Muhammad Ramzan vs State S — 2026 YLR 361 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.

Muhammad Ramzan VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 07-hours 20-minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at 10:30 am on 29.06.2021 whereas it was reported to the police through application for registration of the case by complainant, which he produced before Police Officer at THQ Hospital, at 05:50 p.m. on 29.06.2021, which was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and on the basis of said application, FIR was recorded at 06:50 p.m. on 29.06.2021 at Police Station---In the application for registration of the case, it had been mentioned by the complainant that he, his injured father/now deceased of the case and his companions reached in THQ Hospital, where, his father succumbed to the injuries and died before examining by the Medical Officer---Complainant stated that they reached at THQ Hospital at 1:00/1:15 p.m.---Similarly, eye-witness stated the same statement as stated by complainant---So, as per those statements, deceased died before 1:15 p.m. and complainant was then free to go to the Police Station and get registered the case but he did not do so rather submitted application for registration of the case to Police Officer at THQ Hospital, at 05:50 p.m. on 29.06.2021---No plausible, convincing and acceptable reason to explain/cover said delay had been offered/brought on the record by the prosecution---As per postmortem examination report as well as statement of Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy of the deceased, deceased died almost immediately after receiving the injuries---Neither said portion of postmortem examination report was challenged during investigation nor during trial of the case by the prosecution---So as per ocular version, deceased received injuries at about 10:30 a.m. and as per medical evidence, he almost immediately died after receiving the injuries, meaning thereby that he died at the spot and the distance between Police Station and the place of occurrence had been mentioned as 13-Kilometers in Column No.4 of the FIR whereas 11/12 Kilometers, coverable within 15/20 minutes, had been mentioned by complainant while recording his statement before the Court---Said state of affairs also reflected that occurrence was not promptly reported to the police---Therefore, case was not promptly registered after the occurrence, which fact reflected that none of the cited witnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence at relevant time of occurrence and time was consumed for procuring, inducing and engaging the witnesses including the complainant; then tailoring story for the case of prosecution and registering the case in its present form after much delay---Thus, FIR had lost its relevance/significance, and could not provide any support to the case of prosecution and superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Ramzan vs State S — 2026 YLR 361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR