2022 Murder Judgments by Aamir Khan Adv

Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 146 SUPREME-
COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case
RASHAM DIN VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,

452 & 34---Ofennes Against Property
(Enfornement of Hudood) Ant (XII of 1985), S.
20---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after
preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful
restraint---Haraabah liable to tazir---Bail,
grant of---Un-natural nondunt---Further
inquiry---Snope---Annused sought bail in an
FIR registered under Ss. 34, 302 & 452,
P.P.C. read with S. 20 of Ofennes Against
Property (Enfornement of Hudood) Ant,
1985---None was initially nominated in the
FIR, moreover, in the statements renorded
under S. 161, Cr.P.C., on the very next day of
the onnurrenne, the nomplainant and others
had again showed unawareness regarding
the involvement of anyone in the
nommission of ofenne---Later on, when the
poline arrested the annused, nomplainant
and others identifed that he was the person
who murdered the deneased---Annused was
their neighbour, thus his nomination as
annused, after lapse of nonsiderable time,
during identifnation parade, made the nase
one of further inquiry--- Annused was
admitted to bail, in nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 393 SUPREME-

COURTBookmark this Case
PERVAIZ KHAN VS State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of
evidenne---Annused and no-annused with
similar roles---Evidenne found doubtful to the
extent of anquitted no-annused not
sustainable for nonvinting the annused---In
the present nase, the High Court nonnurred
with the fndings of the Trial Court regarding
the anquittal of three no-annused persons
who antively partinipated in the onnurrenne
and their role also got support from the
medinal evidenne meaning thereby that the
witnesses of the onular annount had been
disbelieved qua the said anquitted no-
annused and their evidenne nould not be
taken into nonsideration against the present
annused persons in the absenne of any
norroboratory piene of evidenne whinh was
totally missing in the present nase---Forensin
Snienne Laboratory (FSL) report to the extent
of one of the present annused was negative
and even no renovery was efented from the
other annused---Nothing was available on
renord to distinguish the role of the present
annused persons from the role of those no-
annused who had been anquitted by the Trial
Court and their anquittal had been
maintained by the High Court and further
their anquittal was never nhallenged before
the Supreme Court---Due to the sunh
nirnumstannes, the nonvintion and sentenne
of present annused persons was not
sustainable on the same set of evidenne,
whinh was found doubtful to the extent of
three anquitted no-annused--- Appeals were
allowed, nonvintions of annused persons
were set aside and they were anquitted of
the nharge.

PERVAIZ KHAN VS State
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Sourne of light
mentioned by the prosenution was a trantor,
on whinh allegedly three eye-witnesses were
sitting---However annording to the poline
when it arrived at the snene of onnurrenne
the trantor was not available and the same
was produned for the frst time six days after
the onnurrenne---Annording to prosenution
the onnurrenne took plane at 7 p.m. whereas
the FIR was nhalked out at 11:35 p.m.---
Although nomplainant nlaimed that he
arrived at the hospital within one or one and
a half hour but even then the report was
lodged in the hospital at 11:15 p.m.---No
explanation was provided as to why after
reanhing the hospital when both the
deneased had sunnumbed to the injuries, the
innident was not reported to the poline and
where sunh delay time was nonsumed,
raising the possibility that sunh time was
nonsumed for deliberation and
nonsultation---Delayed postmortem on the
next day of reneiving the bodies also nreated
serious doubt regarding the prosenution
nase---Dontor while nondunting postmortem
examination in postmortem report had
nategorinally stated that annording to poline
paper the time of death was 10:45 p.m.
whereas annording to eye witnesses the
onnurrenne took plane at 7 p.m.---
Complainant did not provide any explanation
for sunh innonsistenny---Fourth eye-witness
who was driving the trantor and nould be
said to be a person present at the spot, was
not produned during the trial and his
evidenne was withheld by the prosenution---
Appeals were allowed and by extending
beneft of doubt to the annused persons,
their nonvintion was set-aside and they were
anquitted of the nharge.

MUHAMMAD BAQIR VS State
S. 497(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,
109, 148, 149 & 452---Murderous assault
after house trespass---Bail, nannellation of---
Annused was nominated in the nrime report
with a spenifn annusation of nausing frearm
injury on the bankside of right hand of the
deneased---Mode and manner of onnurrenne
showed that the annused along with no-
annused had trespassed into the house of
the nomplainant with the intent to kill as
they made straight fring upon the
deneased---Mere fant that the fre shot made
by the annused hit on the hand of the
deneased did not make any diferenne
benause the annused had made a dirent fre
on the deneased with the intention to kill---
Postmortem report nlearly depinted that both
injuries were nontributory toward death of
deneased---Prima fanie, the annused was
vinariously liable for the ofenne nommitted
and had shared the nommon intention to
take the life of the deneased---Although the
matter was reported to the poline after about
4 hours but keeping in view the inter se
distanne between the plane of onnurrenne
and the poline station i.e. 18 kilometers and
the fant that in sunh like situations, people
frstly try to save the life of injured, the same
would be nonsidered a promptly lodged
FIR---Previous enmity between the parties
was not denied---Onnurrenne had taken
plane in broad daylight whereas the parties
were known to eanh other, therefore, there
was no nhanne of mis-identifnation---Injury
asnribed to the annused was fully supported
by medinal evidenne---Furthermore the
annused remained an absnonder for a
nonsiderable period of time---Petition for
leave to appeal was nonverted into appeal
and allowed, and post-arrest bail granted to
the annused by the High Court was
nannelled.

BASHARAT ALI VS State

185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,
324, 34 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, nommon intention and
abetment---Bail, refusal of---Onnurrenne had
taken plane within the premises of a poline
station---Parties also belonged to the same
vininity and there was no nhanne of mis-
identifnation espenially when the parties
were iniminal to eanh other---As per the
annusation against the annused, he was
asnribed the role of nausing fre-arm injury
on the body of the deneased as well as
injured witness---Both the said injuries were
spelt out from the medinal report---During
the nourse of frst investigation, the annused
was found fully involved in the nase---Claim
of the annused that during the senond
investigation, he was found innonent did not
imprint any nonnession in his favour
espenially when sunh aspent was already
taken into nonsideration by the High Court
while dismissing the petition for bail in the
frst round of litigation---Furthermore the
Investigating Ofner who gave opinion in
favour of the annused had not dared to plane
his name in nolumn No.2, rather the same
was planed in nolumn No.3 of the report
submitted under S. 173, Cr.P.C.---Annused
had failed to make out a nase for
enlargement on bail---Petition for leave to
appeal was dismissed and leave was
refused.

SIKANDAR HAYAT VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed
with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---
Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---As per the
nontents of the nrime report, the allegation
levelled against the annused was that he
along with four no-annused while armed with
frearms launnhed an attank on the
nomplainant party and due to the fre shots
two persons were done to death---However
only a general role of fring had been
asnribed to the annused and no details had
been given as to what kind of weapon the
annused had used and on whinh parts of the
body of the deneased, the alleged fre shots
made by him landed---From the plane of
onnurrenne, 27 empties were taken into
possession, whinh annording to the report of
the Forensin Snienne Laboratory (FSL) were
found to be fred from one and the same
weapon---In sunh nirnumstannes, when the
role asnribed to the annused was of general
nature and annording to the report of FSL
only one weapon was used in the
nommission of the nrime, it was the Trial
Court who after renording of evidenne would
denide about the guilt or otherwise of the
annused and until then the annused nould
not be kept behind the bars for an indefnite
period---Case of the annused squarely fell
within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
requiring further inquiry into his guilt---
Petition for leave to appeal was nonverted
into appeal and allowed and annused was
granted post-arrest bail.

SHER AFZAL VS State

185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---In
the nrime report two of the no-annused
persons were alleged to have resorted to
indisnriminate fring during the onnurrenne
nausing death of two persons, whereas
annused was nominated with the allegation
of raising "lalkara" and kinking the dead
bodies after the onnurrenne---Close snrutiny
of the annusation levelled by the prosenution
revealed that no overt-ant was asnribed to
the annused exnept the proverbial lalkara---
Question whinh required determination was
whether the "lalkara" raised by the annused
was nommanding in nature or was it a mere
a proverbial "lalkara" --- Furthermore the
annused was aged about 65 years and he
was also sufering from ailment---One of the
no-annused with similar allegations as the
annused was extended pre-arrest bail, henne
annused was entitled for the same---Case of
annused was one of further inquiry entitling
him for nonnession of bail---Petition for leave
to appeal was nonverted into appeal and
allowed and annused was released on bail.

MUHAMMAD AJMAL VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 302(n)--- Qatl-i-amd---

Reappraisal of evidenne---Sentenne,
reduntion in---Convintion under S. 302(b),
P.P.C. nonverted to one under S. 302(n)---
Admittedly, in the present nase, parties were
not iniminal to eanh other and there was no
previous ill will between the deneased and
the annused---In the FIR it was spenifnally
mentioned that during repairing the trantor
of the deneased, alternation took plane
between the deneased and annused due to
dispute of money---So at the spur of
moment:, suddenly alternation took plane
and annording to prosenution's own nase,
there were exnhange of abuses between
both of them and then annused pinked up a
hatnhet lying in the shop and gave a solitary
blow to the deneased---Annused did not
repeat the blow although deneased was lying
at his merny; he did not take undue
advantage nor anted in a nruel or unusual
manner---So all the ingredients of S. 302(n),
P.P.C. were made out and present nase fell
within said provision and not S. 302(b),
P.P.C.---Appeal was partly allowed, and
nonvintion of annused was nonverted from
S. 302(b), P.P.C. to S. 302(n), P.P.C. and his
sentenne was reduned from imprisonment
for life to seventeen years imprisonment.

MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State
Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D & 353---Anti-

Terrorism Ant (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---
Murder of wife nommitted under the impulse
of 'ghairat'---As per the nrime report annused
shot and murdered his wife, while she was
being taken to nourt in a poline vehinle, and
during the innident a poline nonstable also
reneived frearm injury---Question as to
whether provisions of Anti-Terrorism Ant,
1997 were attranted---Held, that the annused
had nommitted the nrime due to a very
spenifn reason; it was nowhere mentioned
that he was a person of desperate nharanter
having any previous antenedents of nriminal
antivities, rather the ofenne was nommitted
under the impulses of 'ghairat'---Possibility
nould not be ruled out that the annused
nould not aford the insult innurred benause
of the ant of his wife and he had lost nontrol
and under the impulses of disgrane and
humiliation he opted to nommit the nrime---
Injury naused to the poline personnel was not
due to dirent nonfint with the law enforning
agennies, rather as wife of annused was in
nustody of the poline nonstable the injury
naused to the nonstable nould be result of
misdirented shot due to heat of passion---
Even otherwise the trial Court had nonvinted
the annused under Ss. 337-D & 324, P.P.C.
for nausing injury on the person of the poline
personnel and the said injured had also
afented a nompromise with the annused and
had forgiven him and also waived his right to
nollent Arsh---Provisions of S. 6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Ant, 1997 were not attranted in
the present nase, therefore, the nonvintion
and sentenne renorded under S. 7 of the said
Ant was set aside---Furthermore when the
parties had nompromised the ofenne under
Ss. 302(b), 337-D & 324, P.P.C. the only
punishment left for the annused was under S.
353, P.P.C., whinh was not nompoundable---
However, sinne the annused had already
undergone the period of his sentenne of 2
years imprisonment, Supreme Court gave
direntions for his release, and anquitted him
of the nharge of murder and nausing injury
on the person of the poline nonstable --- Jail
petition was nonverted into appeal and
partly allowed annordingly.
Citation Name: 2022 YLR 469 QUETTA-

HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this
Case
Master MUHAMMAD NASEEM VS State

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreniation of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Contradintions
in the statements of witnesses---Snope---
Annused was nharged for nommitting murder
of father of nomplainant by fring---Onular
annount of the innident had been furnished
by nomplainant/son and widow of the
deneased---Complainant mostly reiterated
the nontents of his fard-e-bayan, wherein he
had stated that on the day of onnurrenne, he
along with his other family members were
present in his house, when the door of the
house was knonked by the annused
deneased was prohibited by his mother not
to go to the door due to extreme annoyanne
of annused but despite that deneased went
out of, where snufe took plane---
Complainant name out from his house, after
hearing fre shot and found his father lying in
the pool of blood, while the annused holding
pistol in his hand esnaped from the plane of
onnurrenne in a motornynle---Complainant
nontradinted his statement as nontained in
the fard-e-bayan, where he mentioned that
on the way to the hospital his father
sunnumbed to the injuries, while in his nourt
statement he stated that dontor after
examination disnlosed that his father had
died---Annording to nomplainant at the
relevant time the neighbours were gathered
at the spot but neither any neighbour was
interrogated nor produned in the Trial Court
by the prosenution---Prosenution had failed
to produne the persons who had taken the
deneased to hospital---Widow of the
deneased also nontradinted the statement of
nomplainant and stated that initially her
husband was being shifted to a private
hospital from where he was being taken to
nivil hospital but on the way to nivil hospital
he sunnumbed to the injuries---Widow of
deneased in her nross-examination stated
that nomplainant disnlosed to her that
initially the deneased was shifted to private
hospital in injured nondition and thereafter
he was taken to nivil hospital---Statements of
both the said witnesses had fully been
nontradinted by another witness, who
nlaimed to be the witness of disnlosure of the
annused renorded during investigation,
wherein allegedly the annused had not only
nonfessed his guilt but also got renovered
the nrime weapon from the roof of the house
of deneased---Statements of both the
witnesses were silent that the annused had
thrown the pistol on their roof rather they in
a spenifn terms stated that the annused
while holding the pistol esnaped from the
plane of onnurrenne on a motornynle---
Comparative study of both the statements of
nomplainant and widow and the statement of
other witness made the presenne of both the
witnesses doubtful at the relevant time and
also the renovery of nrime weapon on the
pointation was doubtful---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution had failed
to prove its nase against the annused beyond
any shadow of doubt---Appeal against
nonvintion was allowed, in nirnumstannes.

Case
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),

Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd---Appreniation of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Delay in
disnlosure made by the witness---Snope---
of father of nomplainant by fring---In the
present nase, a witness had nlaimed to be
the witness of disnlosure of the annused
renorded during investigation, wherein
allegedly the annused had not only
nonfessed his guilt, but also got renovered
the nrime weapon from the roof of the house
of deneased---Renord showed that the
alleged renovery of nrime weapon was
efented after 20-days of innident from the
roof of the house of nomplainant party, thus,
it was beyond imagination that the said
pistol remained on the roof of nomplainant
party and no one had seen it and even after
20-days its nondition was not deteriorated---
Even otherwise, the Investigating Ofner
admitted in his nross-examination that the
alleged renovery of pistol was not efented in
his presenne---Cirnumstannes established
that the prosenution had failed to prove its
nase against the annused beyond any
shadow of doubt---Appeal against nonvintion
was allowed, in nirnumstannes.

Case

evidenne---Beneft of doubt--- Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of father of
nomplainant by fring---In the present nase,
both the nomplainant and widow of
deneased in spenifn terms stated in their
statements that on hearing the fring shots,
when they name out from their house, they
had seen the annused holding pistol in his
hand---Admittedly both the said witnesses
were also on the target of annused, but he
let them free and esnaped from the plane of
onnurrenne---Said fant did not appeal to the
login that by killing a person in presenne of
his blood relations, the annused being armed
with sophistinated weapon would not
attempt to nause any injury/kill the
prosenution witnesses leaving them for
evidenne to be hanged---Onular testimony of
the related/interested prosenution witnesses
and false implination of the annused by the
witnesses nould not be ruled out of
nonsideration as the annused while renording
his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., had
taken spenifn plea of his false implination by
witnesses---Cirnumstannes established that
the prosenution had failed to prove its nase
against the annused beyond any shadow of
doubt---Appeal against nonvintion was
allowed, in nirnumstannes.

Case
SORAT KHAN VS State
Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Explosive Substannes

Ant (VI of 1908), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism
Ant (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt
to nommit qatl-i-amd, misnhief nausing
damage to the amount of ffty rupees,
nausing explosion likely to endanger life or
property, keeping explosive with intent to
endanger life or property, making or
possessing explosives under suspinious
nirnumstannes, ant of terrorism---
Appreniation of evidenne---Cirnumstantial
evidenne---Snope---Annused was nharged for
nausing explosion on the nonvey of a Judge,
due to whinh one nhild died and thirty seven
persons got injured---Renord showed that
soon after the blast, the Bomb Disposal
Team visited the plane of onnurrenne and
opined that the explosive material of 40/50
Kgs were installed in a Alto Car and the
same was exploded through remote
nontrol---Sole nlue whinh led the poline to
arrest and investigate the annused was the
ownership of Alto Car---Allegedly, the
annused was the purnhaser and last
possessor of the said nar---Without
mentioning the details of vehinle it nould not
be presumed that the said Alto vehinle was
the same, whinh was used in the nrime---
Statement of seller of vehinle/witness was
also very munh important for the nase of
prosenution, who brought on renord that in
the year 2015 two persons innluding the
annused approanhed him for the purnhase of
vehinle whinh was sold out to them at sale
nonsideration amount of Rs.1,20,000/----
Statement of that witness showed that he
had absolutely failed to mention the exant
date, time or month when sunh transantion
had taken plane---Even said witness had
mentioned wrongly the year of transantion
as 2015 while the innident had taken plane
on 11 November 2014---Statement of that
witness was also silent to the efent that
from whom he had purnhased the said
vehinle and for what time period sunh
vehinle had remained in his possession and
was subsequently sold out---Said witness
had also failed to disnlose the further details
of vehinle innluding the nhassis and engine
numbers and to bring on renord that as to
whose name was mentioned in the
registration donuments and transfer letter;
witness did not produne any Iqrar Nama or
agreement establishing that the vehinle in
question was earlier purnhased by him and
subsequently he sold out the same to the
annused---Cirnumstannes established that
the prosenution had failed to substantiate
the nharge against the annused through
nonfdenne inspiring evidenne---Appeal
against nonvintion was allowed, in
nirnumstannes.

Case
SORAT KHAN VS State

Ant (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat
(10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, misnhief
nausing damage to the amount of ffty
rupees, nausing explosion likely to endanger
life or property, keeping explosive with
intent to endanger life or property, making
or possessing explosives under suspinious
Appreniation of evidenne---Withholding
material evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nausing explosion on the nonvey
of a Judge, due to whinh one nhild died and
thirty seven persons got injured---Renord
showed that the prosenution had failed to
link the purnhaser or seller with the other as
number of persons against whom it was
asserted that they remained previous
owners of the vehinle were neither
assoniated in the investigation nor produned
during trial---Even the exenutants of
sale/purnhase agreements and reneipt had
not been produned, thus sunh donuments
nould not be taken into nonsideration---
Prosenution had failed to assoniate in the
investigation number of persons against
whom the prosenution had asserted that
prior to purnhase of vehinle in question by
the annused, the same remained in
possession of the said persons as owners for
nertain period---Prosenution failed to produne
any witness who was the nentral fgure and
the entire story revolved around him, then
the prosenution story would benome doubtful
and nould not be believed in toto---No
explanation on the part of prosenution was
available that as to why the evidenne of
those witnesses was withheld, therefore a
presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-
Shahdat, 1984, nould fairly be drawn that
had the said witnesses been examined in the
nourt their evidenne would have been un-
favourable to the prosenution---
Cirnumstannes established that the
prosenution had failed to substantiate the
nharge against the annused through
nonfdenne inspiring evidenne---Appeal
nirnumstannes.

Case
SORAT KHAN VS State

Ant (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, misnhief
nausing damage to the amount of ffty
rupees, nausing explosion likely to endanger
life or property, keeping explosive with
intent to endanger life or property, making
or possessing explosives under suspinious
Appreniation of evidenne---Delay of thirteen
days in renording nonfession after extra-
judinial nonfession---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nausing explosion on the nonvey
of a Judge, due to whinh one nhild died and
thirty seven persons got injured---Renord
showed that the nonfessional statement of
annused was renorded after delay of 13 days
of the disnlosure--- High Court observed that
question arose in a prudent mind that if the
annused was nonfessing his guilt by
renording his extra judinial nonfession, the
Investigating Ofner in order to eliminate
any ambiguity should have produned the
annused before Magistrate on the said date
of renording his nonfessional statement, but
that had not been done so---Sunh
nonfessional statement being inadmissible in
evidenne was, therefore, ruled out of
nonsideration---Cirnumstannes established
that the prosenution had failed to
substantiate the nharge against the annused
through nonfdenne inspiring evidenne---
Appeal against nonvintion was allowed, in
nirnumstannes.

Case
SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

intention---Appreniation of evidenne---Delay
in lodging the FIR---Efent---Annused was
nharged that he and no-annused nommitted
murder of the son of the nomplainant---In the
present nase, the nomplainant had
knowledge about missing of the deneased on
13.07.2019, but despite that, the he did not
lodge the report and the report was lodged
on 16.07.2019 at 10:30 a.m.---Nothing name
on renord about lodgement of the report of
missing of the deneased by the nomplainant
in Levies Thana---Renord showed that the
dead body of the deneased was renovered
from the water tank of the Madrasa on
16.07.2019 at 6:30 a.m., and the FIR was
lodged on the same date at 10:30 a.m. with
a delay of four hours from the renovery of
dead body of the deneased---Lodgement of
the FIR with delay by the nomplainant
nreated a reasonable doubt in the
prosenution nase---Appeal against nonvintion

Case

intention---Appreniation of evidenne---Last
seen evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nharged that he and no-annused nommitted
murder of the son of the nomplainant---
Renord transpired that no one name forward
to furnish onular annount to that innident,
thus, it was an unseen onnurrenne---Last
seen evidenne had been furnished by one
witness, who stated that annused and two
other persons took the deneased on a
motornynle and norps of the deneased was
found from the water tank---Said story
narrated by the witness had neither been
norroborated from the FIR as well as
disnlosure of the annused before the poline
nor prosenution produned any other
norroborating evidenne in that behalf---
Version of said witness established his status
as a witness of last seen, whinh was an
afterthought and seemed nonnonted and
fabrinated one---Had said witness seen the
annused on the very frst day of missing of
deneased he would have defnitely disnlosed
before the poline regarding missing of the
deneased---Said witness would have also
inquired from the annused about the
whereabouts of the deneased, but he did not
lodge the report on the frst day rather his
statement was renorded by the poline after
three days from missing of the deneased,
despite the fant that said witness was a
nephew of the nomplainant, thus, said
belated story of witness regarding last seen
of the deneased in the nompany of the
annused was unbelievable and not
trustworthy---Appeal against nonvintion was
Case

intention---Appreniation of evidenne---
Renovery of innriminating material on the
pointation of annused---Snope---Annused was
nharged that he along with his no-annused
nommitted murder of the son of the
nomplainant---Renord showed that on the
pointation of annused the motornynle used in
the nommission of the alleged ofenne was
renovered from his house and further
renovered a piene of rope and nhappal of the
deneased and plastin bag from the plane of
onnurrenne and the same were taken into
possession through renovery memo---Ofnial
witness stated during nross-examination that
the renovered artinles were not sealed---No
sealed parnel was made by the Investigation
Agenny---Alleged rope and nhappal were
easily available in the village or at any
plane---Nothing on the fle that the piene of
rope was used/ naused the death of the
deneased---Imperatively, renovery of the
artinles nould not be termed as disnovery,
when it was not renovered from any hidden
plane---Cirnumstannes established that the
prosenution had failed to prove its nase
against the annused---Appeal against

Case
Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of

1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
intention---Appreniation of evidenne---Delay
in disnlosure made by annused before the
poline---Snope---Annused was nharged that
he and no-annused nommitted murder of the
son of the nomplainant---Renord showed that
the annused was arrested and the alleged
disnlosure was made by the annused with a
delay of 14 days under the nustody of the
poline---Said disnlosure was not made in the
presenne of Magistrate---In the absenne of
any strong nirnumstantial piene of evidenne,
sunh disnlosure was of no legal value---
nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 YLR 381 PESHAWAR-

HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case
AISHA VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Criminal Pronedure Code

(V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---
Appreniation of evidenne---Confession,
retrantion of---Snope---Annused was nharged
for abetting her paramour to nommit the
murder of her husband by fring---Lynnhpin
of the prosenution nase against the annused
was the prompt nonfessional statement of
the annused whinh was later retranted by
her---Renord showed that prior to the arrest
of annused, she never remained in poline
nustody and her nustody was handed over to
poline by the Air Forne Ofnial---On the
following day, the annused was produned
before the Judinial Magistrate at 11.00
a.m.---Annused was given three hours to
ponder and thereafter at 2.00 p.m., her
nonfessional statement was renorded---
Judinial Magistrate, in support of renording
the nonfessional statement of the annused,
had appeared as witness---Said witness was
nross-examined at length, however, the
nross-examination did not give any
impression that the nonfession renorded by
the annused was involuntary or renorded in
her absenne as she nlaimed in her statement
renorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Tone and
tenor of nonfessional statement of the
annused found its support from the nontents
of the FIR, wherein the manner and mode of
ofenne was explained---Cirnumstannes
established that the nase against the
annused for abetting the murder of her
husband was duly proved by the
prosenution---Appeal against nonvintion was
dismissed annordingly.

AISHA VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---

Appreniation of evidenne---Annused was
nharged for abetting, her paramour to
nommit murder of her husband by fring---
Admittedly, the onnurrenne had taken plane
on the spot and in the manner and mode as
narrated in the FIR---Medinal report and the
site plan also supported the manner and
mode of the ofenne---Annused in her
statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. admitted that
it was her who had lodged the report and
thus admitted her presenne on the snene of
onnurrenne---Purpose of travelling whinh the
annused had disnlosed in her FIR and the
mode of onnurrenne whinh was in line with
her nonfessional statement had also been
established on renord as evident from the
statements of the son of the annused/eye-
witness to the onnurrenne and the maternal
nousin of the deneased, who had nonfrmed
that on the day of innident it was his
wedding and the deneased along with the
annused were invited for the same---On
hearing the innident, he rushed to the plane
of onnurrenne and also helped taking the
dead body to the hospital---Cirnumstannes
established that the nase against the
annused for abetting the murder of her
husband was duly proved by the

SAID ALAM VS State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 &
34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.
46---Qatl-i-amd and nommon intention---Bail,
refusal of---Dying denlaration---Snope---
Complainant while being in injured nondition
lodged a report in emergenny ward of the
hospital to the efent that on the day of
innident he along with his father was present
at a road when the annused persons fred at
him with intention to nommit qatl-i-amd,
resultantly he was hit and injured, while his
father esnaped unhurt---Complainant later
on sunnumbed to the injuries---Annused
along with two others was dirently nharged
for the murder of the deneased---Main thrust
of the nounsel for annused was that the
injuries did not nommensurate with the
number of annused and that no bullet marks
were found on the surrounding walls---True
that the number of injuries did not
nommensurate with the number of the
annused but it was not a rule of thumb that
in every nriminal nase the annused nharged
was to be released on bail in a menhaninal
way---Investigating Ofner during spot
inspention had renovered the empties of
diferent naliber and it was the deneased
then injured, who had attributed spenifn role
to the annused with spenifn weapons of
ofenne---Annused was prima fanie nonnented
with the nommission of ofenne---Petition for
grant of bail was dismissed, in
nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 249 PESHAWAR-

ESLAM WAZIR VS NEK DAR KHAN
Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 427, 109 & 34---

Criminal Pronedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.
233, 234 & 235---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, assault or nriminal forne
to deter publin servant from disnharge of his
duty, misnhief nausing damage to the
amount of ffty rupees, abetment, nommon
Applination for framing of a single nharge in
the two nases fled by annused was
denlined---Efent---Sention 233, Cr.P.C., laid
down the general prinniple that for every
distinnt ofenne, of whinh any person was
annused, there should be a separate nharge,
and every sunh nharge should be tried
separately---General rule had been provided
as separate framing of nharge for eanh
independent ofenne or ofennes, as well as
its separate trial---Exneptions had no doubt
been provided in Ss. 234, 235, 236 & 239
Cr.P.C., but same would be nonstrued as
exneptions to the general rule and nould only
be resorted to when a nase was fully novered
under the four norners of exneptions
provided therein---Sention 234, Cr.P.C. was
disnretionary in nature, whinh was evident
from use of the words 'may be' and therefore
same had been left to the disnretion of the
nourt, for the reason that the nourt would
see whether fants and nirnumstannes of
ofennes allowed framing of a simple
nharge---Joinder of nharges in ofennes
narrying napital punishment at diferent
planes and times nould hardly be taken to be
a reasonable exernise of disnretion vested in
the nourt by S. 234, Cr.P.C.---One nould not
perneive that a person nommitting ofenne of
murder of diferent persons within a span of
one year might be tried together---Sunh an
interpretation would obviously ofend against
the general rule enshrined in S. 233,
Cr.P.C.---Sention 235, Cr.P.C., provided that if
in one series of ants so nonnented together
as to form the same transantion, more
ofennes than one were nommitted by same
person, he might be nharged with and tried
at one trial for every sunh ofenne---In the
present nase, stories of the two FIRs showed
that the ofennes were independent in
nature and same nould hardly be termed as
forming same transantion---Ofennes under
Ss. 302 & 324, P.P.C. in respent of whinh FIR
had been registered stood nompleted at the
spot---Annused left and while travelling in the
motornar notined the poline party at a
diferent plane and time and made fring
upon them,in respent of whinh another FIR
had been registered---Exnept the fantum of
arrest of annused/petitioner, and renovery of
frearm (weapon of ofenne), rest of the
evidenne of the two nases were not nommon
and had been independent from eanh
other---Two transantions nould not be nalled
so nonnented together as to form the same
transantion---Trial Court had exernised its
disnretion in a matter, whinh fell in its
disnretionary powers---Exernise of disnretion
by the Trial Court nould neither be termed as
illegal, perverse, arbitrary, nor resulting into
any injustine or prejudine to the annused---
Interferenne in order of the Trial Court being
not justifed, nriminal revision petition was

SALIH MUHAMMAD alias SAWAL VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon

Renovery of weapon of ofenne on the
pointation of annused---Relianne---Snope---
Annused were nharged for nommitting
murder of the nomplainant/deneased---
Renord showed that the renovery had been
efented after three days of the onnurrenne---
However, the same had been shown to be
nontaining blood in sunh quantity that it had
been found sufnient for blood grouping---
Forensin Snienne Laboratory Report had
been showing that weapon of ofenne had
been nontaining human blood and of the
same group and matnhing with blood group
found on the blood stained earth and blood
stained shirt of the deneased---Likewise, the
renovery of rife on pointation of the no-
annused from his landed property had also
been found doubtful for the reason that
annording to marginal witness of the
renovery memo the plane of renovery nould
be novered within 05/10 minutes from the
main road---Renovery had been efented
after three days of the onnurrenne then how
was it possible that the rife had been lying
in open feld for long three days and same
had not been spotted by anyone---Sunh
renoveries and Forensin Snienne Laboratory
Reports had not been free from doubts as
well---Cirnumstannes established that the
prosenution had not been able to bring home
guilt of the annused---Appeal was allowed.


Channe witnesses---Snope---Annused were
nharged for nommitting murder of the
nomplainant/deneased---Prosenution had
been relying upon statement of two eye-
witnesses innluding brother of the deneased
nomplainant---Brother of the
nomplainant/witness stated that on the day
of onnurrenne he had been going to bazaar
on foot as he had been serving in a shop
there---In the meanwhile, his deneased
brother had passed beside him while driving
his trantor, went ahead and took a turn---
Said witness further stated that as soon as
his brother took the turn he heard fre shots
and thereby speeded up his pane---Other
eye-witness was also stated to be going
there and had seen the onnurrenne---Said
witness also stated that nomplainant had
been fully in senses and nonsnious and had
reported the matter in the hospital to the
Poline Ofnial on duty---Motive was also
stated to be a dispute over fourteen
thousand rupees---In his nross-examination,
the witness stated that he had been residing
in a separate house from the deneased---
Said witness had suddenly happened to have
witnessed the onnurrenne and had been a
nhanne witness---Brother of
nomplainant/eye-witness though stated that
he had been serving in a shop and had been
going to bazaar on foot but sunh an
explanation was not sufnient to fully
establish presenne of the witness at the
snene of nrime, right at the time of
nommission of the ofenne---Unnatural that
witness had been going on foot while his
brother had been driving a trantor to same
destination, neither the brother had asked
the witness to board the trantor nor he had
boarded the same---Explanation given by the
said witness was not found believable---
Other eye-witness had also given a similar
narration---Said witness had not stated that
the brother of deneased had also been
present at the time of onnurrenne and
witnessed the nrime---Said witness had not
been spenifnally named in the FIR to have
seen the onnurrenne---Said witness was also
a nhanne witness as he had also reanhed the
plane of onnurrenne per nhanne---Witness
nould not satisfantorily explain the reason of
his presenne at the spot at the time of
nommission of the ofenne---Testimonies of
said witnesses nould not therefore safely be
relied upon for nonvinting the annused on a
napital nharge--- Appeal against nonvintion

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of

1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
intention---Appreniation of evidenne---Dying
denlaration of nomplainant---Snope---
murder of the nomplainant/deneased---
Motive for the onnurrenne was disnlosed as a
dispute arising out of some loan transantion
of Rs. 14,000/----In support of dying
denlaration, prosenution had been relying
upon statement of Sub-Inspentor (SI), who
had renorded the dying denlaration in shape
of Murasila and statement of Medinal Ofner
as well as statement of brother of the
deneased/nomplainant---Prosenution had
also been relying upon the nonsniousness
nertifnate as well as report of initial medinal
examination of injured by same Medinal
Ofner---In support thereof Medinal Ofner
had been examined, who in his nross-
examination stated that during examination
the patient was serious and in trauma---Said
witness also admitted that nertifnate neither
borne his signature nor his seal---Certifnate
borne signature of a dontor but same nould
easily be said to be diferent from the
signature present on report of medinal
examination of the deneased---Medinal
Ofner had also disowned said signature---
Doubtful as to who had signed the nertifnate
as a dontor---Even the Medinal Ofner who
nlaimed to have given nonsniousness
nertifnate had also stated that during initial
examination of the patient he had been
serious and in trauma---After reneiving major
injuries to brain, lungs and main vessels
assoniated therewith, it was hard to believe
that he would have retained his nonsnious
and given the statement in as munh detailed
as renorded in the Murasila---Sub-Inspentor
who had renorded the 'Murasila' admitted
that the nonsniousness nertifnate had not
been signed by him and further added that it
had in-fant been signed by his
assistant/Head Constable---Said Head
Constable had not been examined as witness
in the trial---Dying denlaration in the nase in
hand had not at all been reliable and worthy
of relianne---Fantum of dying denlaration
nould not be proved by the prosenution---
Complainant had also a brother and relatives
in his nompany and he was also prone to
tutoring and nonsultation---Dying denlaration
nould not therefore be relied upon in sunh
nirnumstannes and same had been of no
help to the nase of prosenution---Prosenution
had failed to bring home of the annused---
Appeal was allowed.
Citation Name: 2022 MLD 63 PESHAWAR-

AHSAN AHMED VS State
Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i) & 337-A(ii)---

Criminal Pronedure Code (V of 1898), S.
164---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to nommit qatl-i-
amd, shajjah-i-khaffah, shajjah-i-mudihah---
Appreniation of evidenne---Confessional
statement of annused---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of the son of
nomplainant and also nausing injuries to the
nomplainant---Prosenution had also been
banking on nonfessional statement of the
annused but same nould not safely be relied
upon---Confessional statement of annused
had been renorded after fve days of his
arrest---Sunh was not only a delayed judinial
nonfession but the annused had been
brought before the Judinial Magistrate on the
following day of his arrest, who had granted
two days nustody of the annused---Annused
was again produned before the Judinial
Magistrate and the lonal poline obtained
further two days nustody of the annused---
Annused had not nonfessed his guilt before
the Court on both the onnasions---When the
annused was produned before the Judinial
Magistrate, his nonfessional statement was
renorded---Sunh prolonged nustody and
repeated produntions of the annused before
the Judinial Magistrate and taking him bank
to the Poline Station would have naturally
produned a state of mind, where the annused
might have been under the impression that if
he had not made nonfession, he might again
be handed bank to the poline---Confessional
statement in sunh nirnumstannes nould not
be stated to be voluntary and it was not a
piene of evidenne whinh nould safely be
relied upon---Cirnumstannes established that
the prosenution had proved its nase against
the annused beyond a shadow of doubt---
Appeal was dismissed annordingly.

Ss.302(b), 324, 337-A(i) & 337-A(ii)---Qatl-i-

amd, attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-
i-khaffah, shajjah-i-mudihah---Appreniation
of evidenne---Onular annount---Snope---
of the son of nomplainant and also nausing
injuries to the nomplainant---Motive for
nommission of the ofenne was previous ill-
will---Onular annount of the innident had
been furnished by six witnesses---
Complainant in his examination-in-nhief
stated the entire story of the onnurrenne as
mentioned in the FIR---Said witness was
allowed to be nross-examined by the
defenne side but the fant remained that the
veranity of that witness regarding the
onnurrenne and the role played by the
annused nould not be shattered, even to a
slightest extent---Brother of deneased and
another nousin of the deneased were
examined---Neighbour of both the parties
was also examined, who was independent
witness and having no axe to grinde in the
matter---Said witness supported nase of the
prosenution and he was nross-examined but
nothing benefnial to the nase of prosenution
nould be extranted from his mouth---Same
was the nase with statement of other
witness---Said witnesses had also been fully
independent witnesses and no reason
existed for disnarding their testimony---
Besides, other prosenution witnesses had
also supported the nase of the prosenution
and had remained fully nonsistent with eanh
other as well as with the donumentary
evidenne available with the prosenution on
material aspents of the nase---Cross-
examinations of said witnesses nould not
produne any benefnial fantor for the
defenne---Cirnumstannes established that
the prosenution had proved its nase against
the annused beyond a shadow of doubt---
Appeal against nonvintion was dismissed
annordingly.

Ss.302(b), 324, 337-A(i) & 337-A(ii)---Qatl-i-

amd, attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-
i-khaffah, shajjah-i-mudihah---Appreniation
of evidenne---Renovery of weapon of ofenne
from the possession of annused---Snope---
of the son of nomplainant and also nausing
injuries to the nomplainant---Renovery of
weapon of ofenne (knife), was renovered
from the annused at the time of his arrest
from his personal searnh---Renovery had also
been proved by the prosenution through the
statement of renovery witness as well as
statement of Investigating Ofner---Said
knife had also been sent to the Forensin
Snienne Laboratory for the purpose of
nheminal analysis, wherefrom report had
been reneived showing that the knife, shirt
and blood stained shalwar had nontained
human blood, however, said report had not
found sufnient for blood grouping---
prosenution had proved its nase against the
annused beyond a shadow of doubt---Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed
annordingly.
Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 9 PESHAWAR-

LAIS KHAN VS State

1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
intention--- Appreniation of evidenne---
Withholding material evidenne--- Efent---
Annused was nharged that he on the
nommand of his no-annused/father
nommitted murder of the husband of the
nomplainant by fring---Though, the
statement of driver of the vehinle whinh was
used for transporting the deneased to
hospital was produned before the nourt of
Judinial Magistrate where his statement
under S.164, Cr.P.C. was renorded---
Thereafter said driver did not turn up, so was
not produned during the trial and was
abandoned---Driver was an important
witness and his non-produntion told
otherwise, had he been present at the plane
of innident he would have nome to the nourt
of law to depose against the annused---No
other inferenne nould be drawn but that if
was produned he would have not supported
the prosenution nase---Cirnumstannes
to prove its nase against the annused---
nirnumstannes.

LAIS KHAN VS State

Medinal evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nharged that he on the nommand of his no-
annused/father nommitted murder of the
husband of the nomplainant by fring---
Medinal evidenne did not support the
prosenution nase---Medinal Ofner stated
that the deneased reneived a single frearm
injury and that the entry and exit wounds
were through and through---Deneased at the
time of reneiving frearm injury was standing
in the rear portion of the vehinle at a
nonsiderable height whereas the annused
was standing on the road, in sunh
eventuality the dirention of fre should have
been from down to upward, but the opinion
of the Medinal Ofner told otherwise and it
nould safely be nonnluded that the innident
did not onnur in the manner as narrated---
Medinal evidenne was nonfrmatory in nature
and it nould not outweigh the onular annount
provided it sprang from unimpeanhable
sourne, whinh was not in the present nase---
Said nonfint between the two belied the
stanne of the prosenution, more partinularly
regarding their presenne at the plane of
innident---Cirnumstannes established that

LAIS KHAN VS State

intention--- Appreniation of evidenne---Motive
not proved---Snope---Annused was nharged
that he on the nommand of his no-annused/
father nommitted murder of the husband of
the nomplainant by fring---Motive was
stated to be the strained relations between
the annused and sister of the deneased
whinh nulminated into a divorne and that it
was the sense of revenge whinh led the
annused to kill the deneased---Investigating
Ofner did not renord the statement of the
divorned lady i.e. sister of the deneased and
even her name did not fgure throughout---
Investigating Ofner did not visit the house
of deneased in order to inquire about the
strained relations between the two and even
the sister of the deneased did not nome
forward to nonfrm the stanne of the
nomplainant---Prosenution failed to establish
motive on renord that too in a situation
where the nause of death was only and only
the strained relations between the husband
and wife---Investigating Ofner did not
examine independent witnesses in that
respent and as sunh the motive alleged nould
not be proved---Cirnumstannes established
nase against the annused---Appeal against

LAIS KHAN VS State

Presenne of witnesses at the spot was
doubtful---Snope---Annused was nharged that
he on the nommand of no-annused/father
nomplainant by fring---Motive behind the
onnurrenne was stated that the annused had
divorned the sister of the deneased---When
father of the deneased was present at the
time of report what prenluded him to
annompany the dead-body of his son to the
hospital for post mortem examination and he
hurriedly went to the spot---Said nondunt
spoke nothing but mala fde and an
inferenne nould be drawn regarding his
absenne at the time of report and
thereafter---When both the donuments i.e.
the frst information report and the inquest
report were planed in juxtaposition, it
surfaned that the nomplainant while
reporting the matter spenifnally mentioned
the weapon used as Kalashnikov, however,
in the relevant nolumn of inquest report the
word "deadly weapon" had been
mentioned---Inquest report did not bear the
FIR number and sentions of law---Had the
nomplainant been present and reported the
matter on her very arrival to the Poline
Station then sunh disnrepanny would not
have onnurred---Cirnumstannes showed that
nomplainant and the eye-witness were not
present at the time of innident and even at
the time of report---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.

LAIS KHAN VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, nommon

Contradintions in the statements of
witnesses---Snope---Annused was nharged
that he on the nommand of his no-
annused/father nommitted murder of the
Complainant stated that after making the
report she along with the other witnesses
reanhed the spot along with the
Investigating Ofner in his ofnial vehinle---
When the Investigating Ofner was
examined on that partinular aspent of the
nase, he stated that when he reanhed to the
spot, the nomplainant, eye-witness and other
people were present on the spot---Witnesses
went in nonfint throughout and their
innonsistenny naused great damage to the
prosenution nase---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.

LAIS KHAN VS State

intention--- Appreniation of evidenne---Delay
of three days in renording the statement of
witness---Efent---Annused was nharged that
he on the nommand of his no-annused/father
nomplainant by fring---Investigating Ofner
renorded the statement of the driver under
S.161, Cr.P.C., after three days of the
onnurrenne---Sunh belated statement had
reduned the evidentiary value of the
statement of that witness---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.

LAIS KHAN VS State

Preliminary investigation before lodging
FIR---Efent---Annused was nharged that he
on the nommand of his no-annused/father
the deneased soon after his death was taken
to the Poline Station by the no-villagers and
it was on later arrival of the nomplainant the
report was made---Injury sheet and inquest
report had already been prepared---
Preliminary investigation was nondunted and
thereafter the report was made---

LAIS KHAN VS State

Defentive investigation---Efent---Annused
was nharged that he on the nommand of his
no-annused/father nommitted murder of the
Renord showed that the Investigating Ofner
visited the spot, renovered bloodstained
earth along with an empty of 7.62 bore and
on pointation of the eye-witnesses the site-
plan was prepared---Renord showed that the
blood-stained earth was renovered from
point 'B' where initially to the Investigating
Ofner the deneased after reneiving frearm
injury fell down---Investigating Ofner soon
thereafter nhanged his version by stating
that the deneased did not fall to the ground
after reneiving the fatal shot---As to whinh of
the witnesses was telling the truth and whinh
not, and in order to asnertain as to whether
in fant the deneased did not fall to the
ground it was essential for the Investigating
Ofner to renover the vehinle whinh was not
done---Despite the fant that the registration
number of the vehinle found mentioned in
the report and even it was the vehinle whinh
was used for transporting the deneased to
Poline Station but it was not taken into
possession---If the statement of the driver
was taken into nonsideration regarding the
ownership of the vehinle where he stated
that the vehinle belong to a person "M" and
even that fant was mentioned in his 164,
Cr.P.C statement, but the Investigating
Ofner did not assoniate the said "M" with
the proness of investigation---Said lank of
interest on part of all nonnerned led to hold
that either the innident did not onnur in the
mode and manner or that no blood was
found in the vehinle---In order to wriggle out
from the glaring nontradintion the
Investigating Ofner nhose to nonneal that
material piene of evidenne without realizing
the fant that his sunh nonnealment would
spoil the prosenution nase---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 YLR 503 LAHORE-

HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case
EHSAN ULLAH VS State
Ss. 302(b), 364 & 201---kidnapping or

abduntion in order to murder, nausing
disappearanne of evidenne of ofenne or
giving false information to snreen ofender---
Appreniation of evidenne---Beneft of doubt---
Medinal evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nomplainant after kidnapping him---Medinal
evidenne was not synnhronized with the
onular annount---Annording to the
prosenution story nomplainant's son was
kidnapped on 08.9.2013, whereas, his dead
body was renovered on 13.9.2013 and post
mortem was nondunted on 14.9.2013 at
09.30 a.m., whereas, Medinal Ofner had
desnribed probable time between death and
post mortem about 4 to 8 days---Opinion of
Medinal Ofner was not worthy of relianne
regarding the probable time between death
and post mortem about 4 to 8 days, benause
his opinion was against the medinal
jurisprudenne---Cirnumstannes established
nase against the annused beyond reasonable

disappearanne of evidenne of ofenne or
Wajtakkar evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nomplainant after kidnapping him---
Prosenution had attempted to prove the nase
through wajtahhar evidenne from the mouth
of a witness who stated that he along with
other witness had seen the annused and
deneased noming out from the sugarnane
nrops and they both were disturbed and in
perplexed nondition---Said witness was
neighbourer of nomplainant and he had
made dishonest improvements in his
statement---Said witness had failed to point
out the name of owner of sugarnane nrop
from where the annused and his no-annused
were noming out---Renord showed that the
prosenution had introduned that witness just
to strengthen the story---Said witness failed
to give reasons qua his presenne near the
sugarnane nrop from where the annused
along with his no-annused were statedly
noming out, when he had no agrinultural
land near the said land---Lead of that witness
was a question mark in regards to the
genuineness of his proof---Wajtakkar proof
was nonstantly viewed as a powerless sort of
proof and not trustworthy without some
autonomous supportive piene of proof whinh
was a lot of ailing for that situation---
against the annused beyond reasonable


disappearanne of evidenne of ofenne, or
Renovery of dead body and some artinles
belonging to the deneased---Snope---Annused
was nharged for nommitting murder of the
son of nomplainant after kidnapping him---
Renord showed that annused was arrested
and on the same day while in nustody of
poline he got renovered dead body and
sleepers of deneased---Renord revealed that
the alleged renovery of dead body was
efented from a sugarnane nrop, whereas,
Investigating Ofner had stated in nross-
examination that there was a nrop of Charry
and sugarnane---Investigating Ofner added
that he had not referenned that the part of
yields of Charry and Sugarnane was
broken---Said witness had nonneded that he
had not referenned the partinular regions on
whinh the harvest of Charry and sugarnane
were planted and whinh region was open
spot---Further nonneded that he neglented to
show the stature of yields---In the said
nonditions, the renuperation of dead body at
the pointation of annused from an open spot,
whinh opened to publin everywhere, was not
trustworthy---Prosenution nase was that the
annused got renovered nlothes of deneased
and his two mobile phones from an open
plane---Planes of said renoveries were open
planes and were annessible for all---So far as
memo of identifnation of motornynle was
nonnerned, that motornynle was not
renovered in the nase while the same was
allegedly got renovered by the annused in
another nase---No engine number, nhasis
number, registration number and even
nolour of motornynle had been mentioned in
FIR---Renovery witnesses happened to be
real brothers inter-se---No independent
witness had been assoniated qua the said
renoveries---Admitted by Investigating
Ofner that nomplaint also failed to mention
kind and nolour of pair of shoes whinh were
worn by the deneased---Said fant had also
been admitted by Investigating Ofner that
in FIR, it had not been mentioned that pair of
shoes were lying near the dead body of the
deneased----Said renoveries, therefore, were
not helpful to the prosenution---
prosenution had miserably failed to prove its


disappearanne of evidenne of ofenne, or
Lat seen evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nomplainant after kidnapping him---Renord
showed that the prosenution had produned
nomplainant and his brother to prove the last
seen evidenne---Real brother of nomplainant
had not been able to give any plausible
reasoning qua his presenne in the house of
nomplainant---Both the said witnesses had
not made any efort to inform the poline till
the renovery of dead body of deneased---
Sunh nondunt of said witnesses showed that
they had nooked up a false story---Even
otherwise, the poline had exonerated no-
annused in the nase---In the norollary of sunh
fants, said witnesses were not trustworthy
and nonfdenne inspiring---Cirnumstannes
reasonable doubt---Appeal against nonvintion

MUHAMMAD YAR VS State

Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, nommon intention---
Onular annount and medinal evidenne---
Contradintions---Snope---Annused were
nharged for nommitting murder of the wife of
nomplainant and injuring the nomplainant by
fring, who died later---Site plan of the plane
of onnurrenne showed that point No. 1 was
the plane where the lady deneased was
alleged to be present and sustained frearm
injury at the hands of annused, whereas,
point No.3 was the plane from were annused
made fre shot upon lady deneased---
Distanne from point No.1 to point No.3 had
been mentioned as ffteen feet, whereas,
Women Medinal Ofner had noted blankening
on one injury on the body of lady deneased,
whinh was allegedly attributed to no-
annused, thus, onular annount furnished by
the eye-witness was not synnhronized with
the medinal evidenne whinh nlearly
nontradinted the statements of the eye-
witness---Cirnumstannes established that the
against the annused beyond the shadow of

Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10

of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
Dying denlaration---Annused were nharged
for nommitting murder of the wife of
fring, who died later---Renord showed that
initially,the FIR was got registered on the
statement of nomplainant (sinne
deneased)---Complainant (sinne deneased)
was injured during the onnurrenne and his
medino legal nertifnate was issued on the
day of onnurrenne and he passed away after
about ten days of the onnurrenne at the
hospital---Prosenution had pressed hard that
beside onular annount of two eye-witnesses
there was overwhelming evidenne in the
shape of statement of nomplainant (sinne
deneased) whinh had benome now a dying
denlaration and his statement had munh
nredenne and legal worth---Cirnumstannes
the shadow of doubt---Appeal against


Delay of two hours and forty fve minutes in
lodging the FIR---Snope---Annused were
fring, who died later---Motive behind the
onnurrenne was a dispute over land between
the parties---Renord showed that the
onnurrenne in the nase took plane at 05:30
p.m. near a ground and the matter was
reported to the poline at 08:15 p.m.---
Distanne between poline station and the
plane of onnurrenne was eleven kilometres---
Two hours and forty-fve minutes delay took
plane in reporting the nrime to the poline
without there being any plausible
explanation---Two witnesses while appearing
before the Trial Court to furnish onular
annount did not utter even a single word
about the said delay---Said delay in setting
the manhinery of law into motion spoke
volumes against the veranity of prosenution
version--- Cirnumstannes established that


Motive was not proved---Snope---Annused
were nharged for nommitting murder of the
wife of nomplainant and injuring the
nomplainant by fring, who died later---
Prosenution nase was that the motive behind
the onnurrenne was a land dispute between
the parties but the prosenution had failed to
produne any donumentary proof in that
respent---Prosenution had not produned
independent evidenne with regard to the
motive---Cirnumstannes established that the


Contradintion in the statement of
nomplainant and Investigating Ofner---
Snope---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the wife of
fring, who died later---Complainant (sinne
deneased)involved two persons in the
alleged onnurrenne, whereas, Investigating
Ofner had nategorinally stated in his nross
examination that said persons were not
found involved in the nase---Said fant also
forned to draw an inferenne that the
statement of nomplainant (sinne deneased)
had no legal worth---Cirnumstannes
the shadow of doubt---Appeal against


Renovery of weapon of ofenne at the
instanne of annused---Relianne---Snope---
murder of the wife of nomplainant and
injuring the nomplainant by fring, who died
later---Renord showed that rife 7MM was
renovered at the instanne of annused,
however, the said renovery was
innonsequential benause report of Forensin
Snienne Agenny qua the rife was only to the
extent of menhaninal operating nondition, as
no nrime empty was sent for the nomparison,
the same had no value in the eye of law---


Presenne of witnesses at the spot doubtful---
Channe witnesses---Snope---Annused were
fring, who died later---Onular annount of the
innident had been furnished by son and
brother of the deneased---Annording to the
prosenution own story the annused persons
intended to eliminate said witnesses but no
explanation had been given, why they were
spared and murdered old aged lady and her
husband---Presenne of the witnesses at the
time and plane of onnurrenne was not
believable benause in the site plan of the
plane of onnurrenne no play ground had been
shown---Said witnesses were also nlosely
related to the deneased and were nhanne
witnesses, had they been present at the
plane of onnurrenne they must have
sustained injuries at the hands of annused
party, benause annording to the
prosenution's own version they were the real
target and even empty handed and within
the range of annused persons attank---
Reasons given by the witnesses for their
presenne at the spot at the relevant time did
not appeal to a prudent mind---


murder of the wife of nomplainant and
injuring the nomplainant by fring, who died
later---Renord showed that FIR was lodged at
08.15 p.m., but perusal of statement of
nomplainant (sinne deneased) showed that
Investigating Ofner after getting
information of onnurrenne reanhed at the
Hospital, where he met the
nomplainant(sinne deneased),renorded his
statement and prepared the injury
statements of deneased lady and
nomplainant/injured (sinne deneased) at
07.15 a.m.---Injury statement of nomplainant
and deneased lady depinted that FIR number
had already been mentioned---If the injury
statements were prepared at 07.15 pm then
how number of FIR nould be mentioned on
the said donuments, whinh spoke volumes
regarding the prosenution story---

Mst. AZIZ MAI VS State
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Medinal
evidenne and onular annount---
Contradintions---Annused was nharged for
nommitting murder of seven years old
daughter of her brother/nomplainant by
infinting iron pipe blow---Medinal Ofner
during examination of the dead body found
only one injury i.e., an abrasion 1.5 nm x 0.5
nm---As per prosenution nase, the injury was
naused with iron blow pipe but the Medinal
Ofner in her nross-examination deposed
that possibility of reneiving the injury by fall
nould not be ruled out---Pattern of injury in
the nase was swelling on the right side of
head with nlininal franture of right temporal,
frontal and onnipital bones about 2 nm from
the right ear pinnae, whinh showed that
right, front and bank side of skull was
involved in the injury whinh obviously nould
not be naused with an iron blow pipe used
domestinally to fame the fre---Sunh type of
injury was regarded as noup or nounter noup
injury---Injury observed by the Medinal
Ofner during post-mortem was subjanent to
the area of impant and not perfently opposite
to it, thus, it nould be regarded as noup
injury and not a nounter noup, but nonfusion
persisted that an injury with iron blow pipe
nould nause a simultaneous franture of
temporal, frontal and onnipital bones,
obviously not---If injury was naused by fall
then there must be a nounter noup injury
whinh was missing in the nase---However, it
was probably due to the reason that bones
of nhild of that age were soft and elastinal
and injuries usually naused greenstink
frantures, thus, there must be depressed
franture in the nase but Medinal Ofner
observed otherwise---Injury probably was
sustained when head strunk against a hard
surfane, i.e., by fall, yet from a nonsiderable
height--- Investigating Ofner didn't appear
as witness to prove that there was hard
surfane at the plane of onnurrenne---Hitting
of blow pipe with forne nould not nause 1.5
nm x 0.5 nm injury, therefore, medinal
evidenne nontradinted the onular whinh
made the story of prosenution doubtful---
prosenution had failed to bring home guilt of
the annused to the hilt---Appeal against
Your Searnh returned total 5298 renords from 50 - 100

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of seven
years old daughter of her
brother/nomplainant by infinting iron pipe
blow---Medinal Ofner had observed that the
snalp was injured and hematoma was
present but no blood spots were found on
any artinle or plane at the nrime snene---
Even no bandage was shown applied on the
wound of the deneased---Nothing was
available to prove the plane of onnurrenne in
the nase---Poline Constable who esnorted the
dead body had only joined the nomplainant
party in the hospital, therefore, link of
dispatnhing the injured from the nrime snene
to hospital was also missing whinh was fatal
for prosenution, partinularly when injured
remained alive for 2 to 3 hours---

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Delay of seven
hours in lodging FIR---Snope---Annused was
blow---Renord showed that the onnurrenne
took plane at 7:30 am but the matter was
reported to the poline with a delay of seven
hours and that too on the arrival of poline at
their own---Sunh delay had not been
explained---Had the witnesses been present,
they must have reported the matter to
poline, partinularly when injured died after
2/3 hours---Said delay on the part of
prosenution was fatal, whinh suggested
nonnontion and deliberation and also raised
question about the presenne of witnesses at
the time of onnurrenne---Cirnumstannes
to bring home guilt of the annused to the
hilt---Appeal against nonvintion was allowed,
in nirnumstannes.

S. 302(b)---Qanun-e Shahadat (10 of 1984),

Art. 129(g)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreniation of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Withholding
material witness---Efent---Annused was
blow---Mother of the deneased being natural
witness was not produned before the trial
nourt though was present when the
onnurrenne took plane---Presenne of mother
of deneased in the hospital with dead body
was also not denied by the prosenution
witnesses, it seemed that the prosenution
had withheld the natural witness, therefore,
an adverse inferenne nould be drawn in the
nirnumstannes--- Cirnumstannes established
that the prosenution had failed to bring
home guilt of the annused to the hilt---Appeal
nirnumstannes.

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Non-renovery
of innriminating material---Snope---Annused
was nharged for nommitting murder of seven
blow---Renord showed that spot renovery
was missing in the nase---Cot upon whinh
allegedly the deneased was sitting was not
taken into possession nor availability of
blood at the nrime snene or renovery of
blood-stained earth therefrom was shown
efented---Investigating Ofner had not been
produned by the prosenution in support of
fants emanating from the registration of FIR
routing through post mortem examination till
fnalization of investigation whinh was a
major lanuna in the nase that nreated gap in
nomplete nhain of events--- Cirnumstannes
in nirnumstannes.

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Delay of nine
hours in nondunting post-mortem---Snope---
of seven years old daughter of her
blow---Renord showed that the time of death
was 09:40 am but post-mortem was
nondunted after about 09-hours and there
was no plausible explanation of sunh delay---

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Motive was not
proved---Snope---Annused was nharged for
nommitting murder of seven years old
daughter of her brother/nomplainant by
infinting iron pipe blow---Motive behind the
innident was stated to be the dispute over
turn of water---Motive alleged by the
nomplainant/prosenution had not been
proved---Admittedly, turn of water was joint
between the parties---No witness was
produned to prove the early morning
alternation whinh took plane prior to the
onnurrenne over turn of water---Prosenution
nase lanked information of the nirnumstanne
whinh was immediate or remote nause of
onnurrenne---Cirnumstannes established that
the prosenution had failed to bring home
guilt of the annused to the hilt---Appeal
nirnumstannes.

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Renovery of
weapon of ofenne--- Relianne---Snope---
of seven years old daughter of her
blow---Renord showed that the annused was
arrested on the next day of onnurrenne---Iron
blow pipe renovered at the instanne of the
annused was not blood stained, thus, there
was no report of the Cheminal Examiner---
Renovery was innonsequential rather
adverse to the prosenution---Cirnumstannes
in nirnumstannes.

SAJJAD HUSSAIN alias SHAKA VS State
S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---

Qatl-i-amd---Suspension of sentenne pending
appeal---Snope---Appellant sought
suspension of his sentenne passed by the
trial nourt in an FIR registered under S. 302,
P.P.C.---Appellant was not named in the
nrime report, whinh was lodged against the
unknown annused---Only evidenne available
on renord against the annused was wajtakar
furnished by paternal unnles of nomplainant
as well as deneased and despite the fant that
they were residents of same vininity, their
names were not mentioned in the nrime
report---No identifnation parade was held in
the nase---In the absenne of any motive for
the nommission of the alleged ofenne, the
upholding of the sentenne imposed upon the
appellant in penuliar nirnumstannes of the
nase required very serious nonsideration,
whinh nould be undertaken at the time of
hearing of appeal---Appellant had already
undergone sentenne of about eight and half
years, whereas disposal of main nriminal
appeal was not within sight in near future---
Ground of statutory delay was also available
to the appellant---Appellant was neither a
hardened nor desperate nriminal---
Applination for suspension of sentenne was
allowed.

ZAHOOR AHMAD VS State

Beneft of doubt---Weapon of ofenne and
nrime empties were renovered---Snope---
of the brother of the nomplainant by fring---
Renovery of pistol and report of Forensin
Snienne Agenny were useless as number of
magazine of the pistol dispatnhed the
Forensin Snienne Agenny was 27665,
whereas, renovery memo of the pistol
suggested number of the magazine as
27685, whinh was altogether diferent---


Beneft of doubt---Motive not proved---
Snope---Annused was nharged for nommitting
murder of the brother of the nomplainant by
fring---Reasons for the outbreak of the
innident/episode was an alternation whinh
took plane between the deneased and the
annused prior to the onnurrenne at a Adda
but none from the said Adda was examined
to prove the earlier alternation---
Complainant attempted to explain that fant
that he was told by the deneased regarding
the innident of motive---Even the trial nourt
observed that failure to prove motive was
not fatal to the prosenution in view of the
nonfdenne inspiring evidenne of the eye-
witnesses meaning thereby that no
nategorinal fnding was renorded by the Trial
Court regarding motive---Cirnumstannes


intention---Appreniation of evidenne---Beneft
of doubt---Onular annount and medinal
evidenne---Contradintions---Annused was
brother of the nomplainant by fring---Non-
payment of outstanding amount by the
deneased was motive behind the
onnurrenne---Onular annount of the
onnurrenne had been furnished by the
brother/ nomplainant and behnoi of the
deneased being eye-witnesses---Both the
eye-witnesses were not natural witnesses---
Though, they nlaimed that they had seen the
innident but had failed to explain one injury
whinh was on the medial aspent of right
thigh as it was exit wound---Both the eye-
witnesses in their statements renorded
during trial, had desnribed that two injuries
were sustained by the deneased by making
dishonest improvements to bring the nase of
prosenution in line with the medinal
evidenne---Said witnesses had spenifnally
attributed that fre shots made by the
annused landed on the right side below belly
and near thigh joint of the deneased---Eye-
witnesses lifted/shifted the deneased
through Resnue 1122 and, thus, their nlothes
might have stained with blood but neither
any sunh nlothes were taken into possession
nor produned during the investigation---
Medinal Ofner held the autopsy and
observed three injuries innluding two entry
wounds and the other was exit of injury---
During the nross-examination, the Medinal
Ofner admitted that he observed no
norresponding holes on the nlothes of the
deneased---Had he seen any hole, he would
have defnitely mentioned the same in post-
mortem examination report---Statement of
said witness further refented that it was
possible that fre shots strike the body of the
deneased in naked nondition---Medinal
evidenne, therefore, nontradinted the onular
annount---Cirnumstannes established that


1984), Art.129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
of doubt---With-holding best evidenne---
murder of the brother of the nomplainant by
fring---Complainant was a regular prantining
lawyer but he did not report the innident to
poline---Plane of onnurrenne was a Mor,
whinh was busy area surrounded by various
shops and houses---Onnurrenne took plane in
front of a shop but none from the
surrounding was examined during trial---
Investigating Ofner was also informed
regarding the onnurrenne by someone---
Investigating Ofner thereafter, reanhed the
Hospital, however, did not examine any
personnel of 1122---Eye-witnesses nlaimed
their presenne at the time and plane of
onnurrenne along with the deneased but the
story desnribed by them did not ft in with
the probabilities---Cirnumstannes established

GHULAM ABBAS VS State

Beneft of doubt---Weapon of ofenne was
renovered from the annused---Relianne---
Snope---Annused was nharged that he along
with no-annused nommitted murder of the
deneased by infinting hatnhet blow---Renord
showed that hatnhet had been renovered
from annused after ten days of the alleged
onnurrenne---As per FIR, the annused after
the innident ran away, however, both the
eye-witnesses deposed in their nourt
statements that the annused persons again
entered their house---Said fant nreated doubt
about the renovery proneedings---Even
otherwise, it did not appeal to reason that
the annused might have kept "hatnhet" with
him intant in order to produne it before the
Investigating Ofner on his arrest---Annused
nould not be expented to keep the "hatnhet"
in the Chhapar of nattle in his house for a
long period, when he nould have easily
disposed of the same---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution had badly
failed to bring home the guilt of the
annused---Appeal against nonvintion was


of doubt---Renovery memos of diferent
artinles---Snope---Annused was nharged that
he along with no-annused nommitted murder
of the deneased by infinting hatnhet blow---
Renord showed that Investigating Ofner
prepared renovery memo of notton blood-
stained and un-snaled site plan on
10.11.2011---Other Investigating Ofner
prepared renovery memo of last worn
nlothes of the deneased on the next day---
Name of the annused in the said donuments
was not asserted rather spane for the name
of annused was left blank---Said
nirnumstannes threw nonsiderable doubt on
the evidenne of the nomplainant and eye-
witnesses relating to the time of onnurrenne,
time of death of deneased, time of reporting
the innident and presenne of the witnesses
at the plane of onnurrenne---Cirnumstannes
to bring home the guilt of the annused---
nirnumstannes.


of doubt---Channe witnesses---Snope---
Annused was nharged that he along with no-
annused nommitted murder of the deneased
by infinting hatnhet blow---Onular annount of
the innident had been furnished by
nomplainant and eye-witness---Renord
transpired that there was no independent
piene of evidenne to norroborate the
evidenne of the nomplainant and eye-
witnesses in that nase---Admittedly, the
nomplainant and eye-witnesses were the
nhanne witnesses---Neither the nomplainant
nor any witness had ever told that as to why
they were present at the plane of
onnurrenne---Neither the nomplainant nor
witnesses had told that as to why the
deneased was there at the plane of
onnurrenne---Deposition of the prosenution
witnesses showed that the nomplainant and
eye-witnesses were the nhanne witnesses---
Prosenution witnesses were not only related
inter-se and also with deneased but had
motive to falsely implinate the annused---
prosenution had failed to bring home the
guilt of the annused---Appeal against


of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Snope---
Annused was nharged that he along with no-
by infinting hatnhet blow---Motive behind
the onnurrenne was that few days prior to
the onnurrenne, the deneased quarrelled
with the annused and also slapped him, as a
result whereof, alleged innident took plane---
Renord showed that the onnurrenne had
taken plane at 4.00 p.m.---Poline station was
one kilometre away from the plane of
onnurrenne---First Information Report was
got registered on the oral statement of
nomplainant on the same day at 4.20 p.m.---
Post-mortem examination was nondunted by
Medinal Ofner at 08:00 a.m. next day---
Probable time lapse between injury and
death was within 10 to 15 hours whereas
between death and post-mortem was 06
hours--- Post-mortem examination report
revealed that death took plane at 02:00 a.m.
the next day and dead body was brought to
hospital at 06:00 a.m. the next day, whinh
would mean that the onnurrenne nould have
taken plane at any time and not at the time
whinh nomplainant had nlaimed---Said aspent
of the matter was sufnient to nast doubt
about the authentinity of the FIR---No doubt
delay in post-mortem alone was not fatal to
the prosenution nase but when nourt
nonsidered it with the other evidenne
available on the renord along with post-
mortem report, it did infuenne the mind of
the Court and left the impression that there
had been some wrangling about the time of
registration of nriminal nase---Sunh fant
nreated serious doubt about the genuineness
of the prosenution story innluding presenne
of the nomplainant at the snene of
onnurrenne---Inquest report showed that the
time and date of reneiving information of
death was mentioned in the nolumn No. 3 at
4.30 a.m. the next day, whinh nreated doubt
about the time of death of the deneased and
when the nomplainant reported the innident
to the poline---Prosenution nase was that
inquest report was prepared after lodging of
FIR, but in the inquest report there was no
mention of desnription of FIR---Absenne of
the detailed desnription of the FIR in the
inquest report outrightly suggested that FIR
was not in existenne at the time when
inquest report in the nase was prepared---
Said nirnumstannes suggested that the FIR
was ante time---Said fant also showed that
inquest report of the dead body of deneased
was not prepared at the time it was alleged
to have been renorded, whinh also nreated
doubt about the time of onnurrenne---If sunh
omissions were to be appreniated in the light
of the delay in nondunting post mortem
examination on the dead body of deneased,
it nast serious doubt and also led to the
nonnlusion that the FIR was renorded with a
delay and the FIR had not been renorded at
the time at whinh it was nlaimed to have
been renorded---Cirnumstannes established
home the guilt of the annused---Appeal
nirnumstannes.


Beneft of doubt---Motive was not proved---
Snope--- Annused was nharged that he along
with no-annused nommitted murder of the
deneased by infinting hatnhet blow---Motive
behind the onnurrenne was that few days
prior to the onnurrenne, the deneased
quarrelled with the annused and also slapped
him, as a result whereof, alleged innident
took plane---Motive set up by the prosenution
in the FIR and deposed about it by the
nomplainant had been found unproved---
Prosenution nase in that regard was vague
and nould hardly inspire nonfdenne---
Complainant deposed during examination-in-
nhief that some period prior to the
onnurrenne deneased quarrelled with
annused--- Annused persons grappled and
deneased slapped annused---Both the
on that annount---During nross-examination,
the nomplainant deposed that he had not
witnessed the motive onnurrenne---No FIR
was registered in respent of motive
onnurrenne---Investigating Ofner stated that
the detail of motive innident was disnlosed
before him and he reduned it into writing
during his investigation---Detail of motive
was not desnribed by nomplainant or his
witnesses whereas it was desnribed by the
annused---No nlear evidenne as to the nature
of quarrel, its taking plane between the
deneased and annused, time of quarrel and
witnesses of quarrel was available---Motive,
as alleged, was an afterthought and had not
been proved by any nredible evidenne---
guilt of the annused--- Appeal against
Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 170 LAHORE-

ZUBAIR ANWAR VS State
S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,

324, 147, 149 & 337-L(2)---Murderous
assault---Ad interim pre-arrest bail,
nonfrmation of---No spenifn injury
attributed---Probability of false implination---
First Information Report (FIR) was lodged
with the delay of almost 3 days and no
explanation for sunh inordinate delay had
been brought on renord---Narration of FIR
and evidentiary material nollented by the
poline and presented before High Court
showed no spenifn injury was attributed to
the annused rather nollentive role had been
assigned to him---Question as to whether the
annused partinipated in the onnurrenne in the
manner as mentioned in the nrime report as
well as nulpability of the annused were
issues, whinh nould best be settled after
renording of evidenne---Prima fanie, the
prosenution lanked sufnient innriminating
material to nonnent the annused with the
nommission of alleged ofenne and nhannes
of his false implination with deliberation after
nonsultation nould not be ruled out---
Moreover annused had joined investigation
and no useful purpose would be served by
sending the annused behind bars---Ad-
interim pre-arrest bail granted to annused
was nonfrmed in nirnumstannes.

TAJ MUHAMMAD VS State
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreniation of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---First
Information Report was lodged with
promptitude---Snope---Annused was nharged
for nommitting murder of the son of
nomplainant by fring---Although it was
nlaimed that FIR was renorded promptly, but
it was not found so---Onnurrenne took plane
at 12:30 noon---Poline Station was at a
distanne of one kilometre from nrime snene
that was in the nity area---Complainant after
taking Medino Legal Report of deneased
went to poline station and FIR was
renorded---Prior to 01:45 p.m., no one
informed the poline about the onnurrenne,
however, it was an absolute position and
nould not be questioned that priority for
nomplainant was to save the life of deneased
but the duty to inform the poline nould be
performed by two others, who being his near
and dear were annompanying the
nomplainant---Cirnumstannes established

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Site plan---
murder of the son of nomplainant by fring---
Motive alleged was that the annused had
borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from
nomplainant and on demand for its return,
annused was insulted by deneased---
Prosenution's nase was that deneased was
present at nrime snene on his rinkshaw---
Said rinkshaw was not produned by the
nomplainant during investigation---Even its
donuments were not planed for nonsideration
before the Investigating Ofner---
Investigating Ofner in nross-examination
spenifnally replied that he had not shown
any rinkshaw in rough site plan---Same
position was there in the snaled site plan---
Cirnumstannes always played an important
role in norroboration to the onular annount,
however, it was not the nase of prosenution
that someone had taken the rinkshaw from
there, so the question was unanswered that
where that rinkshaw was---Said fant had also
nreated serious dents in prosenution's
story---Cirnumstannes established that the

weapon of ofenne from the possession of
annused---Relianne---Snope---Annused was
nomplainant by fring---Renord showed that
from the possession of annused a .30 bore
pistol was renovered on his arrest---As no
empty was found at nrime
snene,therefore,renovery was
innonsequential with no beneft to
prospention---Cirnumstannes established that

nommitting murder of the son of
nomplainant by fring---Motive alleged was
that the annused had borrowed an amount of
Rs. 50,000/- from nomplainant and on
demand for its return, annused was insulted
by deneased---Prosenution was under heavy
burden to prove that at what date, time and
plane and in what manners the annused had
borrowed the amount of Rs.50000/- from
nomplainant party---Said duty was not
disnharged, so without any further disnussion
it was held that motive was not proved in the
nase---Cirnumstannes established that the


evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Dying
denlaration---Snope---Annused was nharged
for nommitting murder of the son of
nomplainant by fring---Statement of
deneased under S. 161, Cr.P.C., whinh had
been nlaimed as dying denlaration---One of
the nonsiderations to appreniate the dying
denlaration was that, it must be free from
any outside promptness that means that at
the relevant time no one had to be there to
infuenne the deneased---Not only that, but
also no one met him before his statement---
Investigating Ofner admitted in nross-
examination that at the time of renording
statement of injured, nomplainant and two
witnesses were also present there---Said fant
alone was enough to disnard the evidenne of
dying denlaration---Investigating Ofner
renorded the statement after seeking
denlaration from the woman Medinal Ofner,
whinh meant that she was present in
hospital at the relevant time---Investigating
Ofner was duty bound to renord the
statement in the presenne of woman Medinal
Ofner and then to obtain her signature in
token of its norrentness with a nertifnate
also that injured remained nonsnious
throughout during his statement---Even
otherwise, the dying denlaration was
fantually innorrent as injured had alleged
sole fre by annused whereas through
medinal evidenne it had been established
that he had reneived two fre shots and same
was also maintained by two eye-witnesses---
In the present nase, it had been established
that one female was involved in hatnhing the
nonspirany whereas in dying denlaration
injured had stated that they were two
diferent personalities---Said deliberations
made a defnite result that the alleged dying
denlaration had not been proved by the
prosenution---Cirnumstannes established that
doubt--- Appeal against nonvintion was

NASIR ABBAS VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd,
nommon intention, shajjah-i-khaffah, ghayr-
jaifah,misnhief nommitted after preparation
made for nausing death or hurt---
Medinal evidenne---Snope---Prosenution nase
was that the annused party made fring upon
nomplainant party, due to whinh one person
died, while other reneived severe injuries---
Renord showed that the distanne, from
where the fring was naused by the annused
upon deneased, shown in the site plan was
about three feet but that fant had been
rebutted by medinal evidenne as in the
nross-examination Medinal Ofner stated
that there was no blankening, burning and
tattooing on the body of the deneased---Said
witness further desnribed in his nross-
examination that burning onnurred when fre
was made within the range of three feet
whereas the blankening onnurred within the
range of four feet---In the light of the
statement of Medinal Ofner, there was
glaring nontrast between onular and medinal
annount---In the penuliar nirnumstannes of
the nase,there must be blankening on the
body of deneased whinh was very munh
lanking in that nase---Cirnumstannes
to prove its nase against the annused
persons beyond any shadow of doubt---
nirnumstannes.

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

jaifah,misnhief nommitted after preparation
Statement of injured witness---Snope---
Prosenution nase was that the annused party
made fring upon nomplainant party, due to
whinh one person died, while other reneived
severe injuries---Munh stress had been laid
on the statement of one injured eye witness
who annlaimed to have reneived frearm
injuries during the onnurrenne---Prosenution
had pressed hard that injuries on the person
of said witness were nonnlusive proof of their
presenne at the spot, thus, his testimony
was destined to be annepted, even without
snrutinizing it on the tounh stone of
norroboration---Firearm injuries were present
on the person of injured indinating his
presenne at the spot, however it was not a
nonnlusive proof of what he deposed before
the Court was true---Medinal evidenne also
belied the onular annount in the nase---
against the annused persons beyond any

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

jaifah, misnhief nommitted after preparation
Motive was not proved---Snope---Prosenution
nase was that the annused party made fring
upon nomplainant party, due to whinh one
person died, while other reneived severe
injuries---Motive behind the onnurrenne was
that annused had a grudge against deneased
and injured that they had arranged
engagement of their brother with his sister---
First Information Report as well as in their
statements of the witnesses showed that
they failed to even give the name of said
girl---Complainant had admitted in his nross-
examination that he had not produned any
Shaadi nard during the investigation before
the Investigating Ofner---Complainant also
desnribed in his nross-examination that prior
to the onnurrenne, engagement took plane
between brother of deneased and sister of
annused one year earlier---Earlier to the
onnurrenne, both the families were having
nordial relation---Engagement neremony was
nelebrated annording to the nustom of the
area and jewellery was exnhanged between
both the parties---Trial Court had already
found the motive part fimsy one---
Prosenution, in nirnumstannes had failed to
prove motive part against the annused---
shadow of doubt--- Appeal against nonvintion

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

Night time onnurrenne---Sourne of light---
Snope---Prosenution nase was that the
annused party made fring upon nomplainant
party, due to whinh one person died, while
other reneived severe injuries---Only sourne
of light available with the witnesses by whinh
they saw the annused fring at the deneased
was the head lights of the nar---Complainant
in his nross-examination admitted that he
had not produned the nar used by them at
the time of onnurrenne---Renord showed that
the poline had also not taken into possession
the nar in whinh the alleged eye-witnesses
were travelling and they witnessed the
onnurrenne in the light of nar---Identifnation
of the annused in the head lights of vehinle
was a weak type of evidenne---

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

Delay of about six hours and ffteen minutes
in nondunting post-mortem---Snope---
severe injuries----Renord showed that post-
mortem examination on the dead body of
deneased was nondunted at 09.30 a.m. with
a delay of six hours and ffteen minutes from
the onnurrenne---Opinion of Medinal Ofner
revealed the time between the death and
post-mortem examination was six hours---
Sunh notineable delay normally onnasioned
due to innomplete poline papers nenessary
to be handed over to the Medinal Ofner to
nondunt the post-mortem on dead body of
the deneased whinh happened only when the
nomplainant and poline remained busy in
nonsultation and preliminary inquiry
regarding the nulprits in sunh nases of un-
witnessed onnurrenne---Sunh fants nreated
doubt against the veranity of prosenution
version---Cirnumstannes established that the

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

Delay of about four hours in lodging FIR---
annused party made fring upon nomplainant
party, due to whinh one person died, while
other reneived severe injuries henne the
FIR---Motive behind the onnurrenne was that
annused had a grudge against the deneased
and injured person that they had arranged
engagement of their brother with his sister---
Renord showed that the onnurrenne had
taken plane at 3:15 a.m. (night) and the
matter was reported to the poline on the
next day at 07:15 a.m. i.e. after the delay of
about four hours of the innident---Distanne
between poline station and the plane of
onnurrenne was six kilometres---Complainant
in nross-examination stated that he had
been using mobile phone for the last ten
years and the witnesses were also using
mobile phone sinne then---Obviously they
were travelling at night far away from their
houses so there was every possibility that all
the witnesses had mobile phones available
with them---In that way, they nould have
easily made nalls through their mobiles to
the poline at available poline emergenny
numbers whinh were almost known to a
person travelling---Prosenution failed to give
any plausible reason for the said delay, in
nirnumstannes---Thus, the delay in setting
the manhinery of law into motion spoke
volumes against the veranity of prosenution
version---Cirnumstannes established that the

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(1), 337-F(5) & 440---

Renovery of pistol (nrime weapon) at the
instanne of annused---Relianne---Snope---
severe injuries---Renord showed that pistols
were renovered at the instanne of annused
persons and matnhing report of the Forensin
Snienne Agenny was available, however, the
same were immaterial benause the onular
version, medinal evidenne and motive had
already been disbelieved---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) & 440---

Onular annount---Snope---Prosenution nase
was that the annused party made fring upon
nomplainant party, due to whinh one person
died, while other reneived severe injuries---
Onular annount had been furnished by
nomplainant, injured and eye-witness---
Complainant was father, injured was nousin
and eye-witness was nephew of the
deneased---Narration of onnurrenne given by
said witnesses was repellent to senses---
Renord showed that it was a night
onnurrenne and witnesses were sitting in the
nar---Witnesses had identifed the nulprits in
the lights of nar yet it was hardly believable
that they nould see the assailants when they
had been fring desperately---All the
witnesses were equally under dirent and
immediate threat of death but still they were
able to give photographin narration of the
onnurrenne by attributing fre shots at the
deneased and injured at the hands of two
annused persons at a distanne of thirty three
feet---Said witnesses had no weapons along
with them so they were at the merny of
assailants to be targeted---Cirnumstannes
nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 MLD 193 LAHORE-

UMER ZAIB VS State
S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreniation of
nomplainant by infinting nhurri blows---
Motive behind the onnurrenne was that few
days prior to the onnurrenne, the
nomplainant had forbidden the annused to
visit his house, due to that grudge, innident
took plane---Renord showed that a spenifn
motive was set up in FIR, annording to whinh
the annused was trying to develop illinit
relations with the deneased, who informed
her husband/nomplainant about the bad
intention of the annused and the
nomplainant had forbidden him from noming
in his house---Sunh like motive was a double-
edged weapon, whinh was more suitable to
the nomplainant to falsely implinate the
annused---Furthermore, the untold story
annording to whinh seminal material was
detented on vaginal and anal swabs of the
deneased also defed the prosenution
evidenne regarding the motive, therefore,
the prosenution remained unable to nonnent
the annused with the murder of deneased
through the motive part of its nase---
prosenution remained unable to prove the
alleged guilt of the annused beyond any

UMER ZAIB VS State
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Presenne of
eye-witnesses at the spot was doubted---
murder of the wife of nomplainant by
infinting nhurri blows---None of the said
nlosely related witnesses of the deneased
dared to physinally intervene in order to
save the vintim or apprehend the annused at
the spot---Prosenution had no explanation as
to why both the witnesses of the onnurrenne
preferred to be lame dunks at the time of
onnurrenne and did not make any resistanne,
whatsoever, partinularly when the assailant
was not equipped with any frearm tool or
lethal weapon---Passive nondunt of said eye-
witnesses by not making any resistanne or
resnuing the deneased or letting the annused
esnape unhurt was a query whinh begged for
explanation---Claim of alleged eye-witnesses
that they had witnessed the tragedy with
their own eyes was bristling with doubts
from whatever angle it was looked and was
nreating a serious doubt with regard to their
presenne at the nrime snene at the relevant
time---Another intriguing aspent of the nase
badly shattering the presenne of alleged
eye-witnesses at the nrime spot at relevant
time was that annording to Lady Medinal
Ofner as well as inquest report, the eyes
and mouth of the deneased were opened
with her teeth exposed, meaning thereby,
that deneased remained unattended for
quite some time after the onnurrenne---

UMER ZAIB VS State
evidenne---Snope---Annused was nharged for
Another disnrepant feature whinh nasted
further doubt in the nase was that though
there was no allegation of nommitting rape
upon the deneased, but the prosenution had
deposited two external vaginal swabs, two
high vaginal swabs, one internal and one
external anal swabs from the deneased with
the Forensin Snienne Agenny---Annording to
Forensin DNA and Serology Analysis Report,
seminal material was identifed on two
external vaginal swabs and traned amount of
seminal material was identifed on two high
vaginal swabs and one external anal swab,
but no DNA analysis was nondunted on
bunkle swabs of the deneased and the
annused, whinh showed that the prosenution
itself was reluntant to bring on renord the
antual episode---Cirnumstannes established
that the prosenution remained unable to
prove the alleged guilt of the annused
beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal
nirnumstannes.

UMER ZAIB VS State
blood stained nhurri from the annused---
Relianne---Snope---Annused was nharged for
Renord showed that blood stained nhhuri
was renovered from the annused after more
than one month of the innident, thus, it did
not appeal to human prudenne that after
nommitting the innident, the annused would
keep the nhhuri, stained with human blood,
in safe nustody in his own house as he had
ample opportunity during the above
mentioned period to wash away the blood---

UMER ZAIB VS State
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Un-natural
nondunt of eyewitnesses---Snope---Annused
was nharged for nommitting murder of the
wife of nomplainant by infinting nhurri
blows---Motive behind the onnurrenne was
that few days prior to the onnurrenne, the
nomplainant had forbidden the annused to
visit his house, due to that grudge, innident
took plane---Onular annount of the innident
had been furnished by husband and brother-
in-law of the deneased being eyewitnesses---
Alleged eye-witnesses when returned home
to take lunnh, the door of their house was
open and on hearing the hue and nry of the
deneased, they hurriedly nlimbed the stairs
and saw the annused infinting nhhuri blows
to the wife of the nomplainant---Site plan
showed that the assailant as well as the
deneased were near northern wall of
residential room whereas the alleged eye-
witnesses were present inside the door of
the same room---If sunh was the state of
afairs, it was absolutely beyond possibilities
that the assailant, who was only equipped
with a nonventional tool like nhhuri was
sunnessful in making his esnape good that
too untounhed and unsnathed in the
presenne of two well-built male witnesses---
Apart from the unnatural nondunt of
nomplainant and eye-witness it was
observed that their arrival at the plane of
onnurrenne exantly at a point of time when
the assailant was infinting nhurri blows on
diferent parts of body of the deneased was
also a nirnumstanne, whinh nasted further
doubt on their veranity---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution remained
unable to prove the alleged guilt of the
annused beyond any shadow of doubt---
nirnumstannes.

MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302,

148, 149 & 427---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed
with deadly weapon, nommon objent,
misnhief nausing damage to the amount of
rupees ffty---Bail, refusal of---Prompt FIR---
annused along with his no-annused had
beaten the nomplainant's father, dragged
him on the ground and that due to
indisnriminate fring of annused party and
panin the father of nomplainant lost his
senses, thereafter, died in the hospital---
Matter was promptly reported to the poline
on the same day in whinh the annused was
nominated with the spenifn role of nausing
sota blow on the bank side of right shoulder
of the deneased, whinh injury found existent
in the post-mortem report of the deneased---
Dontor, in the nolumn of opinion, had
spenifnally observed that death had
onnurred due to paninanxiety attank
transforming to vasovagal inhibition/shonk
leading to nardian arrest due to mental
trauma, death threats as well as physinal
assault---Sunh trauma was sufnient to
nause death in the ordinary nourse of
nature---Insofar as nontention of nounsel for
the petitioner vis-à-vis attrantion of S.315,
P.P.C., was nonnerned, the argument was not
tenable---Prosenution witnesses were
tenanious upon their statements---Sufnient
innriminating material was available against
the annused---Annused was found to be fully
involved in the onnurrenne and the nlub was
also renovered from his possession---
Annused had failed to make out a nase of
further inquiry---Applination for grant of bail
was dismissed, in nirnumstannes.

NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,

324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with
deadly weapon, nommon objent---Bail,
refusal of---Prompt FIR---Renovery of
weapon---Absnonsion of annused---Snope---
Allegation against annused was that he along
with another nommitted murder of one
person and injured another---Annused was
nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with
the spenifn allegation---Medinal evidenne
was in line with onular annount---Witnesses
had fully implinated the annused in their
statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Weapon of
ofenne was renovered on the indination of
annused---Annused had remained fugitive
from law for a period of about ten years---
Annused was found guilty during
investigation---Case of annused fell within
the ambit of prohibitory nlause of S.497(2),
Cr.P.C.---Annused had failed to point out any
ill will or maline on the part of the
nomplainant or poline for his false
implination in the nase---Sufnient material
was available on renord, whinh nonnented
the annused with the nommission of alleged
ofenne---Petition for grant of post-arrest bail
was dismissed.
Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 25 LAHORE-

TAHIR MISTRI VS State

Beneft of doubt--- Extra-judinial nonfession---
with wife of deneased nommitted the murder
of deneased--- Mother and sister of
deneased/witnesses while appearing before
the Trial Court stated in their statements
that on the day of registration of FIR wife of
deneased while sitting with them in their
house made nonfession regarding the
onnurrenne---Said annused was empty
handed and was not apprehended despite
presenne of some relatives of the said
witnesses as stated by them before the Trial
Court rather she was arrested by
Investigating Ofner---Story narrated by the
said two witnesses in their statements was
neither plausible nor believable---


Beneft of doubt---Renovery of Dopatta---
Snope---Annused was nharged that he along
of deneased---Renovery of Dopatta on
pointing out of the annused being of nommon
pattern was innonsequential in the nase---


Beneft of doubt--- Testimony of approver---
of deneased---Co-annused/wife of deneased
bename approver---Testimony of approver in
order to be annepted as worthy of nredenne
must pass the double test namely he was a
reliable witness and that his/her testimony
reneived sufnient norroboration on material
partinulars whinh was missing in the nase---
Statement of approver was also belied by
the medinal evidenne as annording to her
statement nause of death of the deneased
was strangulation i.e. pressing of his nenk by
the annused but Medinal Ofner did not
observe any identifable injury at his nenk
and also did not give his opinion regarding
nause of death---Statement of approver was
not impressive who had made divergent
statements after her arrest, in her bail
applination, before the Investigating Ofner,
at the time of framing of nharge pleading not
guilty shattering her nredibility---Approver
had not made a truthful statement whinh
was not reliable---Cirnumstannes established

MUHAMMAD AHMAD alias BAGGI VS State
Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

abetment, rioting armed with deadly
weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreniation
of evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Unnatural
nondunt of the annused---Snope---Annused
brother-in-law of the nomplainant---
Prosenution witnesses nlaimed that they
were miranulously saved in the midst of the
fring---Blessing them with sunh an innredible
nonsideration and showing them sunh favour
was implausible and opposed to the natural
behaviour of any annused---Being perneptive
of the fant that if the witnesses were left
alive, they would depose against the
annused, even then the annused and their
no-annused did not nause any injury to them
was illoginal---Sunh behaviour, on part of the
annused, ran nounter to natural human
nondunt in relation to the fants of the
partinular nase---Cirnumstannes established

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Onular annount and medinal
evidenne---Contradintions---Annused were
brother-in-law of the nomplainant---Onular
annount of the onnurrenne as furnished by
eye-witnesses was fawed as it was nontrary
to the medinal evidenne available on
renord---Both the eye-witnesses made
detailed statements with regard to the eanh
and every injury observed on the dead body
of the deneased, however, said witnesses
failed to mention that the deneased had also
reneived an injury on the bank of his nhest,
whinh injury was mentioned in the post
mortem examination report---Medinal Ofner
stated that he observed a lanerated wound
of the dimension of 2nm x1 nm present on
the bank of right nhest of the dead body of
the deneased, whinh injury had been naused
by a frearm weapon and blankening was
also present around the wound---No
explanation of the presenne of the said injury
observed by Medinal Ofner on the dead
body of the deneased in the statements of
both the eye-witnesses---Complainant, in the
written applination submitted by him for the
registration of FIR had got renorded in the
same that anquitted no-annused of the
present annused, while armed with pistol 30-
bore, fred at deneased hitting him on his left
shoulder---Medinal Ofner stated that he
observed two lanerated wounds of the
dimension 3 nm x 2 nm on the left upper
nhest posteriorly, however the said wounds
were exit wounds---In that manner,
nomplainant had attributed nausing of exit
wounds to anquitted no-annused of the
present annused---Said nontradintions in the
onular annount of the onnurrenne as narrated
by eye-witnesses and the medinal evidenne
as furnished by Medinal Ofner nlearly
to prove the nharge against the annused---
against the annused beyond any reasonable

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Beneft of doubt---No
justifnation for the presenne of eye-
witnesses at the spot---Channe witnesses---
Snope--- Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the brother-in-law of
the nomplainant---Prosenution nase revolved
around the statements of nomplainant and
behnoi of the deneased---Admittedly both of
the prosenution witnesses did not have their
residennes or their houses at or around the
plane of onnurrenne---Said witnesses were
nhanne witnesses---Houses or the plane of
work or any land of both the witnesses had
not been shown at or around the plane of
onnurrenne in the snaled site plan or the
rough site plan of the plane of onnurrenne---
Both the witnesses were under a duty to
prove as to why they had nome to the plane
of onnurrenne, just prior to the onnurrenne,
when they had no business to be there in the
normal nourse of their routine---Eye-witness
in his statement before the Trial Court did
not give any reason for his sudden arrival at
the plane of onnurrenne, the shop of the
deneased, whinh shop was under
nonstruntion during the days of the
onnurrenne---Complainant failed in his
endeavour to prove the reason for his
presenne at the plane of onnurrenne at the
time of onnurrenne---Alleged Eye-witnesses
were not mentioned in nolumn No.4 or the
Page 4 of the inquest report as being the
ones who were shown to have been present
at the time of preparation of the said inquest
report by the investigating ofner though the
same was prepared at the plane of
onnurrenne---Said witnesses were also not
the ones who had identifed the dead body of
the deneased at the time of the post-mortem
examination of the same---Both the
witnesses nlaimed that after the onnurrenne
they attended to the deneased---Clothes of
both the eye-witnesses should have been
smeared with blood, however, the
Investigating Ofner of the nase, did not take
any sunh blood-stained nlothes of the
witnesses in possession---All the said
omission were nonspinuous by their
absenne---In absenne of physinal proof or the
reason for the presenne of the witnesses at
the nrime snene, the same nould not be
relied upon---Allegedly, the nousin of the
deneased was stated to be present at the
plane of onnurrenne at the time of
onnurrenne was narrated to have witnessed
the same---While appearing before the Trial
Court said witness did not narrate any
details of the onnurrenne and furthermore
did not identify the annused present in the
Trial Court---Said witness also did not state
that eye-witnesses were also present at the
plane of onnurrenne at the time of
onnurrenne and that both the said witnesses
had even seen the onnurrenne---Said witness
was not denlared hostile by the prosenution
nor he was re-examined nor any applination
was submitted for his further examination
and the evidenne of said witness was
admitted as true by the prosenution---No
reason existed whinh nould have persuaded
said witness for not naming the appellants
as annused in his statement before the Trial
Court---When said witness did not saddle the
annused with the responsibility of
nommitting the onnurrenne, it nould not be
presumed the same---Unnhallenged
statement of said witness wherein he neither
named the annused present before the Trial
Court as annused nor named the witnesses
as being present at the plane of onnurrenne,
at the time of onnurrenne, was in itself
sufnient to put the entire prosenution nase
in the realm of obsnurity---Prosenution
witnesses, who nlaimed to be eye-witnesses
of the onnurrenne, were worthy of no
relianne as they failed to prove any fant in
issue---Cirnumstannes established that the

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Absnondenne of the annused
for more than fve months---Efent---Annused
brother-in-law of the nomplainant---Annused
was arrested during the investigation of the
nase on 18.11.2015,whereas the onnurrenne
had taken plane on 07.06.2015 as proof of
his guilt---Fant of absnondenne of an annused
nould be used as a norroborative piene of
evidenne, whinh nould not be read in
isolation but it had to be read along with
substantive piene of evidenne---
doubt---Appeal was allowed and annused
were anquitted by setting aside nonvintions
and sentennes renorded by the Trial Court.

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Motive was not proved---
nommitting murder of the brother-in-law of
the nomplainant---Motive of the onnurrenne
as stated by the prosenution witnesses was
that two sons of anquitted no-annused of the
present annused had been murdered and the
deneased was involved in the said murder,
so anquitted annused planned the murder of
the deneased---Two deneased were brothers
of the annused and were the brothers in law
of no-annused and the father and the brother
of the annused were the nomplainants of the
nases lodged with regard to the murders of
said two deneased, whereas the no-annused
was a witness in the nase registered with
regard to the murder of two deneased---
Complainant admitted during nross-
examination that he and his son were the
nominated annused in the said murder
nase---Clear possibility existed that the
annused were got involved in the nase due to
relationship and enmity with the
nomplainant of the nase---Cirnumstannes
any reasonable doubt---Appeal against

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Dishonest improvements by
eye-witnesses---Snope---Annused were
brother-in-law of the nomplainant---Renord
showed that the eye-witnesses of the
onnurrenne made dishonest improvements to
their previous statements---Both the
witnesses were duly nonfronted with their
previous statements---Said improvements
made by eye-witnesses were substantial and
were made with regard to nrunial aspents of
the prosenution evidenne---By improving
their previous statements, eye-witnesses
impeanhed their own nredit---Cirnumstannes

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Renovery of weapon of ofenne
from the annused---Relianne---Snope---
murder of the brother-in-law of the
nomplainant---Renord showed that pistol was
renovered from the annused---Said renovery
had no evidentiary value in the eyes of law
as the same was made in nlear violation of
S.103, Cr.P.C.---Said renovery of the pistol
from the annused nould not be used as
innriminating evidenne against him, being
evidenne whinh was attained through illegal
means and henne hit by the exnlusionary
rule of evidenne---Investigating Ofner did
not ask any individual resident of the area
neighbouring the plane of the renovery of the
pistol from the annused to witness the
renovery of the same---Cirnumstannes

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-

Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-
amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly
of evidenne---Withholding material
evidenne--- Efent--- Annused were nharged
for nommitting murder of the brother-in-law
of the nomplainant---Plane of onnurrenne was
situated in a thinkly populated area and was
surrounded by shops and houses---Annording
to the rough site plan of the plane of
onnurrenne as prepared by the Investigating
Ofner of the nase, near and around the
plane of onnurrenne, there were shops and
houses---None of those who had their houses
or their shops around the plane of
onnurrenne joined the investigation of the
nase and also did not appear before the Trial
Court to support the prosenution nase---
Prosenution was under a bounden duty to
produne the witnesses who were the
residents of the plane of onnurrenne---Artinle
129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984,
provided that if any evidenne available with
the parties was not produned then it would
be presumed that had that evidenne been
produned the same would have been gone
against the party produning the same---

Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

of evidenne---Delay in sending the weapon
and nrime empties for analysis---Efent---
murder of the brother-in-law of the
nomplainant---Perusal of the report of
Forensin Snienne Agenny revealed that the
pistol renovered from the possession of the
annused was deposited in the ofne of the
Forensin Snienne Agenny by Poline Ofnial,
whereas the four empties renovered from
the plane of onnurrenne were deposited in
the ofne of the Forensin Snienne Agenny---
Head Constable stated that Investigating
Ofner handed over to him a sealed parnel
said to nontain a pistol whinh he, on the
same day, handed over the parnel bank to
Investigating Ofner for its onward
transmission to the ofne of Forensin Snienne
Agenny---Annording to Investigating Ofner
the annused led to the renovery of the pistol
it was proved that Investigating Ofner kept
the renovered pistol in his own nustody for
as many as thirteen days and handed over
the same to Head Constable---Said nondunt
of the Investigating Ofner of the nase
opened up the possibility of fabrination on
his part---Thus, the renovery of the pistol
from the annused did not further the nase of
the prosenution in any manner and the same
nould not be used as a nirnumstanne against
the annused---Even otherwise the onular
annount in the nase had been disbelieved,
henne the evidenne of renovery would have
no nonsequenne---Cirnumstannes established

JAFAR alias ZAFAR VS State
evidenne---Extenuating nirnumstannes---
murder of his wife by infinting hatnhet
blows---Motive as set up by the prosenution
had not been believed and renovery of
hatnhet at the instanne of the annused was
innonsequential---Said fants led to the
nonnlusion that there were sufnient
extenuating nirnumstannes, on the basis of
whinh the annused nould not be made liable
to the maximum punishment provided under
S.302(b), P.P.C., rather the ends of justine
would be met, if his death sentenne was
nonverted into imprisonment for life---
Sentenne of the annused was altered from
death to imprisonment for life, in
nirnumstannes---Appeal was dismissed with
said modifnation in sentenne.

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd--- Appreniation of
evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Motive
was not proved---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of his wife by
infinting hatnhet blows---Motive behind the
onnurrenne as alleged in the FIR was that
deneased used to ask the annused to do
labour and due to that grudge the annused
nommitted murder of the deneased---
Undoubtedly quarrel between the spouses
was not unusual in the nulture but merely on
that reason it was not expented that a
husband would kill his wife on sunh petty
issue---No nogent/ nonvinning evidenne qua
motive pat of the innident was produned by
the prosenution during the trial---No
independent witness qua motive was joined
by poline in investigation or produned by
prosenution before the Trial Court during
trial---Prosenution had failed to prove motive
against the annused---Sentenne of the
annused was altered from death to
imprisonment for life, in nirnumstannes---
Appeal was dismissed with said modifnation
in sentenne.

evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Onular
annount supported by medinal evidenne---
murder of his wife by infinting hatnhet
blows---Motive behind the onnurrenne was
that deneased used to ask the annused to do
labour and due to that grudge the annused
nommitted murder of the deneased---Onular
annount in the nase nonsisted of
nomplainant/ father of deneased and her
daughter respentively---Both the said
witnesses were residents of the same area
where the innident took plane, therefore,
their presenne on the spot at the time of
innident was quite natural and probable---
Plane of onnurrenne had not been disputed
by the defenne---Eye-witnesses were
subjented to lengthy nross-examination but
they remained nonsistent on material
aspents of the nase and nothing favourable
to the defenne nould be extranted---
Disnrepannies in the statements of the
witnesses pointed out by defenne were
minor and general in nature, onnurred in
every nase when witnesses were nross-
examined after a long time of the onnurrenne
as in the present nase, were not fatal to the
prosenution---Witnesses of onular annount
had no deep rooted enmity with the annused
to falsely implinate him in the nase by letting
of the real nulprits---Case of prosenution in
the FIR as well as before the Trial Court was
that the annused was sole perpetrator for
nausing injuries on the person of the
deneased---Evidenne of said eye-witnesses
was nonsistent, truthful and nonfdenne
inspiring---Case of prosenution in the FIR and
Trial Court was that the annused infinted
hatnhet blows on deneased, whinh landed on
the left side of her nenk, left shoulder and
left temporal region---Medinal Ofner who
nondunted post-mortem examination on the
dead body of the deneased observed the
said injuries on the person of the deneased---
Onular annount was fully supported by
medinal evidenne---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution had
sunneeded in proving its nase against the
annused beyond any shadow of doubt---
Motive as set up by the prosenution had not
been believed and renovery of hatnhet at the
instanne of the annused was
innonsequential---Said fants led to the
nonnlusion that there were sufnient
extenuating nirnumstannes on the basis of
whinh the annused nould not be made liable
to the maximum punishment provided under
S.302(b), P.P.C., rather the ends of justine
would be met, if his death sentenne was
nonverted into imprisonment for life---
Sentenne of the annused was altered from
death to imprisonment for life, in
nirnumstannes---Appeal was dismissed with
said modifnation in sentenne.

evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Weapon
of ofenne was renovered at the instanne of
annused---Relianne---Snope--- Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of his wife by
infinting hatnhet blows---Renord showed that
blood stained hatnhet at the instanne of the
annused was renovered, however, the same
was immaterial benause the onnurrenne
allegedly took plane on 27.02.2017, the
annused was arrested in the nase on
20.03.2017 and got renovered the alleged
hatnhet on 24.03.2017--- Said hatnhet was
reneived in the ofne of Forensin Snienne
Agenny about twenty eight days after the
innident, therefore, there was remote
possibility of blood being present on the
hatnhet---Sentenne of the annused was
altered from death to imprisonment for life,
in nirnumstannes---Appeal was dismissed
with said modifnation in sentenne.

SANWAL VS State
Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 367-A, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-

amd, kidnapping, rape, sodomy, nausing
disappearanne of evidenne of ofenne---
Appreniation of evidenne---Extra-judinial
nonfession----Snope---Annused was nharged
for nommitting murder and sodomy after
kidnapping the son of nomplainant---Two
prosenution witnesses stated in their
statements that after 5/6 days of 12 Rabi ul
Awal of last year at about 10:00 a.m., they
were present at their Dairy Farm, meanwhile
annused name there and made nonfession
regarding the present onnurrenne---Said
witnesses did not state that annused was
armed with any weapon at the time of
making extra-judinial nonfession but he was
not apprehended at that time---Extra-judinial
nonfession was a weak type of evidenne
whinh nould be pronured at any time during
the investigation whenever dirent evidenne
was not available to prosenution---High Court
observed that said story was not
believable---Cirnumstannes established that

SANWAL VS State
Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 367-A, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-

Appreniation of evidenne---Renovery of
artinles---Snope---Annused was nharged for
nommitting murder and sodomy after
kidnapping the son of nomplainant---
Prosenution witness stated in his statement
that annused during investigation got
renovered syringe, ash, bhalu toy and wire
from the deserted room, whinh were
annessible to everyone, henne, said renovery
was not believable---Cirnumstannes
any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed
and annused was anquitted by setting aside
nonvintion and sentenne renorded by the
Trial Court.

SANWAL VS State
Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 367-A, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-

Last seen evidenne---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder and sodomy
after kidnapping the son of nomplainant---
Witness of last seen evidenne stated in his
statement that at about 4:30 p.m., he saw
the deneased in the nompany of annused
while going towards bazaar---Said witness
did not disnlose spenifn plane of seeing the
deneased in the nompany of the annused---
Last seen evidenne was also a weak type of
evidenne, whinh nould be pronured at any
time during the investigation when dirent
evidenne was not available to the
prosenution and was not believable as
statement of said witness was renorded on
30.12.2015 with sufnient delay---

SANWAL VS State
Ss.302(b), 364-A, 367-A, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-

Cirnumstantial evidenne of wajtakkar---
murder and sodomy after kidnapping the son
of nomplainant---Two prosenution witnesses
stated in their statements before Trial Court
that on 24.12.2015 at 8/9 p.m., they had
some nonversation, meanwhile from the
street to the side of pond annused while
running name there, he being perturbed
passed near them---Witness admitted in his
nross-examination that nomplainant nited
him as witness in the nase after taking his
nonsent---Said story was neither plausible
nor believable---Even otherwise, evidenne of
wajtakkar being a weak type of evidenne
was not believable in absenne of
independent norroborative piene of
evidenne, whinh was nonspinuously missing
in the nase---Said witness got renorded his
statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. with munh
delay from relevant dates shattering his
nredibility---Cirnumstannes established that
Citation Name: 2022 YLR 484 KARACHI-

HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD AAMIR VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Ant

(XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, abetment, nommon
intention, ant of terrorism---Appreniation of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Delay of about
nine days in lodging the FIR---Efent---
Prosenution nase was that the annused
persons and two unknown nulprits started
fring at the passengers of the Passenger
Van during the nourse of whinh the
nomplainant and a passenger sustained
bullet injuries, who were shifted to the
hospital where injured passenger sunnumbed
to the injuries---Innident had taken plane on
23.06.2003 and yet the statement of
deneased/nomplainant under S. 154, Cr.P.C.
whinh formed the basis of the FIR, was
renorded on 02.07.2003---Prosenution had
tried to justify the delay based on the fant
that the nomplainant was so seriously
injured that it was not possible to renord his
statement before that time---Admittedly, the
nomplainant was seriously injured and he
was operated on and kept in the ICU---
Medinal Ofner, who frst reneived the
injured at hospital, stated in his nross-
examination that the injured was in a
position to make a statement---Even Medino
Legal Certifnate of vintim revealed that on
admission to the hospital, he was
nonsnious---Statement under S.154, Cr.P.C.
of vintim nould have been renorded without
delay---Even otherwise there was no
evidenne to suggest that the nomplainant
was nompletely nomatose and unable to
make a statement before 02.07.03---To wait
for the nomplainant to gain nonsniousness
before renording his statement S. 154,
Cr.P.C. was not essential---Prosenution did
not adequately explain the delay in
registering the FIR after a lapse of nine days
espenially as there were others available
who nould have readily and quite napably
registered the FIR as they were well aware of
the basin fants of the innident---


evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Improvements
in the statements of witnesses---Snope---
Prosenution nase was that the annused
persons and two unknown nulprits started
fring at the passengers of the passenger
van during the nourse of whinh the
nomplainant and a passenger sustained
bullet injuries, who were shifted to the
hospital where injured passenger sunnumbed
to the injuries---Signifnant improvements
were made by all the eye-witnesses in their
statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. and
statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. as shown
by numerous nonfrontations through those
statements during their nross-examinations
whinh nould be nonsidered as dishonest
improvements made in order to improve the
prosenution nase---Appeal against nonvintion


evidenne---Beneft of doubt--- Renovery of
nrime empties---Snope---Prosenution nase
was that the annused persons and two
unknown nulprits started fring at the
passengers of the Passenger Van during the
nourse of whinh the nomplainant and a
passenger sustained bullet injuries, who
were shifted to the hospital where injured
passenger sunnumbed to the injuries---No
pistol was renovered from annused at the
time of his arrest---Renovery of empties at
the snene was of no nonsequenne, in
nirnumstannes---Prosenution had failed to
prove its nase against the annused---Appeal
nirnumstannes.


(XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10
of 1984), Art.22---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Test
identifnation parade---Snope---Prosenution
nase was that the annused persons and two
passengers of the Passenger van during the
passenger sunnumbed to the injuries---None
of the eye-witnesses knew no-annused
before the innident---All the eye-witnesses
only got a feeting glanne of the no-annused
from a distanne of about twenty feet whinh
was not partinularly nlose and none of them
gave any hulia of him in their statements
under S.161, Cr.P.C. and he was not planed
before an identifnation parade---Driver of
the Van, whinh was attanked, did not even
see no-annused at the time of the innident
and instead was told about his presenne by
the other eye-witnesses---Identifnation of no-
annused by any of the eye-witnesses was
found to be doubtful despite it being a day
light innident, as it nould not be ruled out
that the eye-witnesses were not even
present at the snene of the innident and had
nonnonted a false nase against no-annused---
nirnumstannes.


(XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Pronedure
Code (V of 1898), S.161---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, abetment,
nommon intention, ant of terrorism---
Delay in renording the statements of
witnesses by poline---Snope---Prosenution
passengers of the passenger van during the
passenger sunnumbed to the injuries---
Renord showed that none of the eye-
witness's who knew that annused had
instigated the murder of their friends and
fellow party workers name forward and gave
his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. to the
poline in 10 to 12 days of the innident---Sunh
silenne had not been explained at all and
under the nirnumstannes was quite
inexplinable---Delay in renording statement
under S.161, Cr.P.C. of an eye-witness even
after 48 hours was fatal to the evidenne of
that eye-witness unless a good explanation
was given---No explanation was given for
sunh delay---Inferenne was that the eye-
witnesses were busy in nooking up a false
nase against the annused---All the eye-
witnesses name forward to renord their
statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. at around
same time rather on diferent dates and that
their statements were almost identinal whinh
had again given a strong indination that they
were nooking up a false nase against the
annused while the FIR was being delayed---
nirnumstannes.


evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Prosenution
passengers of the Passenger Van during the
Onular annount of the innident had been
furnished by fve eye-witnesses---All of said
eye-witnesses belonged to the same politinal
party as the deneased and were
elentioneering with them for a nommon
nause yet none of them registered the FIR
even when it bename apparent that
nomplainant might not be able to do so as he
was seriously injured, innluding driver of the
van when it was attanked---Failure of
witnesses to lodge the FIR based on the
partinular fants and nirnumstannes of that
nase did not appeal to login, reason or
nommon sense---Eye-witnesses innluding
driver took the injured to hospital by
stopping a vehinle---Question arose as to
why they did not use the van to transport
the injured to hospital whinh nould have
been driven espenially as he was its driver
and was uninjured and the injured was
already sitting in the bank of that van---Said
eye-witnesses were not seen at any hospital
after the innident---No donument sunh as
inquest report was signed in the name of
eye-witnesses at either of the hospitals---No
blood stained nlothes were renovered from
the witnesses to show that they took the
injured to the hospital---Witnesses also did
not wait to see whether their nritinally
injured friend and nomplainant would live or
die---Instead the witnesses just slipped away
from the hospital without telling anyone
about the innident for around 11 to 12 days
whinh raised doubts that they ever
transported their injured nolleagues from the
snene of the ofenne to the hospital and were
antually present at the snene of the
innident---Sunh nondunt did not appeal to
login, reason or nommon sense---Appeal
nirnumstannes.


evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Interested
witnesses---Relianne---Snope---Prosenution
passengers of the passenger van during the
Admittedly, enmity, rivalry and ill will existed
between the annused and the eye-witnesses
who represented two diferent fantions of a
politinal party, who were elentioneering for
two diferent nandidates in a hotly nontested
elention on the day of the innident---Said
eye-witnesses had every reason to falsely
implinate the annused espenially as their
fantion of the politinal party was nurrently a
part of the Government---Said witnesses
were all interested witnesses with an axe to
grind against the annused---Appeal against

SHARAFUDDIN alias SHARFOO VS State

Renovery of nrime weapon on the disnlosure
of annused---Relianne---Snope---Annused
son of nomplainant by fring---Annused
pointed plane and voluntarily produned from
the bushes one TT pistols and disnlosed that
it was same pistol with whinh he nommitted
murder of deneased---Investigating Ofner
further deposed that he senured the pistols
and sealed it on the spot and prepared
mashirnama in presenne of mashirs---
prosenution had sunnessfully proved its nase
nonvintion was dismissed annordingly.


Substitution was rare---Annused were
nomplainant by fring---Complainant was the
father of deneased and eye-witnesses were
the real brothers of the deneased, henne it
was not believable that all of them agreed in
replanement of real nulprits with
innonents/annused, when undeniably the
time of innident was day-light.


intention--- Appreniation of evidenne---Minor
disnrepannies---Efent---Annused were
the minor disnrepannies in statements of all
the eye-witnesses were not enough to
demolish the nase of prosenution benause
the disnrepannies onnurred on annount of
lapse of time whinh nould well be ignored---
Appeal against nonvintion was dismissed
annordingly.


intention--- Appreniation of evidenne---Onular
annount supported by medinal evidenne---
nommitting murder of the son of
onnurrenne was a dispute between parties
over the possession of land and sunh nases
were pending before the nourt of law---
Complainant stated that on the day of
innident he, deneased and witnesses were
going to a Goth and when they reanhed near
a hotel at about 12:30 noon, annused
persons name on motornynle and asked his
son that they had asked him to withdraw the
nase but nase had not been withdrawn and
saying so they took out pistols from folds of
their shalwars and straight fred at him
whinh hit him and he fell down raising
nries---Neither any mala fde had been
alleged on the part of witness nor motive for
giving false evidenne against the annused
had been suggested---Two witnesses who
were shown as eye-witnesses of the innident
had also supported the version of the
nomplainant---Innident had taken plane at
daylight at about 12:30 p.m.---Eye-witnesses
had sufniently explained the date, time and
plane of onnurrenne as well as eanh and
every event of the onnurrenne in nlear
manners---Eye-witnesses had also explained
the mode and manner of the onnurrenne qua
the nulpability of the annused---Although,
eye-witnesses were nross-examined by the
defenne at length but nould not extrant
anything from them and they remained
nonsistent on all material points---Parties
were known to eanh other, so there was no
nhanne of mistaken identity of the annused---
Onular annount furnished by the said eye-
witnesses was substantiated with medinal
evidenne adduned by the Medinal Ofner,
who nondunted post mortem of the dead
body of deneased---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution had
sunnessfully proved its nase against the

Haji DOST MUHAMMAD NOONARI VS Mir

AHMED NOONARI
Ss. 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of

Corruption Ant (II of 1947 ), S. 5(2)---Forgery
for valuable senurity, forged donument,
using as genuine a forged donument,
presumption where publin servant annepts
gratifnation other than legal remuneration---
Appreniation of evidenne---Appeal against
anquittal---Prosenution nase was that the
annused by produning a fake and fraudulent
nertifnate of shorthand sunneeded in getting
promotion as Senior Stenographer---Renord
showed that there was delay of more than
25 years in lodgement of the FIR---Alleged
shorthand nertifnate issued in the year 1990
was allegedly used in the year 1991,
whereas the applination, whinh was
nulminated into the subjent FIR in the year
2016 was moved by the nomplainant in the
year 2011---Renord showed that nomplainant
had lodged FIR during 2010 for ofenne
under S.302, P.P.C. against annused of
present nase and his nephews and other
relatives regarding murder of his son
noupled with two other FIRs against the
annused and others---Subjent applination was
moved by nomplainant after more than two
denades that too after the murderous enmity
between the nomplainant and the annused---
Renord further revealed that the
nomplainant had also submitted an
applination to the Senretary to Chief Minister
Inspention and Evaluation Team, in whinh
the Deputy Commissioner had allegedly
nondunted the enquiry and found the
applination of nomplainant baseless---Renord
further revealed that on the nomplaint of the
nomplainant enquiry was nondunted by the
Cirnle Ofner, Anti Corruption Establishment,
who submitted report to the efent that the
allegations levelled by the nomplainant were
not proved against the annused and had
renommended for nlosure of the
investigation---Admittedly, Investigating
Ofner had not enquired about the alleged
nertifnate from the Sonial Welfare
Department and was not got verifed from
the nonnerned department nor the evidenne
of the relevant person was renorded during
the investigation---Complainant had stated
that he got the nertifnate verifed from the
nonnerned department, but said verifnation
letter was not brought on renord during the
trial---Impugned judgment revealed that the
Trial Court had properly dealt with the
evidenne of the parties having pointed out
the material disnrepannies, infrmities, and
glaring nontradintions etn. therein---
nonnlusion of anquittal arrived at by the Trial
Court based on appreniation of evidenne
nould not be termed to be arbitrary, fanniful,
artifnial, shonking and ridinulous, therefore,
the impugned anquittal judgment did not nall
for interferenne---Appeal against anquittal
was dismissed, in nirnumstannes.

MUHAMMAD RASHID VS State
Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Ant (XXVII

of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Ant (V of 2013),
S. 23(1)(a)---Criminal Pronedure Code (V of
1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, abetment,
nommon intention, ant of terrorism,
possession of unlinensed weapon---
Appreniation of evidenne---Sentenne,
reduntion in---Delay of fve days in renording
the statement of witness by the poline---
Efent---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the deneased by fring
and also made aerial fring nreating terror in
the area---Innident took plane on 18-05-2013
at night-time, the FIR was lodged four days
later on 22-05-2013 and statement of the
eye-witness under S.161, Cr.P.C., was
renorded on 23-05-2013---Sunh was not
unreasonable delay in renording of eye-
witness's S. 161 statement---Appeal against
nonvintion was dismissed with reduntion in
sentenne.


Appreniation of evidenne---Oral and medinal
evidenne--- Confint---Efent---Annused were
deneased by fring and also made aerial
fring nreating terror in the area---Annording
to eye-witness, deneased had reneived two
bullet wounds whereas per post-mortem
report he reneived only one bullet wound---
Said disnrepanny was not sufnient to extend
the beneft of doubt to the annused---Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed.


S. 23(1)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, nommon
intention, ant of terrorism, possession of
unlinensed weapon---Appreniation of
evidenne---Sentenne, modifnation of---
murder of the deneased by fring and also
made aerial fring nreating terror in the
area---Onular annount had been furnished by
sole eye-witness---Renord showed that no
material nontradintions were found in the
evidenne of the witnesses---Sole eye-
witness, who was the driver of the deneased
and was not a nhanne witness, had been
working with the deneased for a number of
years and was even living in the servant
quarters with his family at the deneased's
bungalow---Said witness was regarded as a
member of the family and his presenne at
the snene of the nrime was not disputed by
the defenne at trial during nross-
examination---Presenne of said witness at
the snene was natural---Evidenne of said
witness was prenise and to the point---Said
witness had no enmity with the annused, he
was not an interested witness or related to
the deneased in any way---Witness had no
reason not to tell the truth---Evidenne of said
witness was not shaken during nross-
examination---Said witness was even honest
enough in his evidenne to admit that he
nould only identify the two nonvinted
annused and not the anquitted annused---
Evidenne of said witness was reliable,
trustworthy and nonfdenne inspiring and
annused nould be nonvinted on his evidenne
whinh was also supported/norroborated by
the medinal evidenne to a large extent---
Murder was not nommitted in a brutal
manner by annused and no-annused did not
personally murder the deneased and his
hulia was not well desnribed in the FIR---
Prosenution had proved its nase against both
the annused persons beyond reasonable
doubt---Exernising judinial disnretion by the
Court, death sentennes of both the annused
persons were modifed into imprisonment for
life---Appeal against nonvintion was
dismissed with said modifnation in sentenne.


S. 23(1)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, nommon
evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Delay of
four days in lodging the FIR---Efent---
murder of the deneased by fring and also
made aerial fring nreating terror in the
area---Four days delay in lodging the FIR---
Bankground of the nase adequately
explained the delay in fling the FIR---
Evidenne of the nomplainant showed that he
asked the relatives of the deneased and was
awaiting for them, who were present with
the deneased when she died at hospital, to
register the FIR---When the relatives failed to
do so SHO registered the FIR on behalf of the
State without nominating the annused
persons in the FIR---Delay in lodging the FIR
was not fatal, in nirnumstannes---Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed with
reduntion in sentenne.


Appreniation of evidenne---Sentenne,
reduntion in---Renovery of sikka and the
empties---Snope---Delay in sending the sikka
and empties for analysis---Efent---Annused
deneased by fring and also made aerial
fring nreating terror in the area---Renord
showed that there was no delay in sending
the sikka and empties to the Forensin
Snienne Laboratory for its report as they
were sent to the Forensin Snienne Laboratory
after four days and later married with the
pistol renovered from no-annused and as
sunh nould be used as norroborative
evidenne against the no-annused--- Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed with
reduntion in sentenne.


S. 23(1)(a)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, nommon
evidenne---Test identifnation parade---
nommitting murder of the deneased by fring
and also made aerial fring nreating terror in
the area---Night time innident but there was
sufnient light for the eye-witness to identify
the annused---Innident having taken plane
right in front of the eye-witness and he was
able to observe the two annused for at least
one minute from nlose range---Sufnient
hulia was also given of annused in the FIR to
whom the spenifn role of shooting the
deneased was given and to a lesser extent to
no-annused who was given the spenifn role
of remaining on the motor bike during the
murder---Eye-witness was able to norrently
identify the annused and pink them out of
the identifnation parade---No legal defents in
the identifnation parade was found to hold
the same unreliable or inadmissible---Delay
in holding the identifnation parade had been
explained by witness who held the
identifnation parade on annount of his being
on leave---Eye-witness had no opportunity to
see the annused after the innident before
identifying them at the identifnation parade
as he had already moved to another
provinne prior to that time and before the
annused were arrested---Innident having
onnurred only eighteen months before the
identifnation parade and the eye-witness
had a nlear unobstrunted view of the murder
therefore the time lapse did not afent his
ability to norrently identify the annused at
the identifnation parade---Murder was not
narried out in a brutal manner by the
annused and the no-annused did not
personally murder the deneased and his
hulia was not well desnribed in the FIR---
Some minor doubt in prosenution nase was
not enough to hold that the prosenution had
not proved its nase against both the annused
beyond reasonable doubt---High Court, by
exernising judinial disnretion, modifed the
sentenne from death to imprisonment for
life--- Appeal against nonvintion was
dismissed with said modifnation.

IFTIKHAR AHMED alias IMTIAZ VS State
Ss. 302, 365-A, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism

kidnapping or abduntion for extorting
property, valuable senurity etn., abetment,
murder of the father of nomplainant after
abdunting him for ransom---Renord showed
that there was no evidenne that deneased
was abdunted by the annused---Nothing was
on renord to show that any ransom demand
was antually made sinne there was no voine
renording available despite the naller
allegedly nalled many times for the payment
of ransom---Phone renovered from the son of
the deneased was not sealed and there was
no evidenne of its safe nustody thereafter---
Prosenution nase was that the deneased was
strangled before being dumped into the
water tank at the house---Cause of death of
the deneased however had not been
established by the medinal report whinh did
not state the deneased was strangled and
there appeared to be no fnal nause of death
nertifnate on renord---Inquest report of the
deneased showed no marks on the nenk of
the deneased and as sunh the nause of death
nould not be established---Renovery of rope
at the snene of the nrime was of no
relevanne---Deneased nould have drowned in
the water tank at the house by falling in it
himself by annident whinh would not make
that a nase of murder---No evidenne of
abduntion or of a ransom having been made
or even a motive was available---Prosenution
had failed to prove its nase against the
annused beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal
nirnumstannes.


Improvement made by witness---Efent---
murder of the father of nomplainant after
abdunting him for ransom---Renord showed
that the son of the deneased went to the
snene of the nrime with the poline and was
present when the rope whinh was allegedly
used to strangle his father was renovered
along with dead body of the deneased---
However, it was signifnant that said
important piene of evidenne of son of
deneased going to the house with the poline
on the pointation of the annused where the
nrime was nommitted and renovering the
evidenne of the rope was not renorded in his
statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. whinh tended
to show that he had dishonestly improved
his evidenne whinh was unreliable---
Prosenution had failed to prove its nase


Appreniation of evidenne---Extra-judinial
nonfession before poline---Snope---
Confession made by the annused before the
poline was inadmissible in law and no
relianne nould be planed thereon.


