2020 at 10:30 a.m. near a school situated at a distance of 13-kilometers from the police station, whereas matter was reported to the police by complainant through written application in the police station at 05:40 p.m. on 31.08.2020 and on the basis of same, FIR was recorded at 05:40 p.m.---So there was delay of seven hours and ten minutes in reporting the matter to the police by the complainant---as per Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of injured witness, he was brought in the hospital by police on 31.08.2020 at 03:10 p.m.---If injured witness was taken to hospital by the police and name of police Officer was mentioned in Medico-Legal Examination Certificate, then it was crystal clear that Police was having knowledge about the occurrence at least prior to 03:10 p.m. but why First Information Report was not recorded till 03:10 p.m., had not been clarified by the prosecution---Complainant, during trial of the case, stated in categorical terms that he reached police station at about 12:00 a.m. (night) on the day of occurrence and thereafter proceedings regarding the occurrence were conducted---as per statement of Medical Officer, dead body of deceased was received in the dead house on 31.08.2020 at 08.30 p.m. whereas autopsy was conducted on the next day i.e. 01.09.2020 at 10:00 a.m.---So, reason for delay in conducting autopsy was that police papers were received at 09:00 a.m. on 01.09.2020---as per own case of prosecution, occurrence took place at 10:30 a.m. on 31.08.2020 whereas postmortem examination over dead body of the deceased was conducted on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. i.e. after the delay of 23½ hours---Such state of affairs reflected that none of the cited eye-witnesses including the complainant was present at the "time and place" of occurrence and time had been consumed for procuring, inducing and engaging the witnesses, tailoring story for the case of prosecution and then registering the case in its present form after much delay---In such scenario, FIR, which was cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, could not be termed as promptly recorded and such sort of FIR could not provide any support to the case of prosecution rather superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Karamat Ali vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR