| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3424 2025 SLD 3424 = 2025 PCRLJ 942 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 62458-J of 2020, decided on 4th March, 2025.
Before Aalia Neelum, C.J
Rana Muhammad Sarfraz and Rashid Mehmood for Appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General, with Rai Bashir, Inspector for the State. Ihtisham, Zill-e-Huma, and Muzaffar, Legal Heirs of the deceased for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 62458-J of 2020, decided on 4th March, 2025.
Before Aalia Neelum, C.J
Rana Muhammad Sarfraz and Rashid Mehmood for Appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General, with Rai Bashir, Inspector for the State. Ihtisham, Zill-e-Huma, and Muzaffar, Legal Heirs of the deceased for the Complainant.
BILAL MUZAFFAR alias Heera and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),148,149
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about one hour and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and two others by firing--Incident took place on 05.05.2013 at 5:15 pm, and the same was reported at 06:15 pm by the complainant through the written application to the Police Inspector at the place of occurrence, who recorded the police proceedings on it--First Information Report was lodged at 6:15pm with a delay of one hour and fifteen minutes---Inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was three miles---As per record, Inspector Police reached the spot and incorporated the proceedings at 6:15 pm on 05.05.2013---No family members of the deceased persons reported the incident to the police soon after the incident---Deposition of complainant, Investigating Officer, Medical Officer as well as contents of the inquest reports created serious doubt about the time of reporting the incident to the police---Delay in lodging the FIR often results in consultation and deliberation, which was a creature of afterthought--Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove on record that the FIR was recorded at the time it was claimed to have been recorded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Irshad Ahmed v. The State 2011 SCMR 1193 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about fifteen to seventeen hours in conducting postmortem of the dead bodies of the deceased persons---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and two others by firing---Postmortem examination of the dead bodies was conducted by Medical Officer on 06.05.2013 at 08:00 a.m. of the first dead body; at 09:00 a.m. of the second dead body; and at 10:15 a.m. of the third dead body respectively with delay of fifteen hours, sixteen…