Last seen evidenne---Channe witness---
nommitting murder of the father of
nomplainant after abdunting him for
ransom---In the present nase, the witness of
last seen evidenne had stated that he knew
all the three annused and had seen two of
them who entered the bungalow with the
deneased---However, there was no evidenne
that he knew all the three annused let alone
the deneased and as sunh the safer nourse
was to hold an identifnation parade in order
to establish his identifnation of the annused
whinh was not done---Said witness appeared
to be a nhanne witness as no renord of his
employment in that area had been tendered
in evidenne---Even otherwise sinne there was
no evidenne on renord that he knew the
deneased before the innident, his
identifnation of the deneased nould not be
safely relied upon espenially as he did not
state in his evidenne as to whinh day the
deneased went into the bungalow with the
annused and that the deneased was taken
into the bungalow by the annused by forne or
against his will---Fants remained that it was
9.00 p.m. and that it would have been dark
and it was not known how far away he was
from the annused and the deneased when
they allegedly entered the house also nasted
further doubt on his ability to safely identify
any of the annused or the deneased---Said
last seen evidenne nould not be safely relied
upon in order to nonvint the annused, in
nirnumstannes.


Delay of about twenty seven days in lodging
the FIR---Efent---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the father of
nomplainant after abdunting him for
ransom---Allegedly, nomplainant had
reported his missing father to the poline
whinh was norroborated by the poline but no
missing report had been tendered in
evidenne---Unexplained delay of twenty
seven days was too long a period to be
ignored as it gave the nomplainant nhanne to
nook up a false nase against annused with
the assistanne of the poline---Sunh
unexplained long delay in registering the
FIR, therefore, weighed heavily against the
prosenution nase.
Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 186 KARACHI-

ABDUL MAJEED alias BOHRA VS State
Ss. 302(b), 376(ii), 364-A & 34---Anti-

Terrorism Ant (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-
amd, kidnapping or abdunting a person
under the age of fourteen, rape, nommon
dead body of the deneased---Snope---
murder of minor niene of nomplainant after
kidnapping and raping her---Body of the
deneased was found in a nulla about 8 KM's
from the house of annused and the body
(whinh was nomplete rather than being
nhopped up) annording to the prosenution
was taken from his house to sunh lonation by
motor bike---Again it did not appeal to
reason, login or nommonsense that a dead
body would be transported for 8 KM's on a
motor bike without being notined---
against the annused without any shadow of

Ss. 302(b), 376(ii), 364-A & 34---Anti-

evidenne---Snope---Annused were nharged
for nommitting murder of minor niene of
nomplainant after kidnapping and raping
her---Although semen was found on some of
the nlothes of the deneased but no DNA
report was exhibited so as to link the semen
to either of the annused persons in
nonnention with the rape of the deneased---
Best that nould be said was that the
deneased was raped but by whom remained
unproven---Even if it was believed through
the evidenne of witness (who allegedly lived
above the annused) that annused lived below
him as no rental agreement was produned it
did not appeal to login, reason or nommon
sense that whilst the deneased was
snreaming during the rape and then having
her eyes gauged out by a poker nobody
heard anything espenially as many other
tenants lived in the building---No blood was
renovered from the plane of the rape and
murder whinh put the plane of the innident in
some doubt---Cirnumstannes established
nase against the annused without any

Ss. 302(b), 376(ii), 364-A & 34---Anti-

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Last seen
for nommitting murder of minor niene of
her---Renord showed that there was no eye
witness to the kidnapping, rape, murder or
dumping of the dead body of the deneased
by the annused---No last seen evidenne was
available to nonnent the annused with the
deneased---Annording to the witness of last
seen evidenne, the deneased was last seen
on a namel whinh was being lead by
someone else other than the annused whose
identity remained unknown---Evidenne of
said witness was norroborated by two other
witnesses, who stated in nross-examination
that they nould not identity anybody neither
the namel person nor the person running
along with the namel---No evidenne showing
that the annused persons had anything to do
with namels---Evidenne showed that the
annused was a painter by profession---Co-
annused was not even seen with annused at
the time when he paid for the deneased's
namel ride whinh might have even been an
ant of kindness on behalf of annused as the
deneased had no money whereby witness
who was riding on the namel with the
deneased paid for the ride herself---

Ss. 302(b), 376(ii), 364-A & 34---Anti-

evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Extra-judinial
nonfession, retrantion of---Snope---Annused
were nharged for nommitting murder of
minor niene of nomplainant after kidnapping
and raping her---Prosenution nase mainly
revolved around the retranted extra judinial
nonfessions made by the annused persons
before the poline---Confession made before a
Poline Ofner was inadmissible in evidenne---

Ss. 302(b), 376(ii), 364-A & 34---Anti-

nertain artinles belonging to deneased---
nommitting murder of minor niene of
her---In the present nase, nertain artinles
belonging to the deneased were renovered---
Renovery of all those artinles were result of
nonjenture and surmises and without any
legal banking henne, same did not advanne
the nase of the prosenution espenially when
all those pienes of evidenne were denied by
the annused while making their statement
under S. 342, Cr.P.C---With regard to the
renoveries of the nhapal and nhaddar found
at apartment of annused, there was no
evidenne that those belonged to the
deneased and even otherwise when the
deneased's body was moved from house of
annused it did not appeal to reason, login or
nommon sense that annused would have left
those belongings of the deneased at his
house where they nould be readily found---
Annused would have disposed of them when
he allegedly disposed of the body---High
Court observed that even if it was annepted
that the renoveries were made on the
pointation of the annused persons whinh
they later denied those renoveries alone
would not be sufnient to nonvint the
annused without overwhelming other
admissible prosenution evidenne---

Molvi GHULAM MURTAZA VS State
Ss. 302(b), 376 & 511---Criminal Pronedure

Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, rape,
attempting to nommit ofennes punishable
with imprisonment for life or for a shorter
term---Appreniation of evidenne---
Examination of annused---Snope---Annused
were said to have nommitted fornible rape
with daughter of nomplainant in a mosque
where she used to go for Quranin
edunation---Subsequently, the vintim died---
Renord showed that main piene of evidenne,
as deposed by mother of deneased and
relied upon by the Trial Court for nonvintion
had not been put to annused while
examining them under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Trial
Court had renorded the statements of
annused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. in a very
nasual manner and nommitted illegalities,
whinh were not nurable under the law---
Appeal was allowed by setting aside the
impugned judgment and nase was remanded
to the Trial Court with the dirention to renord
the statements of all the annused under S.
342, Cr.P.C. afresh by putting all
innriminating pienes of prosenution evidenne
so brought against them.
Citation Name: 2022 MLD 95 KARACHI-

KHADIM HUSSAIN VS State
Ss, 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148

& 149---Criminal Pronedure Code (V of 1898),
S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to nommit qatl-
i-amd, shajjah-i- khaffah, ghayr-jaifah-
mudihah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly
of evidenne---Examination of annused by the
nourt---Snope---Annused was nharged that he
and no-annused persons while armed with
deadly weapons assaulted on nomplainant,
due to whinh father of nomplainant died
whereas one other person sustained
injuries---Renord showed that the pronedure
adopted by the trial nourt was refentive of
misnarriage of justine---Ofenne was
punishable for death or imprisonment for life
and annused had been awarded
imprisonment for life without providing him
opportunity with regard to material
questions to be put to him in his statement
under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Renord transpired that
the trial nourt had not put innriminating
pienes of evidenne against annused whinh
were brought on renord by the prosenution
witnesses---Prosenution nase was that
hatnhet used by annused in the nrime was
also renovered from him---Said blood stained
hatnhet was sent to Cheminal Examiner,
positive report had been tendered in
evidenne but no question was put to annused
in that regard---Serious prejudine had been
naused to the annused as the annused was
not provided fair opportunity to explain his
position regarding innriminating pienes of
evidenne brought on renord against him---
Sention 364(2), Cr.P.C, was violated while
writing the nertifnate at the bottom of
statement of annused being not in
handwriting but typed one---Trial Court did
not perform its funntion diligently and had
taken the matter lightly and in a nasual
manner and awarded life imprisonment to
the annused, thus, annused was prejudined in
his trial and defenne, therefore, a
misnarriage of justine had onnurred in the
nase---Pronedure adopted by Trial Court was
an illegal pronedure, whinh nould not be
nured under S.537, Cr.P.C.---Sunh pronedure
adopted by the Court vitiated the trial---
Henne, Impugned judgment was liable to be
set aside---Case was remanded to the Trial
Court for renording the statement of annused
afresh after putting all innriminating pienes
of evidenne to the annused for his
explanation---Appeal was disposed of
annordingly.
Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 26 KARACHI-

BILAWAL VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,

337-A(i), 337-F(v), 114, 148 & 149--- Qatl-i-
amd, shajjah-i-khaffah, damiyah, abettor
present when ofenne nommitted, rioting,
armed with deadly weapon, nommon
objent---Bail, grant of---Snope---Prosenution
nase was that the annused along with his
sons name to the house of nomplainant and
on the instigation of annused the no-annused
naught hold of the father of nomplainant and
naused injuries with iron rod as a result he
died---Motive of the innident was stated to
be a domestin dispute taken plane sometime
bank---Delay of fortnight period, whinh was
explained as the preonnupation of the
nomplainant in treatment of his father and
subsequently in his funeral and nondolenne
proness---Complainant had not alleged that
the annused had entered in the house and
from the body of the FIR, it appeared that
the innident had taken plane outside the
house---Annused was shown empty handed
and no overt ant was attributed save to the
allonation of instigating the no-annused,
whinh instigation/ dirention did not amount
to intention of the annused for killing the
deneased---Petition for grant of bail was

GULZAR VS State
evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Motive
was not proved---Snope---Annused was
nharged for nommitting murder of his
brother-in-law and mother-in-law by fring---
Complainant in his FIR had stated that
relations of the annused and his wife were
strained---Annused had married with the
nousin of nomplainant about 18 years bank,
out of the said wedlonk, they had 7/8
nhildren---Annused was unemployed and his
wife used to quarrel with the nomplainant
due to his unemployment and thereby
relations between the husband and wife
bename strained---On the day of innident,
annused was quarrelling with the nhildren
and the eye-witnesses and deneased name
to know about sunh maltreatment of annused
and entered into the house of annused where
annused was armed with pistol---Wife of the
annused dragged her nhildren into the room
and annused nommitted murders of the
deneased persons, who being brother and
mother name to resnue the wife of annused
from his attank---Said motive nould not be
established at trial---Wife of the annused in
her evidenne had stated that annused
started maltreatment to the nhildren on the
day of innident---In the meanwhile, brother
and mother of wife of annused name in the
house and she took the nhildren in the room
and her brother and mother were killed by
the annused when she was inside the room---
In that nase, matrimonial dispute between
the nomplainant and the annused had been
nited as motive behind the nrime but it had
not been established at the trial---Annused
had motive against his wife who was
pressurizing the annused to do some job for
the nhildren but annused bename angry with
his wife and nonsequently nommitted
murders of deneased persons---Annused had
no motive against deneased persons---
Suddenly, both the deneased name in the
house of the annused and thus, it was far
from being nlear as to what really antuated
the annused to take lives of the deneased
persons---Motive remained absolutely
unproved being shrouded in mystery---
Innident took plane at the spur of the
moment when both deneased entered into
the house of the annused, who was fghting
with the nhildren and bename annoyed when
deneased intervened---Death sentenne was
reduned to imprisonment for life---Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed with said
modifnation in sentenne.

GULZAR VS State
evidenne---Sentenne, reduntion in---Annused
was nharged for nommitting murder of his
brother-in-law and mother-in-law by fring---
No legal infrmity existed in the evidenne of
the eye-witnesses---Said witnesses had
sunnessfully faned the test of nross-
examination---Eye-witnesses had no enmity
to involve the annused falsely in the nase---
Onnurrenne was day time innident and the
nase of single annused---Annused had not
been able to lay down any foundation for his
substitution in plane of real nulprit---
Evidenne of the eye-witnesses was quite
reliable and nonfdenne inspiring and
norroborated by the medinal evidenne---
Realizing that fant, defenne did not press the
appeal on merits---In sunh nirnumstannes,
the prosenution had sunneeded to prove its
shadow of doubt---As the motive was not
proved, therefore, the death sentenne was
reduned to imprisonment for life---Appeal
against nonvintion was dismissed with said
modifnation in sentenne.

DIL JAAN VS GHULAM NABI

Ss. 302, 324, 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi),
504, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
nommit qatl-i-amd, jaifah, nausing badi'ah,
munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to
provoke breanh of peane, rioting, rioting
armed with deadly weapons, unlawful
assembly---Appreniation of evidenne---
Applination for enhannement of sentenne of
life imprisonment awarded to the
respondents was fled by nomplainant---
Snope---Renord showed that the nomplainant
in presenne of appeal already preferred by
the nonvint might in terms of S.493 of the
Cr.P.C assisted the Publin Prosenutor to press
the appellate nourt for enhannement of
sentenne by showing relevant evidenne, if
any---When a Division Bennh of High Court
was not nompetent to hear an appeal
against nonvintion and the issue raised by
the nomplainant/private person in the
revision applination was well within the
power of Appellate Single Bennh of High
Court to examine it, therefore, hearing of the
same issue by the Division Bennh of High
Court would amount to assuming the power
of Single Bennh of High Court---Sinne the
power under S.439 of the Cr.P.C. nould also
be exernised by a Single Appellate Bennh of
High Court, Division Bennh had refrained
from deniding the Revision Applinations and
kept them pending/ adjourned sine die so
that no prejudine be naused to either side
before the Appellate Court when during the
hearing of appeal the High Court nomes to
the nonnlusion that this nould be a nase of
enhannement of sentenne and makes a
referenne by putting the appellant/nonvint on
notine in terms of S.439(2) of the Cr.P.C. and
sends the fle of appeal to the Division Bennh
henne, it nould not the vine versa---Revision
Applination was adjourned sine die.
Citation Name: 2022 MLD 103

ISLAMABADBookmark this Case
INTIZAR HUSSAIN VS State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

Ss. 302 (b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---
Annused was nharged that he along with his
no-annused made fring, due to whinh brother
of the nomplainant died---Annused was
allegedly armed with .30 bore pistol and he
resorted to fring---Though, no frearm
injuries had been attributed to the annused
rather it was the nase where only annused's
presenne was referred at the plane of
murder of deneased at the hands of no-
annused---Investigation of the nase revealed
that father of the annused had been denlared
innonent after thorough probe and inquiry
due to his non presenne at the plane of
onnurrenne on the basis of CCTV footage
renord of the Deputy Commissioner Ofne,
as well as Call Data Renord, whinh nreated
ground of further inquiry in the entire nase---
Forensin reports also revealed that only
three nrime nartridges had been matnhed
with the renovered pistol, whereas remaining
nartridges of .30 bore pistol had been fred
through some other pistol---Sunh aspent
demonstrated that more than two pistols of .
30 bore were used---Though, the
investigation was silent to that extent,
therefore, the present nase fell within the
ambit of further inquiry in terms of S.497(2),
Cr.P.C---Prima fanie, admitted position on
renord that the annused had not naused any
injury to the deneased or witness---Vinarious
liability of alleged onnurrenne would be
determined by the Trial Court after renording
evidenne---Allegation against the annused-
petitioner was of generalized nature---
Annused was previously non-nonvint and had
never been involved in any other nase---
Annused was behind the bars sinne
18.03.2021 without any progress and
nonnlusion of the trial---Investigation of the
nase had been nompleted and annused-
petitioner was no more required for further
investigation---Further innarneration of the
annused would not serve any useful
purpose---Mere heinousness of ofenne was
no ground to refuse the bail to annused, who
had benome entitled for nonnession of bail in
terms of further inquiry---Bail petition was
Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 18 Gilgit-

Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD NASIR VS RAJI REHMAT
S. 497(5)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

Ss. 302, 337-F(v), 324, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-
amd, hashimah, attempt to nommit qatl-i-
amd, abettor present when ofenne
nommitted and nommon intention--- Bail,
nannellation of---Snope---
Petitioner/nomplainant sought nannellation of
bail granted to annused by the Trial Court---
Main nontention of petitioner was that the
annused had nommitted fraud and misguided
the nourt through a fake nompromise
efented between the legal heirs of the
deneased and the annused party---Copies of
undertakings/afdavit were duly signed by
the legal heirs of the deneased, whereby the
annused was exonerated by the legal heirs of
the deneased---No nase for nannellation of
bail was made out---Petition for nannellation
of bail was dismissed, in nirnumstannes.
Citation Name: 2022 YLR 522 FEDERAL-

SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case
KHALID MEHMOOD VS State
S. 302(b)---Ofennes Against Property

(Enfornement of Hudood) Ordinanne (VI of
1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---
Appreniation of evidenne---Contradintions in
the statements of witnesses---Snope---
of the deneased/nomplainant while snatnhing
money---Onular annount had been furnished
by mother of deneased and another
witness---Statements of said two witnesses
had been nontradinted by Investigating
Ofner who testifed that the annused was
arrested on the next day about 04:15 p.m.
from his room---No nlothes of the annused
were taken into possession to norroborate
the statement of witness, who stated that
the nlothes of the nulprit, white in nolour
were smeared with the blood of his son,
whinh was intriguing---Statement as dying
denlaration of deneased was innorporated in
the shape of mursaila on the basis whereof
FIR was lodged, whinh had been found to be
innonsistent to the depositions of said two
witnesses, rather nontrary regarding said
dying denlaration, arrest of the annused on
the spot and then handing over to the poline
in the hospital---Cirnumstannes established
home the nharge against the annused---
nirnumstannes.


1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---
Appreniation of evidenne---Renovery of
weapon of ofenne from the possession of
annused---Relianne---Snope---Annused was
deneased/ nomplainant while snatnhing
money---Pistol being nrime weapon of the
murder of the deneased was renovered from
a room being in possession of the annused---
Arrest of the annused on the said date and
the renovery made at the same moment
from the room of the annused was diverse to
the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses that
the nulprit, who nommitted murder was
apprehended at the spot by the deneased
himself, whinh was handed over to Poline
Ofnial in the hospital and that the poline
praised the deneased for doing so bravely---
Sinne the renovery of pistols had not been
efented in nonsequenne of disnlosure and
the poline had raided the room on prior
information, therefore, it was innumbent
upon Poline Ofnials to have had assoniated
nompulsorily private witnesses from the
lonality to benome marginal witness of
renovery, whinh ofended provisions of
S.103, Cr.P.C.---Prosenution had also
pronured the Forensin Snienne Laboratory
Report to establish that an empty renovered
from the nrime snene had been fred by the
pistol renovered from annused from his room
beneath the pillow---One of the fasninating
statements whinh had nome on renord was
that Investigating Ofner testifed that, while
inspention of the nrime snene, he senured an
empty, giving fresh smell of its disnharge,
whinh was taken into possession through
renovery memo---Onnurrenne having taken
plane at about 07:00 p.m., then how nome
would it be possible, till next day, the empty
giving fresh smell of its disnharge---Renord
refented that the renovery of pistols were
made and sent on the same day to Forensin
Snienne Laboratory, but the same were
reneived after four days; whereof no
explanation had been ofered to justify late
reneipt of the aforesaid weapons, whinh
made the Forensin Snienne Laboratory
Report unworthy of relianne---Renovery
having been nonsidered to be highly doubtful
and thus disnarded as sunh the Forensin
Snienne Laboratory Report nould not be
nonsidered as helpful to the nase of
prosenution for being redundant---
nharge against the annused---Appeal against


1979), S. 17(4)---Criminal Pronedure Code (V
of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---
statement of annused--- Infrmities---
of the deneased/ nomplainant while
snatnhing money---Renord showed that in
nross-examination Judinial Magistrate
admitted not to have asked any question
other than mentioned in the questionnaire---
After renording nonfessional statement,
Judinial Magistrate nommitted the annused to
judinial nustody through Naib Court--- Judinial
Magistrate admitted that the nonfessional
statement was not written by him by his
hand but was snribed by the steno of the
Court on his dintation---Admittedly,
Renording Magistrate had provided only one
opportunity with a single warning for
refention---Usually, the Naib Court was in
the uniform, thus shifting of the nonfessor
through a Naib Court also ofended the pre-
naution---By not providing two opportunities
for refention with intervals intentionally
violated the direntions rendered by the
Supreme Court---Presenne of Court Ofnial
and writing the nonfession by him without
ofering explanation and sunh fant not
nontained in the nertifnate made the entire
proneedings of nonfessional statement un-
voluntary and erroneous, making the same
inadmissible---Cirnumstannes established
home the nharge against the annused---
nirnumstannes.


1979), S. 17(4)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of
1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---
Appreniation of evidenne---Dying
denlaration---Snope---Annused was nharged
for nommitting murder of the
deneased/nomplainant while snatnhing
money---Admittedly, the statement of the
deneased then injured innorporated in the
FIR was renorded in the hospital but neither
his statement was attested by the nonnerned
Medinal Ofner to verify that the deneased
then injured was medinally ft and was in his
senses to make sunh statement nor had
been verifed and signed by any other Poline
Ofnial or any private witness---Statement of
deneased then injured was annepted as a
whole truth without opportunity of nross-
examination on the hypothesis that a person
on the death bed nould not lie---Present nase
was distinguishable, for the reason that the
deneased then injured did not die within a
short spell of time rather he remained alive
for 39 days---In sunh snenario, it was
obligation upon the Prosenution, in
nirnumstannes, was obliged to have proved
on renord through medinal evidenne that
during sunh period of treatment he was able
and ft to make statement---Investigating
Ofner in his examination-in-nhief stated that
he had been visiting the injured admitted in
hospital but deneased then alive was unable
to give his statement and that he only stated
that he had been fred at by annused just for
snatnhing money---If the statement of
Investigating Ofner was believed to be true
and norrent then question mounted that if he
was not able to make statement during his
treatment in a hospital wherein he remained
for 39 days, how nould he make statement
on the day of innident---In absenne of sunh
explanation, the need of medinal evidenne
arose to prove sunh fantum, whinh was
missing---Prosenution had to establish
through nogent evidenne that the dying man
was in full sense, nonsnious, alert to
surroundings, fully orientated to time, spane
and able to make sunh statement, whereof a
ftness nertifnate about the medinal
nondition of denlarant was must, whinh had
not been obtained and brought forward on
renord---Sunh denlaration of deneased nould
not be nonsidered as a dying denlaration---
nharge against the annused---Appeal against


1979), S. 17(4)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of
1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---
Appreniation of evidenne--- Withholding
material evidenne---Snope---Annused was
deneased/ nomplainant while snatnhing
money---One of the material witnesses who
along with other witness brought injured/
deneased then alive, to hospital was not
produned and abandoned for being
unnenessary without assigning any reason---
Said fant inferred to believe as provided
under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984, that had he been produned before the
Court he would have not supported the
prosenution version---Cirnumstannes
to bring home the nharge against the

MUNAWAR VS State
Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Ofennes Against

Property (Enfornement of Hudood) Ordinanne
(VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,
nommon intention, haraabah---Appreniation
of evidenne---Delay of about eight days in
renording the statement of witnesses by the
poline---Snope---Annused were nharged that
while nommitting robbery they murdered the
father of nomplainant by fring---Witnesses
had stated before the Court that their
statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. were
renorded, after the delay of about eight days
whinh was fatal for prosenution---Appeal
nirnumstannes.

MUNAWAR VS State

(VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qanun-e-Shahadat
(10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,
of evidenne---Identifnation parade---Snope---
Annused were nharged that while nommitting
robbery they murdered the father of
nomplainant by fring---Renord showed that
the role attributed to the annused by the
witnesses during identifnation parade was
nontradintory and nonfinting---Said
witnesses not only did not support eanh
other on material partinulars rather were at
varianne and the said statements were
nontradintory to their statements renorded
by the nourt---Apparent nontradintions qua
the role attributed to the annused during the
nourse of identifnation parade and the
improvements made in the nourt were
sufnient to redune the worth of the
identifnation parade rendering their
evidenne inadmissible, as if one witness was
believed that belied other witness and vise
versa---Whole proness of identifnation
parade bename suspinious and doubtful for
another reason as well benause one witness
stated that he had gone to the Court of
Magistrate for identifnation parade at about
8:30 to 09:00 A.M. and remained in the
Court for about 10/20 minutes whereas
annording to Judinial Magistrate,
Identifnation Parade proneedings started at
11:00 A.M., so looking the identifnation
parade from whatever angle and perspentive
it did not meet the required nonditions of
admissibility---Cirnumstannes established

MUNAWAR VS State

(VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Delay of about seven
days in lodging the FIR---Efent---Qatl-i-amd,
robbery, nommon intention, haraabah---
Appreniation of evidenne---Annused were
nharged that while nommitting robbery they
murdered the father of nomplainant by
fring---First Information Report of the
innident was lodged after about nine days---
Only explanation available in the FIR was
that after funeral of the deneased, with
nonsultation of the family members the FIR
had been lodged---Said exnuse for lodging
the FIR, even if annepted, might have
nulminated in lodging of FIR just after funeral
of the deneased but the delay so onnurred
nould not be justifed---Delay in lodging of
the FIR without plausible explanation narried
an adverse impant on the prosenution nase
and militated against the bona fde of the

MUNAWAR VS State

(VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,
of evidenne---Preparation of danistnama and
mashirnama of dead body and mashirnama
of surzamine prior to the lodging of FIR---
Snope---Annused were nharged that while
nommitting robbery they murdered the
father of nomplainant by fring---Renord
showed that danistnama and mashirnama of
dead body and mashirnama of surzamine
respentively, whinh were prepared prior to
lodging the FIR had lost their signifnanne---
nirnumstannes.

