Muhammad Arshad vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 410 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 Arshad VS State Ss. 302(b), 364, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping and abducting a person in order to murder, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence contradicting the ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after kidnapping him---According to the case put forth by complainant, death of deceased was result of physical torture on him by accused persons and strangulation caused by one of the accused with a cloth---Medical Officer observed injury No.1 a contusion 6 x 2 CM at right side of neck of the deceased and opined that cause of death was asphyxia resulting from strangulation due to injury No.1---In cross-examination, however, Medical Officer admitted that there was no contusion, laceration or abrasion present on the right side, backside or front side of neck---Medical Officer also admitted in cross-examination that if strangulation was committed by wrapping the rope, cord or safa, then injuries would be all around the neck---Such admission on the part of Medical Officer indeed contradicted the version of ocular account whereby one of the accused was shown to have strangulated the deceased with a cloth---Therefore, it could very conveniently be inferred that medical evidence in this case was in contradiction with the ocular account---Medical evidence although was corroboratory in nature, however, this corroborative piece of evidence was meant to test the veracity of ocular evidence and both corroborative and ocular testimonies were to be read together and not in isolation---Had witnesses of ocular account been present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence as claimed by them, there could have been no possibility of conflict in between ocular account and medical evidence qua the mode of causing death of deceased---Where oral evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, oral evidence could not be accepted to be made basis for the conviction of an accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Arshad vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR