Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 657 2025 SLD 657 = 2025 PCRLJ 262
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2018, heard on 8th October, 2024.
Before Ch. Abdul Aziz, J
Syed Mudasar Nazir Naqvi and Malik Muhammad Asif Nawaz for Appellant. Ms. Mehmoona Ehsan-ul-Haq, Deputy District Public Prosecutor with Zahid ASI for the State. Zulfiqar Ali and Sheikh Ahsan-ud-Din for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Delay of about 12-hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by inflicting hatchet blow---From an in-depth analysis of record, it surfaced that the occurrence leading to the death of deceased took place on 31.03.2016 at about 09.30 p.m.---Perusal of column No.4 of FIR revealed that police station though was connected with the crime scene by a metalled road of 15 kilometers but still the details of the incident were imparted to police through oral statement of complainant on the following morning at about 09.00 a.m.---Complaint after twenty minutes of its completion was transcribed into formal FIR---If correctly calculated, there was a delay of about 12-hours noticed in the registration of FIR thus, the prosecution was legally obliged to satisfactorily explain it for providing strength to the hypothesis about the truth of its contents---Apparently, the complainant was well cognizant of discharging the burden of addressing the delay in registration of FIR and accordingly came forward with the stance that deceased was firstly taken to THQ Hospital from where he was dispatched to DHQ Hospital due to his critical medical condition---Such explanation turned out to be fragile and did not help the cause of prosecution for addressing the delay in registration of FIR---Admittedly, complainant had a mobile phone in his possession at the eventful time which he could conveniently use for intimating the police about the unfortunate incident but he opted not to use it, for reasons not disclosed by him---Such omission gained more significance when seen in the context that complainant requisitioned a vehicle at the crime scene through a call made from his own mobile phone for shifting deceased to hospital---Complainant initially did not inform the police about the occurrence, but still he could have done the same after reaching THQ Hospital but surprisingly nothing as such was done by him---Complainant without offering any reason candidly conceded that the task of intimating the police…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492