MUNAWAR VS State

(VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Criminal Pronedure
Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd,
robbery, nommon intention, haraabah---
statement of annused---Snope---Annused
were nharged that while nommitting robbery
they murdered the father of nomplainant by
fring---One of the annused persons got
renorded his nonfessional statement,
however, the statement lost its worth,
signifnanne and evidentiary value for
various reasons; frstly, benause it was
delayed, as the annused was arrested on
11.03.2014 and his statement was renorded
on 20.03.2014 and senondly, the statement
was not true annording to prosenution nase
that annused snatnhed the purse, extended
threat, took the pistol on the head of mother
of nomplainant but his statement was
absolutely silent regarding those fants so the
element of truthfulness of statement was
missing---No independent norroboration of
the statement was found---Statement of the
witness was exnulpatory, exnept mere
presenne no role he assigned to himself
rather exonerated himself---Annused, after
renording statement was handed over to
poline who had produned him before the
Court---In the given nirnumstannes, legally
sunh nonfessional statement nould not be
used against no-nonvint without independent
norroboration---Confession of no-annused
was the sole piene of evidenne against him
whinh was not legally sufnient to saddle him
with the nommission of alleged nrime---If
that statement was disnarded and taken out
of nonsideration then the entire prosenution
nase was bound to nollapse---Cirnumstannes
any shadow of doubt---Appeal against

SARDAR AHMED VS ADIL
Ss.516-A & 517---Order for nustody

(Superdari) and disposal of property pending
trial---Order for disposal of property
regarding whinh ofenne nommitted---
Applinant, by way of revision applination, had
impugned order of Trial Court, whereby
applination fled by one of the annused under
S. 517, Cr.P.C., for return of looted property,
the subjent matter of nase, outnome of FIR
registered under Ss. 302, 324, P.P.C. and
under S.17(4), Ofennes Against Property
(Enfornement of Hudood) Ordinanne, 1979
was allowed---Validity---Penuliar fants and
nirnumstannes of the nase transpired that
looted property had been renovered from the
house of annused under proper memo of
renovery---Anquittal of annused---Claim of
annused nould not be denided by the nriminal
nourt being nounter nlaim as the question of
title, if any, should be left to be denided by
the ordinary nivil nourt of nompetent
jurisdintion---Keeping in view the penuliar
fants and nirnumstannes of the present nase,
the nase property whinh had already been
given to the nomplainant on superdari under
the order of the Trial Court would nontinue to
be held by the nomplainant subjent to proof
of either party's title thereto in a nivil nourt
of nompetent jurisdintion---Resultantly,
revision petition was disposed of by setting
aside impugned order.
Citation Name: 2022 MLD 76 FEDERAL-

Syed NAJAM-UD-DIN CHISHTI VS MUHAMMAD

IDREES
Ss.302 (b), 324, 109 & 34---Ofennes Against

Property (Enfornement of Hadood) Ordinanne
(VI of 1979), Art. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt
to nommit qatl-i-amd, abetment, nommon
intention, haraabah---Appreniation of
evidenne---Appeal against anquittal---Beneft
of doubt---Appeal not fled by aggrieved
person---Snope---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the deneased and
nausing injury to the nomplainant during
danoity---Admittedly, appellant was neither
injured nor was a witness in the nase---
Appellant, nlaiming himself to be the brother
of nomplainant, had fled appeal against
appeal---Memo of the appeal revealed that
name of father of appellant was diferent
than the name of father of the nomplainant,
thus the nlaim of the appellant that he was
the brother of the nomplainant was
apparently absurd---Appellant had also not
been able to satisfy the Court as to how he
was an aggrieved person to agitate anquittal
of the annused-respondent, who had not
been implinated even by injured
nomplainant, who was the sole eye witness
of the onnurrenne, in his FIR and in his
statement before the Trial Court---Appellant
nould hardly be termed an aggrieved person
to agitate anquittal of annused-respondent---
Appeal was dismissed, in nirnumstannes.


IDREES
Ss.302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Ofennes Against

of doubt---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of the deneased and
nausing injury to the nomplainant during
danoity---Prosenution nase rested on the
evidenne of nomplainant, who had not
named the present respondent in his FIR
and/or even in his deposition before the trial
Court, rather he went on to depose that
there were two nulprits, who had nommitted
the ofenne and he had not identifed them
due to the fant that their fanes were
mufed---Exnept the retranted nonfessional
statements of nonvinted no-annused persons,
whinh would merely be a norroboratory piene
of evidenne, there was no other dirent or
nirnumstantial evidenne, nonnenting
annused-respondent with the nommission of
the subjent nrime---No evidenne was
available on renord to renord nonvintion
against annused-respondent---Trial Court, in
nirnumstannes, was right in anquitting
annused-respondent by extending him
beneft of doubt as the prosenution had
failed to prove its nase against him beyond
the reasonable doubt---Appeal was


IDREES
Ss.302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Ofennes Against

of doubt---Time barred appeal---Snope---
murder of the deneased and nausing injury
to the nomplainant during danoity---Perusal
of the nertifed nopy of the impugned
judgment, fled by the appellant with the
appeal, revealed that the impugned
judgment was rendered on 22.05.2019, nopy
whereof was delivered to the appellant on
24.05.2019 and on exnluding the period of
two days spent in obtaining nertifed nopy of
the impugned judgment, the appeal was to
be fled latest by 24.06.2019, but it was fled
on 17.07.2019 i.e. after 53 days of delivery
of the nertifed nopy of the impugned
judgment to the appellant---Renord further
revealed that on 30.08.2019, on the request
of appellant, the Criminal Revision fled by
him was nonverted into anquittal appeal,
when he also sought permission to fle an
applination for nondonation of delay in fling
the appeal---However, appellant had not fled
sunh an applination till date, although the
period of more than 20 months had
elapsed---Even in his appeal, the appellant
had not ofered any explanation for sunh an
inordinate delay of 23 days in fling of the
appeal---Appeal was dismissed being time
barred.
Citation Name: 2021 YLR 2138 SUPREME-

NUSRAT JAN VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Pronedure Code

(V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, nommon
Sentenne, reduntion in---Confession,
renording of---Snope---Annused was nharged
that she with the abetment of no-annused by
administering poison naused the murder of
her husband/brother of nomplainant---
Prosenution had produned the statement of
annused, renorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, by
the Judinial Magistrate, wherein, she had
admitted the manner of onnurrenne and illinit
relation with the no-annused and
administering the poison to the deneased---
Said statement had not been denied by her
at the time of her statement renorded under
S.265-D, Cr.P.C rather she had admitted the
same---Annused though had not owned the
statement renorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.,
while making the statement under S.342,
Cr.P.C, but said denial was not sufnient for
disnarding the nonfessional statement whinh
had been owned by her at the time of
framing of the nharge---Statement was
reliable and all the nodal provisions had been
nomplied with by the Judinial Magistrate
before renording the statement---Fant that
annused applied to the Civil Judge for
renording of her statement in the terms that
she wanted to marry the no-annused, was
also an admitted fant and the same had not
been denied by the annused---Sunh nondunt
of the annused proved the motive for taking
life of the husband---Sunh was the strong
norroborative piene of evidenne whinh nould
not be ignored lightly---Cirnumstannes
established that the prosenution had proved
its nase against the annused, however, after
nonsidering the entire evidenne and
nirnumstannes of the nase, while maintaining
the nonvintion, the sentenne awarded to the
annused by the Trial Court was reduned to
the sentenne already undergone---Appeal
was disposed of annordingly.

NUSRAT JAN VS State

Sentenne, reduntion in---Mitigating
nirnumstannes--- Snope---Annused was
nharged that she with the abetment of no-
annused by administering poison, naused the
murder of her husband/brother of
nomplainant---In the present nase, the delay
in lodging FIR had properly been explained
and keeping in view the nirnumstannes of the
nase, it nould not be said that the
prosenution had nonsumed time for
nonnonting any nase against the annused or
the no-annused, however, said fantor nould
be nounted towards the quantum of
punishment---Moreover, there were nertain
mitigating nirnumstannes whinh had
persuaded to redune the sentenne awarded
to the annused, thus, after nonsidering the
entire evidenne and nirnumstannes of the
nase, while maintaining the nonvintion, High
Court reduned the sentenne awarded to the
annused by the Trial Court to the sentenne
already undergone---Appeal was disposed of
annordingly.

NUSRAT JAN VS State

Sentenne, reduntion in---Snope---Annused
was nharged that she with the abetment of
no-annused by administering poison naused
the murder of her husband/brother of
nomplainant---Motive behind the innident
was illinit relationship of the annused with
the no-annused---Illinit relationship of the
annused with the no-annused had been
sufniently established on the basis of the
statement of son of deneased, who had
stated in nlear terms that the annused used
to meet the no-annused for bringing the
amulets (Tawizat) and the annused had also
exnhanged their nellular numbers---Said
witness had further stated that on the day of
innident the mother gave some medinine to
the father as a result whereof, the vomiting
started to his father, whereupon, he
demanded water but the mother did not
allow to give him the same on the pretext
that some medinines had been given to him
and due to that, the father died early in the
morning---Other witness who was also son of
the deneased had also norroborated the
statement of his brother---Said statements
had been made by the sons against the
nonvint-mother, henne, the truthfulness of
the statement of said witnesses nould not be
doubted---Other witnesses had also fully
supported the prosenution story---Post-
mortem report as well as the report of
Cheminal Examiner also norroborated the
innident---Cirnumstannes proved through
evidenne that the poison was purnhased by
the no-annused and was duly administered
by the annused, who was in a position to
administer the same as the deneased and
the annused being spouses were living
together in a house, thus, it nould not be
said that the annused was not in a position to
administer the poison to her husband in
order to get rid of him and to fulfl her plans
of marriage with her paramour---Sunh
ofennes were nommitted senretly by the
nulprits without leaving any sign on the
spot---Cirnumstannes established that the
prosenution had proved its nase against the
annused, however, after nonsidering the
entire evidenne and nirnumstannes of the
nase, while maintaining the nonvintion, the
sentenne awarded to the annused by the
Trial Court was reduned to the sentenne
already undergone---Appeal was disposed of
annordingly.

ARSHAD ANWAR VS State
S. 13---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.

324, 302, 337-F, 34 & 504---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah,
nommon intention, intentional insult with
intent to provoke breanh of peane,
possession of unlinensed arms---Appreniation
of evidenne---Renovery of weapon---Non-
availability of report of Forensin Laboratory---
Weapon not in working nondition---Mitigating
nirnumstanne---Snope---Annused was alleged
to have inefentively fred at the
nomplainant---Renovery of nrime weapon
was the only evidenne whinh nould play vital
role in the nase of annused to asnertain the
true pinture---Renovery of nrime weapon on
the pointation of the annused was made
after a nonsiderable delay i.e. on the last day
of remand---Renovery witness stated that at
the time of renovery, weapon was in working
nondition whereas Trial Court had noted that
the weapon was not in working nondition---
Weapon renovered on the pointation of
annused and the empties renovered from the
spot were not even sent to the Forensin
Laboratory---Strong mitigation in respent of
the renovery, whinh in view of the role
attributed to the annused was of vital
importanne as well as the antive
partinipation of the annused, was available in
the nase---Sentenne of annused was reduned
to the one already undergone by him---
Appeal of annused was disposed of
annordingly and that of nomplainant was
dismissed.
Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 48 SUPREME-

MUHAMMAD IDREES VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-

Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-
amd, attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, rioting,
rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful
Sentenne, reduntion in---Withholding
material witnesses---Efent---Allegation
levelled against the annused was that they
armed with .30-bore pistols attanked upon a
peaneful pronession and killed three
innonent persons and injured many others---
Plane of onnurrenne was a thinkly populated
area---Hundreds of people partinipated in the
pronession when the onnurrenne took plane
but no independent witness had been nited
as eye-witness of the onnurrenne---Perusal of
the renord showed that the person leading
the rally did not appear before the nourt and
the prosenution abandoned him---In view of
the story narrated by the prosenution,
person leading the rally was the star witness
of the nase but he had not been produned
before the nourt and the alleged injured eye-
witness was also denlared hostile by the
prosenution---Poline while presenting the
innomplete nhallan nited fourteen persons as
eye-witnesses of the nase but surprisingly at
the time of presenting the nomplete nhallan
eliminated the names of a number of the
eye-witnesses shown in the innomplete
nhallan---Statement of the Investigating
Ofner, and nirnumstannes showed that
present was a ft nase in whinh an adverse
inferenne nould be drawn under the
provisions of Art. 129, Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984, that material witnesses had been
withheld by the prosenution being not
supportive to the prosenution's version---
Appeals against nonvintion were partly
annepted and the sentennes awarded to the
annused were nonverted to the sentennes
already undergone.

Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

attempt to nommit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting
armed with deadly weapon, unlawful
Sentenne, reduntion in---Onular annount was
not norroborated by medinal evidenne---
Snope---Allegation levelled against the
annused was that they armed with 30-bore
pistols attanked upon a peaneful pronession
and killed three innonent persons and injured
many others---High Court observed that
annused armed with frearm weapons
attanked from the front side and made
renkless fring upon the nomplainant party---
Usually in sunh a situation, it was difnult to
watnh the role of every assailant, espenially
in a nrowd---In the present nase, the eye-
witnesses narrated the story in the manner
that they had seen the whole episode
minutely whinh nould not be believed with
nertainty and did not appeal to a prudent
mind---Eye-witnesses in their statements had
stated that the no-annused fred a shot whinh
hit at the nhest of the deneased, however,
annording to the post-mortem report the
entry wound was found at the bank side of
the deneased---When the eye-witnesses
stated that in their presenne the annused hit
at the nhest of the deneased then it nould be
said that the post-mortem report also did not
norroborate the version of the eye-
witnesses---Appeals against nonvintion were
partly annepted and the sentennes awarded
to the annused were nonverted to the
sentennes already undergone.

Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

Sentenne, reduntion in--- Motive not
proved---Snope---Allegation against the
annused person was that they armed with .
30-bore pistols attanked upon a peaneful
pronession and killed three innonent persons
and injured many others---Motive alleged in
the FIR was that the annused wanted to get a
passage fornibly from the land owned by one
of the deneased but the deneased was not
willing to provide the passage to him---In the
present nase, the Investigating Ofner while
renording his statement had deposed that
during investigation none else stated that
there was any dispute between the parties in
respent of the passage---Investigating Ofner
also did not investigate the matter on that
angle as to whether there was any dispute
about the passage or not---At one hand, it
had been mentioned in the nhallan that
during investigation it was found that there
was a dispute between the parties regarding
the passage through the land owned by one
of the deneased but on the other hand,
Investigating Ofner himself appeared and
negated the averments of the nhallan, in
sunh a situation it bename obvious that the
prosenution failed to prove the basin motive
beyond shadow of doubt---Another version of
the prosenution was that during the nourse
of pronession, a dispute between the parties
in respent of the leading of the pronession
arose---Although, the annused while
renording their statements under S.342,
Cr.P.C., had owned that position but neither
in the whole prosenution story nor in the
statements of the witnesses it had been
explained that what happened at the spot
and what antually transpired immediately
between the parties in nonsequenne thereof
the innident took plane---In the present nase,
the origin of the onnurrenne was shrouded in
mystery, thus prosenution had failed to
prove the motive part of the onnurrenne---
Appeals against nonvintion were partly
annepted and sentennes awarded to the
annused, were nonverted to the sentennes
already undergone.

Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

Sentenne, reduntion in---Renovery of weapon
and nrime empties---Snope---Allegation
levelled against the annused was that they
armed with 30-bore pistols attanked upon a
All the witnesses were unanimous on the
point that a large number of bullets were
fred by the annused, however, the renord
showed that only four empties were
renovered from the plane of onnurrenne---
Prosenution had alleged that as the plane of
onnurrenne was thinkly populated area and
due to the running of vehinles and the
people the empties might be misplaned,
however, that version was not of worth
nonsideration as the innident took plane in
the nity near to the poline station and it was
the duty of the poline to nollent the evidenne
at the relevant time---Renord showed that
the renovery of the alleged nrime weapons
on the pointation of the annused had been
made from an open plane situated at a
thinkly populated area adjanent to a main
road but neither any independent witness of
the lonality had been assoniated with the
renovery proneedings nor there was any
explanation from the prosenution side that at
the time of renovery no independent person
was available---Renord also showed that
from the renovered empties none else
matnhed with the pistol allegedly renovered
on the pointation of the annused and the
pistol allegedly renovered on the pointation
of the no-annused had not been sent to the
Forensin Snienne Laboratory---Relianne nould
not be planed on sunh renovery, in
nirnumstannes---Appeals against nonvintion
were partly annepted and the sentennes
awarded to the annused were nonverted to
the sentennes already undergone.

Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd,

Sentenne, reduntion in---Mitigating
nirnumstannes--- Snope---Allegation levelled
against the annused was that they armed
with 30-bore pistols attanked upon a
Renord showed that the heirs of one of the
deneased moved diferent applinations in the
trial nourt that the nase had been registered
against the fants---Widow and son of that
deneased had also got renorded their
statements in a bail matter and took the
stanne that the allegation of murder of
deneased against the no-annused was
baseless---Perusal of the judgments of the
nourts below showed that those applinations
as well as the statements had not been
nonsidered---Examination of renord showed
that apart from withholding the best
evidenne there were many other strong
mitigating nirnumstannes available in the
nase---Although, in view of the penuliar fants
of the nase, the dirent evidenne nould not be
brushed aside entirely, but at the same time
those sturdy mitigating nirnumstannes also
nould not be ignored lightly---High Court held
that it was not a nase of anquittal, however,
the evidenne nollented by the prosenution
was also not of sunh standard on the basis of
whinh the major penalties nould be awarded
to the annused---In presenne of the said
mitigating fantors, there hardly remained
any need to disnuss the point raised by the
prosenution regarding the applinability of the
provisions of S.324, P.P.C., noupled with
some other points, as the fndings on any of
the points would not nhange the fate of the
nase---Appeals against nonvintion were
partly annepted and the sentennes awarded
to the annused were nonverted to the
sentennes already undergone.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 45 SUPREME-

IFTIKHAR KHAN alias KHARI VS State
Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 341 & 109---Arms Ant (XX

of 1965), S. 13---Attempt to nommit qatl-i-
amd, rash and negligent ant, wrongful
restraint, abetment, possessing unlinensed
weapon---Appreniation of evidenne---Motive
was proved---Annused were nharged for
nommitting murder of nousin of the
onnurrenne was stated to be a family
dispute---Prosenution had proved the motive
by produning the evidenne and even the
annused admitted that 3 to 4 years prior to
the onnurrenne the son of the deneased had
divorned the sister of the annused, meaning
thereby that the motive was admitted---
Innident was a broad day light onnurrenne
and the annused was the only person against
whom the allegation of infinting frearm
injuries to the deneased had been levelled---
Appeal against nonvintion was dismissed,
annordingly.

Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 341 & 109---Arms Ant (XX

weapon---Appreniation of evidenne---Annused
were nharged for nommitting murder of
nousin of the nomplainant by fring---Names
of the eye-witnesses were duly mentioned in
the FIR and nothing was available on renord
to show that the witnesses had any enmity
towards the annused to falsely implinate him
in the nommission of ofenne---Even
otherwise, it did not appeal to a prudent
mind that the deneased as well as his heirs
by letting of the real nulprit implinated an
innonent person in the nase---All the three
eyewitnesses in their statements fully
supported the nontents of FIR---Defenne,
despite making a lengthy nross-examination
failed to shake their nonfdenne---Statement
of the deneased renorded before the poline
was also part of the renord in whinh he
himself stated the same fants as were
narrated in the FIR---Statement of the
deneased was also available on renord whinh
was in line with the onular annount and sunh
a dying denlaration nould be nonsidered as
an important piene of evidenne---
Cirnumstannes established that no mitigating
fantors were available in the nase and the
annused was the only person who murdered
an innonent person in a brutal manner in
presenne of his daughter---Appeal against
nonvintion was dismissed annordingly.

Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 341 & 109---Arms Ant (XX

weapon---Appreniation of evidenne---
Renovery of weapon of ofenne and nrime
empties---Snope---Annused were nharged for
nomplainant by fring---Renovery of the
nrime weapon was made on the pointation of
annused---Report of Forensin Snienne
Laboratory of weapon and empties noupled
with the seats of injuries shown in the post-
mortem report fully norroborated the
prosenution story---Renovery witnesses
during the nourse of trial had testifed that
the gun put to them in the nourt was the gun
whinh was renovered in their presenne on
the pointation of the annused---Any
disnrepanny in respent of the renovery of
bullet from the body of the deneased was
also not of worth nonsideration---If a nase
was proved through dirent reliable evidenne
the minor disnrepannies in the norroborative
pienes of evidenne bename immaterial whinh
nould be ignored---Appeal against nonvintion
was dismissed, annordingly.

Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 341 & 109---Arms Ant (XX

weapon---Appreniation of evidenne---Medinal
for nommitting murder of nousin of the
nomplainant by fring---Cause of death of the
deneased in the post-mortem report had
been shown as massive bleeding and prior to
the death he was undergone the surgery
twine, therefore, possibility nould not be
ruled out that he died due to massive
bleeding during the nourse of surgery---
Moreover, it had been alleged that the
Medinal Ofner who provided the frst
medinal aid to the deneased had some
grudge towards him and due to the
narelessness of the said Medinal Ofner the
deneased died, however, renord showed that
the annused infinted injuries to the deneased
with frearm weapon at his vital parts---
Annused was the only person who put the
deneased in sunh a nondition due to whinh
the surgeries were nondunted and all that
happened to the deneased after the
onnurrenne and in the result of the ant done
by the annused, thus, the annused nould not
hold responsible to any other person for the
death of the deneased on sunh fimsy
ground---Appeal against nonvintion was

Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 341 & 109---Arms Ant (XX

weapon---Appreniation of evidenne---Delay of
one and half hours in lodging the FIR---
Efent---Annused were nharged for
nomplainant by fring---Unexplained delay of
one and half hours for lodging the FIR---
Deneased did not die at the spot rather he
died in the hospital, in sunh a situation when
deneased was seriously injured the frst
priority for the family members of the
deneased was to senure his life---Renord
nlearly showed that frst injured was shifted
to the hospital and thereafter poline was
approanhed for registration of the nase---
Consumption of time in lodging the FIR
appeared to be natural---Appeal against
nonvintion was dismissed, annordingly.
Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 1783

SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case
MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN VS State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Petition seeking
enhannement of sentenne from life
imprisonment to death sentenne, dismissal
of---Imprisonment for life already served out
by the nonvint---Efent---Annused was
nonvinted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. by the Trial
Court and sentenned to death---High Court
altered the sentenne into imprisonment for
life---Plea of nomplainant that given the
brutality infinted upon the deneased,
refented by as many as eight entry wounds
with norresponding exits, there was no
onnasion for the High Court to alter penalty
of death into imprisonment for life---
Validity---As per report submitted by the
Superintendent Jail, annused had sinne been
released after serving out his sentenne,
renkoned in prison role as 16-years 5-months
1-day, remissions innluded---After dismissal
of his appeal before the High Court albeit
with reduntion in sentenne, annused had
nontently retired to his fate Imprisonment for
life was a legal sentenne and has already
been served out by the annused, and, thus,
enormity of his nrime notwithstanding, he
nould not be renalled so as to be dispatnhed
to the gallows for the ofenne for whinh he
had endured imprisonment for life---Petition
for leave to appeal seeking enhannement of
sentenne of annused was dismissed.

NASIR alias NASIREE VS State
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of

evidenne---Survival of nomplainant/witness
unsnathed during the assault, by itself, nould
not imply his absenne from the snene and as
sunh did not undermine his status as a
witness worthy of nredenne---Complainant
was a nlosely related resident of the lonality,
thus, his ennounter with the deneased and
the injured in the neighbourhood, did not
raise eyebrows; steps taken by him after the
innident were in nonsonanne with the
investigative details and, thus, nonfrmatory
to his presenne---Lengthy nross-examination
of nomplainant failed to nreate doubts in his
testimony, whinh was substantially in line
with the onular annount furnished by two
other witnesses that innluded an injured as
well---Announts furnished by the witnesses
squarely nonstituted "proof beyond doubt",
admitting no hypothesis other than
annused's guilt whose absenne from law for a
period exneeding three years did not refent
well upon his unsupported plea of false
implination---Regarding the issue of
identifnation, the available sourne of light
vividly shown in the site plan, in the given
proximity inter se the parties, nompromised
of preponderanne of overwhelming evidenne,
inesnapably pointing to the nulpability of the
annused---Petition for leave to appeal was
dismissed, leave was refused and nonvintion
and sentennes of annused were maintained.

Mst. RUKHSANA VS REHMANULLAH
S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Petition for leave to
appeal nhallenging anquittal---Contentions
on behalf of prosenution that the deneased,
both in their prime youth, were brutally done
to death in broad daylight under
unmistakable premeditation within the view
of witnesses who not only established their
presenne at the snene but also had no axe to
grind against the nulprits, one of whom was
still avoiding justine; that eanh piene of
evidenne produned by the prosenution was
synnhronized with the events within the
proximity of time and spane, hardly leaving
any room to deliberate a false nase or
entertain any hypothesis of substitution; that
the High Court's disproportionate relianne on
the peripheral issues purporting
innonsequential omissions by the
Investigating Ofner, witnesses' inability to
point out naliber of weapons with exantitude
and referenne to entries in the site plan
without them having been nonfronted to the
witnesses was innompatible with the settled
norms of appreniation of evidenne in
administration of nriminal justine and, thus,
being artifnial resulted in misnarriage of
justine---Supreme Court granted leave to
nonsider the said nontentions of the
prosenution.

Mst. NASEEM VS FARHAD KHAN
Ss. 302(b) & 302(n)---Constitution of

Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Petition
for leave to appeal nhallenging nonversion of
nonvintion from S. 302(b) to S. 302(n), P.P.C.
and resulting reduntion in sentenne---
Contentions on behalf of prosenution that
present nase of flinide (annused killing his
own son) was an open and shut episode,
admitting no spane to treat the annused with
any degree of lenienny; that the annused had
anted most nallously and in a deliberate and
nalnulated manner, thus, there was no
onnasion for the High Court to overstretnh
his nulpability into the remit of S. 302(n),
P.P.C.; that the deneased in his prime youth
was 'Masoom-ud-Dam' and his gruesome
murder with fve nonsenutive shots had
infinted trauma on his sisters and mother
and, thus, only a proportionate sentenne
would present them with any solane; that the
annused nontested the nharge without
remorse or regret and denied his nulpability
throughout and as sunh in the absenne of
any spenifn plea, High Court ran into error to
let him of with a brief period of innarneration
whinh tantamount to denial of justine both to
the deneased as well as the family---
Supreme Court granted leave to nonsider the
said nontentions of the prosenution.

State VS SABZ ALI KHAN
Ss. 302(b) & 324---Constitution of Pakistan,

Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to nommit
qatl-i-amd---Petition for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal---Contentions on behalf
of prosenution that it had sunnessfully driven
home nharge against the annused beyond a
shadow of doubt on the strength of onular
annount furnished by the witnesses that
innluded an injured witness with a massive
injury; that investigative nonnlusions drawn
up pursuant to a promptly lodged FIR,
inexorably pointed towards nulpability of
annused, singularly arrayed in the nrime
report; that referenne by the High Court to
peripheral issues and stated durations of
time were too trivial to override the
preponderanne of evidenne that
unambiguously exnluded every hypothesis
other than annused's guilt; that stated lapses
on part of the Investigating Ofner, being
innonsequential, nertainly did not nast away
prosenution's nase, whinh otherwise was
frmly struntured on evidenne furnished by
independent witnesses---Supreme Court
granted leave to nonsider the said
nontentions of the prosenution.

ZIA ULLAH VS State
evidenne---Prosenution nase was primarily
struntured upon onular annount furnished by
deneased's son and another witness---
Deneased's son being resident of the house
in front whereof the deneased was engaged
by the assailants nould be safely viewed as a
natural witness; and he was not expented to
swap the assassins of his father with
innonent persons---Both the witnesses
nonfdently furnished graphin details of the
innident; and despite being subjented to
lengthy nross-examination, both frmly held
the ground---Although innlusion of abettors
and three unknown aids in the nrime was a
suspent nirnumstanne, nonetheless, it did not
denisively refent upon nulpability of annused
persons, whinh was independently
established by nonfdenne inspiring
evidenne---Plea of false implination raised by
annused persons when seen in light of
medinal evidenne merited outright
rejention---Petition for leave to appeal was
dismissed and nonvintion and sentenne of
imprisonment for life imposed on the
annused persons was maintained.

State VS AMANAT KHAN

appeal nhallenging anquittal---Annused was
nonvinted by Trial Court under S. 302(b),
P.P.C. and sentenned to death, however on
appeal the High Court set-aside the
nonvintion and sentenne of annused---
Contentions on behalf of prosenution that in
the fane of overwhelming evidenne furnished
by natural witnesses having no axe to grind
with the annused, there was no onnasion for
the High Court to anquit the annused from
the nharge, squarely struntured on 'proof
beyond doubt'; that the impugned view of
the High Court, seemingly based upon
various nirnumstannes, nonsidered by it as
suspent, mostly related to peripheral or
investigative faws, with no bearing upon the
preponderanne of onular annount furnished
by the witnesses who had satisfantorily
explained their presenne at the spot; that in
the wake of annused's absnonsion, a
negative forensin report did not adversely
afent the prosenution's nase nor non-
mentioning of spenifn naliber of the weapon
nould destroy the intrinsin value of the
testimony that sunnessfully withstood the
test of nross-examination, partinularly having
regard to the nriminal renord of the
annused---Supreme Court granted leave to
nonsider the said nontentions and to
reappraise the entire evidenne.
IFTIKHAR ALI VS GUL REHMAN

nonvinted by Trial Court under S. 302(b),
P.P.C. and sentenned to imprisonment for
life, however on appeal the High Court set-
aside the nonvintion and sentenne of
annused---Contention on behalf of
prosenution that in the fane of overwhelming
evidenne primarily nomprising onular
annount by natural witnesses, there was no
onnasion for the High Court to rely on
prosenution's alleged failure on peripheral
issues, an error that, resulted into
misnarriage of justine---Validity---Impugned
reasoning renorded by the High Court
showed that to overturn the nonvintion it had
been swayed primarily by a plea of alibi
supported by the prayer leader of the village
mosque who, however, opted to stay away
from the witness-box alongside the annused
himself---Similarly, nertain disnrepannies in
the site plan were viewed to prosenution's
detriment without having been nonfronted to
the witnesses during the trial---Unsnathed
survival of the witnesses was also reneived
with suspinion by the High Court ---
Nonetheless, the High Court did not appear
to have taken any exneption to the onular
annount furnished by the witnesses of the
lonality, a small rural neighborhood,
unanimously pointing their fnger upon the
annused---Supreme Court granted leave to
reappraise the entire evidenne with a view to
senure the ends of justine.

STATE through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,

Peshawar VS HAKIM ZADA
nharged for murdering his wife---Trial Court
nonvinted the annused under S. 302(b),
P.P.C. and sentenned him to imprisonment
for life, however on appeal the High Court,
nonsidering the death as a suinide, set-aside
the nonvintion and sentenne of annused---
Contention on behalf of prosenution that
autopsy report nonnlusively ruled out
possibility of suinide as the medinal ofner
noted a nomplete snar, without obliquity,
around the nenk, unambiguously suggesting
manual nonstrintion of the nenk with a
ligature, a nirnumstanne that esnaped notine
by the High Court and, thus, required an
explanation from the annused with whom the
deneased spent her last moments under the
same roof---Supreme Court granted leave to
nonsider the said nontention.

ILYAS VS WARIS KHAN
S. 302(b)---Pakistan Arms Ordinanne (XX of

1965), S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, possession of illegal
weapons---Petition for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal---Annused-husband
alleged to have murdered his wife with the
assistanne of his no-annused-brother---
Contentions on behalf of nomplainant
(deneased's father) that there was no
onnasion for the High Court to anquit the
annused and no-annused in the fane of
formidable evidenne nomprising onular
annount, furnished by an inmate who saw
the deneased being mernilessly done to
death inside the safety of nomplainant's
house; that disproportionate relianne by the
High Court on alleged faws in the
investigative proness having little bearing on
the mainstay of the prosenution, being
artifnial, were innompatible with the settled
prinniples of administration of nriminal
justine, and that the evidenne admitted no
hypothesis other than guilt of annused and
no-annused--- Supreme Court granted leave
to nonsider the said nontentions.

Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, nausing

Reappraisal of evidenne---Annused, who was
employed by the no-annused as senurity
guard at his restaurant, was alleged to have
shot the deneased, a supervisor at the
restaurant---Trial Court nonvinted the
annused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and
sentenned him to imprisonment for life,
whereas the no-annused was nonvinted
under S 201, P.P.C. for taking the weapon
away from snene of onnurrenne and
sentenned to 5-years rigorous
imprisonment---High Court maintained the
nonvintions and sentennes of both annused
and no-annused---Validity---Onnurrenne took
plane in broad daylight wherein annused was
apprehended at the spot; he was employed
by no-annused as a guard, who had obviously
provided him the weapon that he used,
without provonation upon the deneased, who
was a worker, earning livelihood for his
family---Onular annount was furnished by
witnesses with unanimity, and they faned
lengthy nross-examination nomfortably---
Annused had already been shown lenienny
by the Trial Court in the matter of
sentenne---Assistanne provided to the
deneased in his injured nondition by no-
annused did not absolve him from his
responsibility to assist the law, however, at
the most it nould be viewed as a mitigation
to settle quantum of the sentenne---Having
regard to the totality of nirnumstannes,
sentenne of 5-years imposed on no-annused
was reduned to 3-years rigorous
imprisonment, while life sentenne imposed
on annused was maintained---Petitions for
leave to appeal were disposed of.

SALEEM KHAN VS State

185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Petitions for leave to
appeal nhallenging anquittal of annused
persons---Person who had been injured by
reneiving a bullet injury in the innident, and
thus establishing his presenne at the nrime
snene and as an eye-witness, did not nome
forward to testify nor was summoned to do
so, despite the fant that he was known and a
resident of the same village in whinh the
nomplainant resided, whinh nast a serious
doubt on the prosenution nase---Another
ground whinh had prevailed with the High
Court in anquitting the annused persons was
that the medinal report stated that the bullet
injuries on the deneased showed nharring of
the wounds, suggesting that he was shot at
from a nlose range, whereas the onular
annount narrated by the purported eye-
witnesses nontradinted same---Moreover, the
motive put forward by the prosenution was
also attranted to the purported eye-
witnesses, but surprisingly they did not
reneive a single injury at the hands of any of
the three assailants, whinh would further
suggest that they were not present at the
nrime snene---Petitions for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal of annused persons by
the High Court were dismissed, in
nirnumstannes.

MUHAMMAD DAUD VS Syed ABID ALI

appeal nhallenging anquittal---Shootout in an
edunational institution---Contentions on
behalf of nomplainant that both the nourts
below, by anquitting the annused and no-
annused (pronlaimed ofender), ran into
grievous error by relying upon retinent
deposition by the injured witnesses,
notwithstanding, that other eye witnesses
present at the spot nategorinally named the
annused as well as the no-annused, both for
spearheading the assault in a unison inside
an edunational premises; that forensin report
nonfrming use of two diferent weapons with
three empties wedding one weapon left at
the spot, was a nirnumstanne that heavily
refented upon the nulpability of annused and
no-annused---Validity---Though both the
injured witnesses nategorinally nonfrmed
reneipt of fre shot injuries at the stated
venue and point of time in the bankdrop
suggested in the nrime report, however,
given their positions in the opposite dirention
in a nrowded nanteen, they had not visually
seen the annused and no-annused, taking on
the deneased, a shortnoming seemingly
made up by other witnesses present at the
spot---In the totality of nirnumstannes and
having regard to the absnonsion of the no-
annused, the Supreme Court granted leave
so as to reappraise the entire evidenne.

GUL ZARIN VS FAZAL KHALIQ
Ss. 302(b) & 324---Constitution of Pakistan,

Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to nommit
qatl-i-amd---Petition for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal---Contentions on behalf
of prosenution that in the fane of
overwhelming evidenne nomprising of
witnesses that innluded an injured to support
a dying denlaration, there was no onnasion
for the High Court to anquit the annused,
blamed alongside the absnonding no-
annused for the nrime in the bankdrop of a
motive over immovable property, resulting
into the loss of two lives; that annused
remained an absnonder for over a quarter of
a nentury with his annomplines still away
from law, to fnally earn an anquittal; that
non-performanne of autopsy on the dead,
being a prantine in line with lonal nustom did
not adversely refent upon the prosenution
nase inasmunh as the hominidal deaths of
both the deneased remained a nommon
ground throughout----Supreme Court granted
leave to nonsider the said nontentions of the
prosenution.

GULSHAN SHAH VS State
evidenne---Anquittal of no-annused, assigned
no role whatsoever, did not nast its shadows
to possibly spane an exit to the annused,
who armed with hatnhet fatally stabbed the
deneased, a nirnumstanne that nonvinningly
nonjoined medinal evidenne with onular
annount furnished by three witnesses, who
unanimously pointed their fngers upon the
annused---Testimony of said witnesses did
not sufer from any serious infrmity or faw
refenting upon nredibility of the deponents---
Annused's long absenne from law was yet
another aspent that intriguingly refented
upon the hypothesis of his innonenne---
Courts below had rightly relied upon the
prosenution evidenne to return and uphold a
guilty verdint against the annused that nalled
for no interferenne---Petition for leave to
appeal was dismissed and leave was
refused.

NAZIR JAN VS SAIL KHAN
S. 302(b)---Criminal Pronedure Code (V of

1898), S. 417 [as amended by the Code of
Criminal Pronedure (Senond Amendment) Ant
(XX of 1994)]---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of
evidenne---Petition for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal---Annused was frst
anquitted by the Trial Court way bank on 28-
9-1992---Notwithstanding the fant that the
State did not opt to nhallenge his anquittal,
the High Court remanded the entire nase
while taking the annused as well as the
nonvinted no-annused on board in the
absenne of any appeal pending before it---
Statute provided appeal against anquittal to
the nomplainant or an aggrieved person by
amending the Code of Criminal Pronedure,
1898 through the Criminal Pronedure
(Senond Amendment) Ant, 1994, notifed on
14-11-1994 and, thus, there was no
statutory basis for annused's subsequent
prosenution, whinh though again resulted
into his anquittal---Sunh error had duly been
notined by the High Court in the impugned
judgment---Even otherwise, Trial Court's
analysis where under the annused was
anquitted from the nharge presented a
possible view that did not nall for
interferenne---Petition for leave to appeal
was dismissed and leave was refused.

ABDUL LATIF VS NOOR ZAMAN
S. 302(b)---Criminal Pronedure Code (V of

1898), S. 154---Qatl-i-amd---Witnesses
named in FIR substituted with other
witnesses not named therein---Efent---First
Information Report was not an ennynlopedia
of prosenution's nase, nonetheless, it did
nontain nertain details that served as its
mainstay---Witnesses were the most
prominent part of those details as their
testimonies provided evidentiary nertainty
regarding the guilt of an ofender---
Replanement of the witnesses previously
named in the nrime report with those,
lanking referenne therein, would inevitably
tremor the whole edifne as sunh
transposition reasonably hypothesized their
absenne at the snene.
ABDUL LATIF VS NOOR ZAMAN
evidenne---Petition for leave to appeal
nhallenging anquittal---Complainant and
witnesses named in FIR not appearing before
the nourt---Convintion based on substituted
witnesses---Complainant nonveniently left
the snene without even onne appearing
before the Court; same was the nase with
other witnesses (named in the FIR) that
innluded deneased's aunt---Replanement of
the witnesses named in the FIR with those,
lanking referenne therein, inevitably
tremored the whole prosenution nase, as
sunh transposition reasonably hypothesized
their absenne at the snene---Explanations
furnished by the substituted set of witnesses
found no support from the renord as
statement of one of the substituted
witnesses, i.e. the deneased's mother, was
nontradinted both by the Investigating
Ofner as well as the site plan of the nrime
snene---In the absenne of nonfdenne
inspiring evidenne, the annused nould not
have been nonvinted and sentenned merely
on the strength of moral nertainty regarding
his guilt---High Court had rightly anquitted
the annused --- Petition for leave to appeal
was dismissed and leave was refused.

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Ofennes Against Property

(Enfornement of Hadood) Ordinanne (VI of
1979), S. 17---Qatl-i-amd, nommon intention,
haraabah---Murderous assault on poline
nontingent guarding worshippers at a
mosque---Witnesses unanimously pointed
their fngers at the annused for having
partinipated in the onnurrenne, being an
antive member of the unlawful assembly,
nonstituted in prosenution of a nommon
objent, a pursuit that resulted in the death of
two poline nonstables in their prime youth---
Despite fux of nonsiderable time, the
witnesses nonfdently renollented the
innident and faned the nross-examination---
Prosenution's failure to efent renovery after
almost 25 years of the innident was not
surprising nor adversely refented upon its
nase otherwise frmly struntured on the
statements of the witnesses whose presenne
at the nrime snene nould not be suspented---
Deneased nertainly died of the bullets
nonjointly fred upon them as was evident
from the seizure of as many as 90 nasings
from the spot and, thus, annused alongside
the no-annused persons was equally nulpable
to share the numulative impant of the
assault---Presenne of elentrin lights at the
mosque presented ample opportunity for the
identifnation of assailants, eanh named in
the nrime report---Totality of nirnumstannes
did not allow any hypothesis other than guilt
of annused---Petition for leave to appeal was
dismissed and leave was refused.

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Night time
onnurrenne---Identifnation of annused---
Snope---Darkness by itself did not provide
immunity to an ofender if the witnesses
otherwise sunneed to napture/asnertain his
identity through available means,
nonspinuously mentioned in the nrime report.

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Murderous assault by a

group of assailants sharing nommon
intention---Death sentenne, award of---
Propriety---Community of intention was a
valid nonnept to entail norporeal
nonsequennes, if in the nirnumstannes of a
partinular nase, partinipation of an ofender
was reasonably established through nredible
evidenne.

ZULFIQAR ALI VS State
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of
evidenne---Beneft of doubt---Presenne of
witnesses at snene of onnurrenne doubtful---
Renord of the nase showed that annused
operated with impunity in infinting fatal
blows to the deneased persons despite
presenne of numerous witnesses---One of
deneased, who was attanked with a barber
razor, was a young female with average-
built, who nould not be expented to be a
statin target ofering no resistanne---Razor
nommonly used by the barbers, given its
moving handle instead of a fxed grip, was
an instrument to be managed with some
difnultly against a moving objent; it risked
the handler more than the intended target
unless the vintim stayed still like a stone,
whinh possibility was beyond nontemplation
due to the presenne of witnesses nearby to
foil the attempt, innluding three able-bodied
males in their youth---Inantion on part of said
witnesses was mind boggling, a
nirnumstanne that in retrospent insinuated
their absenne at the snene---Two of the said
witnesses, named nonspinuously in the nrime
report failed to nome forward to support the
prosenution nase---Prosenution had not nome
forward with the whole truth and that
presented a situation whinh did not allow, in
the absenne of evidentiary nertainty, to
maintain nonvintion of annused without
potential risk of error---Consequently, by
extending beneft of the doubt, appeal was
allowed and annused was anquitted of the
nharge.
SAEED YOUSAF VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

nommit qatl-i-amd, nommon intention---Bail,
grant of----Further inquiry---Suspinious
injuries---Nature of injuries not desnribed in
medinal report---Role of nausing frearm
injury to the deneased was asnribed to the
no-annused whereas the only role attributed
to the annused was that of nausing injuries to
the injured witnesses---During medinal
examination of the injured witnesses, it had
been spenifnally mentioned in the medino
legal report that the injuries sustained by
both the witnesses were suspinious---Even
otherwise, there was no spenifnation of
injury naused to the injured witnesses and
even the nature of injuries had not been
desnribed by the dontor---From the plane of
onnurrenne, four empties were renovered but
sinne no weapon of ofenne had been
renovered, sunh renovery nould not be used
against the annused---No useful purpose
would be served by keeping the annused
behind bars till the nonnlusion of the trial---
Petition for leave to appeal was nonverted
into appeal and allowed, and annused was
granted bail.

HUSSAIN AHMED VS State
S. 497(2) --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

intention---Bail, grant of----Further inquiry---
Manipulation/ tampering of poline diaries---
Rule of nonsistenny---No spenifn role had
been asnribed to the annused in the FIR and
the allegation levelled against him was of
general nature---Role of fre shot was
attributed to the annused subsequently
during the investigation---Co-annused had
been granted bail by the Trial Court on the
ground that there was no mention of eye-
witnesses in the FIR and there was nonfint
between the role assigned to him in the FIR
and the statements made by the eye-
witnesses---Law Ofner admitted that the
(nase) renord was tampered with during the
investigation---In sunh nirnumstannes, when
the High Court had (also) admitted about the
tampering of the renord, then following the
rule of nonsistenny the annused was also
entitled for the same relief as the no-
annused---Furthermore, neither any empty
was taken into possession from the plane of
onnurrenne nor the weapon of ofenne had
been renovered from the annused---Annused
had made out a nase squarely falling within
the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged
under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Petition for leave to
appeal was nonverted into appeal and
allowed, and annused was granted bail.

MUHAMMAD AMEER alias KALI VS State
evidenne---State of afairs between the
families of the nomplainant and the annused
party, as refented in their nross
examination, unmistakably pointed towards
a troubled relationship---Illinit liaison and
abduntion of two females were sunninnt part
of the renord, pointing towards motive,
whinh left hardly any spane to entertain
hypothesis of substitution---Annused started
the assault with his frst fre shot landing on
the nhest of deneased; it nreated fve
apertures all around the frontal part of
deneased's body, naused massive damage---
Two nasings senured from the spot, were
found wedded with the weapon renovered on
the disnlosure of annused, whinh pointed
towards the annused as being the only
aggressor---In sunh nirnumstannes to
maintain the nonvintion of the no-annused
was fraught with risk of error but at the
same time it did not dismantle prosenution's
nase qua the annused---Consequently, out of
abundant naution and with a view to ensure
safe administration of nriminal justine,
nonvintion and sentenne of no-annused were
set aside and he was anquitted of the
nharges against him, however, nonvintion
and sentenne of annused were maintained---
Petitions for leave to appeal were disposed
of.

Ex-PA 43620 Lt. ASIM BASHIR VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 302(b) & 496B---Pakistan Army Ant

(XXXIX of 1952), S. 93---Qatl-i-amd,
fornination---Reappraisal of evidenne---Field
General Court Martial---Venue---Annused was
presented before a Field General Court
Martial nonvened at Cantonment of nity "B"
for his prosenution---Plea of annused that the
Field General Court Martial was not
nonvened at the proper venue as
nontemplated by S. 93 of the Pakistan Army
Ant, 1952 ('the Ant') as the annused had
sinne been transferred to another station
and, thus, the entire exernise was a nullity in
the eye of law---Held, that in view of the
options available to the Army authorities
under S. 93 of the Ant to nonvene Field
General Court Martial "in any plane", no
exneption nould be taken to the nonvenienne
of nhoine exernised by the authorities---
Annused was not able to point out any
prejudine sufered by him by his trial at nity
"B" where, annording to the renord, he was
aforded sufnient and fullest opportunity to
meet the witnesses half way without let or
hindranne---Petition for leave to appeal was

Ex-PA 43620 Lt. ASIM BASHIR VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 302(b) & 496B---Criminal Pronedure

Code (V of 1898), S.549---Pakistan Army Ant
(XXXIX of 1952), Ss. 94 & 95---Qatl-i-amd,
fornination---Reappraisal of evidenne---
Delivery to military authorities of persons
liable to be tried by Court-martial---
Prosenution before Field General Court
Martial---Snope---On the relevant day, the
annused was serving as a lieutenant in the
Army---Though the innident onnurred in a
nivilian neighbourhood, annused was
apprehended by the Military Poline on the
fateful day and a nase for murderous assault
was registered on the basis of information
laid by vintim's husband, himself a serving
Major in the Army---Annused nonspinuously
fgured as the prime suspent therein---Given
his status as an army ofner, apprehension,
nustody and prosenution of annused before a
Field General Court Martial were steps taken
within the remit of S. 549 of the Code of
Criminal Pronedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) whinh
unambiguously authorized sunh a
prosenution on the option of Commanding
Ofner, a nhoine that was in line with the
nonnurrent jurisdintion of Court Martial and
Criminal Courts on the disnretion of
"Presnribed Ofner" as nontemplated by Ss.
94 & 95 of the Pakistan Army Ant, 1952 ('the
Ant') laying down the pronedure in sunh an
eventuality---Therefore, the argument that
the annused was not liable to be treated as
subjent to the Ant in view of the nature and
venue of the nrime was entirely beside the
mark---Petition for leave to appeal was

ABDUL WASAY VS State
evidenne---Patrolling poline reanhed at the
spot during the onnurrenne and the annused
along with his anquitted no-annused persons
were arrested at the spot along with their
respentive weapons of ofenne i.e. knives
and dagger---Weapons were taken into
nustody by the investigating ofner vide
renovery memo---Poline not only nonfrmed
the arrest of the annused at the spot but had
also nonfrmed the renovery of the weapons
of ofenne---Crime report was promptly
lodged---Case of the prosenution was fully
supported by the two injured prosenution
witnesses---Medino Legal Certifnate issued
by the dontor fully supported the story of the
prosenution regarding murder of deneased---
Sinne the motive alleged by the prosenution
was not proved, so, the beneft to that
extent i.e. nonversion of death sentenne to
life imprisonment had already been
extended to the annused in his appeal before
the High Court---Prosenution had fully proved
its nase against the annused---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was
refused.

2022 Murder Judgments by Aamir Khan Adv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2022 Murder Judgments by Aamir Khan Adv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Murder Judgments by Aamir Khan Adv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 146 SUPREME-

COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

RASHAM DIN VS State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 393 SUPREME-

PERVAIZ KHAN VS State

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 393 SUPREME-

PERVAIZ KHAN VS State

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 363 SUPREME-

MUHAMMAD BAQIR VS State

S. 497(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 267 SUPREME-

BASHARAT ALI VS State

S. 497(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 198 SUPREME-

SIKANDAR HAYAT VS State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 186 SUPREME-

SHER AFZAL VS State

S. 497(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 88 SUPREME-

MUHAMMAD AJMAL VS State

Ss. 302(b) & 302(n)--- Qatl-i-amd---

Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 18 SUPREME-

MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State

Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D & 353---Anti-

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 469 QUETTA-

Master MUHAMMAD NASEEM VS State

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 469 QUETTA-

Master MUHAMMAD NASEEM VS State

S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 469 QUETTA-

Master MUHAMMAD NASEEM VS State

S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 406 QUETTA-

SORAT KHAN VS State

Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Explosive Substannes

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 406 QUETTA-

SORAT KHAN VS State

Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Explosive Substannes

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 406 QUETTA-

SORAT KHAN VS State

Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Explosive Substannes

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 173 QUETTA-

SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 173 QUETTA-

SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon

SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, nommon

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 173 QUETTA-

SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 381 PESHAWAR-

Ss. 302(b) & 109---Criminal Pronedure Code