The State vs Muhammad Hassan

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 (Muhammad Hassan v. The State & another) and Murder Reference No.232 of 2022 (The State v. Muhammad Hassan)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 07.09.2026 Appellant by: M/S Sheeba Qaiser & Fasee Ullah Khan, Advocates.

Complainant by: M/S Ali Ahmad Wattoo & Ghulam Abbas Haral, Advocates.

State by: Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General with Iftikhar SI.

ABHER GUL KHAN, J. The appellant Muhammad Hassan involved in case FIR No.36/2021 dated 17.01.2021 registered under Sections 302 & 324 PPC at Police Station Mandi Ahmad Abad, Okara, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Depalpur, District Okara. Trial court vide judgment dated 28.07.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:- (i).Under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer death sentence as ta’zir for qatl-i-amd of the deceased Muhammad Imran. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of each of the deceased under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (ii). Under Section 324 PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for for ten years mounting murderous assault at Muhammad Ikram,. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences the appellant Muhammad Hassan preferred Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022, whereas the trial court sent Murder Reference No.232 of 2022 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to the convict/appellant Muhammad Hassan. Both the aforementioned matters are being disposed of through this single judgment.

2.Succinctly stated, the prosecution case, as set forth by the complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) in FIR (Exh.PE) is that he is the resident of Basti Karim Wali, Dakhli Rehman Saonka, and an agriculturist by

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

profession. On 17.01.2021, at about 3:00 p.m., his sons, namely, Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) and Muhammad Imran (deceased), were cutting fodder for their cattle from their agricultural land situated about two acres away from their house. In the meantime, the appellant, Muhammad Hassan, armed with a .12-bore repeater, came there from his house and raised a lalkara that he would not spare the complainant's sons. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant, accompanied by Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) and Muhammad Ashraf (given up PW) reached the place of occurrence. In their presence, the appellant fired first shot from his .12-bore repeater at Muhammad Imran from behind, which struck him on his back, causing serious injuries and resulting in his fall to the ground. The appellant then fired another shot, which hit Muhammad Ikram on his face, whereupon he too fell down with serious injuries. The complainant attended Muhammad Imran and found that he had succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Thereafter, the appellant, while brandishing his weapon, fled away from the place of occurrence. The injured Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) was shifted to Mandi Ahmad Abad Hospital, where he was provided first aid. However, owing to his precarious condition, he was referred to Lahore for further treatment. The motive attributed to the occurrence was a subsisting familial dispute between the appellant, who is the nephew of the complainant, and the complainant's family. Statedly, prior to the occurrence, the appellant had extended threats to the complainant's sons of dire consequences, including their murder.

3.On 17.01.2021, Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10) upon receipt of information regarding the occurrence, reached the place of occurrence at about 8:45 p.m. along with other police officials. He inspected the dead body of Muhammad Imran (deceased), prepared his injury statement (Exh.PC/3), inquest report (Exh.PC/4) and application for post-mortem examination (Exh.PC/2). The dead body was thereafter handed over to Muhammad Ramzan, 154/C, for its transportation to the mortuary of THQ Hospital, Depalpur. He also prepared the injury statement of injured Muhammad Ikram (Exh.PB/1). On the same day, i.e. 17.01.2021, at about 7:30 p.m., the complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6)

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

appeared before Muhammad Ali, ASI (PW.5), at the police station and submitted a written application (Exh.PD), on the basis whereof the formal FIR (Exh.PE) was registered. Thereafter, investigation of the case was entrusted to Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), who recorded the statements of PWs Muhammad Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf under Section 161, Cr.P.C. During inspection of the place of occurrence, Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), prepared an unscaled site plan (Exh.PK), collected blood-stained earth from the place where the deceased Muhammad Imran had sustained the fatal injuries through recovery memo (Exh.PF), and secured two crime- empty cartridges (P.1/1-2) through recovery memo (Exh.PG). On 25.01.2021, the appellant Muhammad Hassan was arrested. On 31.01.2021, the appellant made a disclosure, pursuant to which he led the police to the recovery of a pump-action .12-bore gun (P.7), which was taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PJ). On 20.04.2021, injured Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) appeared before Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), and his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, upon receipt of the operation notes from the concerned doctor, the investigating officer added Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii) and 337-F(iii) PPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the requisite report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted before the competent Court.

4.To substantiate the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Dr.Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3), on 17.01.2021, conducted the medico-legal examination of injured Muhammad Ikram and issued his MLC (Exh.PB). On the following day, i.e. 18.01.2021, at about 3:30 a.m., Dr.Muhammad Sharjeel Akram (PW.4) conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Muhammad Imran and issued the post-mortem report (Exh.PC), accompanied by the pictorial diagram (Exh.PC/1). The complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6), injured Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) and Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) were produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), being the investigating officer, deposed with regard to the various steps undertaken by him

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

during the course of investigation. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature and were examined to prove the requisite procedural and ancillary aspects of the prosecution case. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The appellant denied the allegations, professed his innocence and pleaded false implication on account of ulterior motives. He, however, neither opted to make statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in his defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon appraisal of the evidence available on the record, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charges and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as referred to above, hence, the instant criminal appeal and murder reference.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, contends that the prosecution case is pregnant with serious doubts which render the conviction unsustainable. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about four hours and thirty minutes, which casts a serious doubt upon the spontaneity and veracity of the prosecution version. Although injured Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) was projected as an eye-witness and claimed to have sustained injuries during the occurrence, yet the genuineness and circumstances of his alleged injuries are highly doubtful. Likewise, the complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) and Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) have failed to establish their presence at the place of occurrence in a confidence-inspiring manner. The credibility of all the three eye-witnesses stands seriously impaired on account of material and dishonest improvements introduced by them during the course of trial. The ocular account is also at variance with the medical evidence, thereby creating a conflict between the two forms of evidence. The ocular testimony neither receives corroboration from the medical evidence nor finds independent support from any other reliable source. Despite the availability of independent and neutral witnesses at or around the place of occurrence, the prosecution withheld their evidence without offering

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

any plausible explanation which warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution. Although a specific motive was alleged by the prosecution, yet the same remained wholly unsubstantiated and was not supported by any independent or corroborative evidence. The recovery of the .12-bore repeater from the appellant was effected in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 103, Cr.P.C., and, therefore, carries no evidentiary value. On the cumulative effect of these circumstances, learned counsel maintains that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant, being entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, deserves a clean acquittal.

6.Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant contending that the occurrence was reported within a reasonable time to the police and that there was no unexplained or inordinate delay in setting the criminal law into motion. All the three eye-witnesses, including the injured witness, are residents of the same locality in which the occurrence took place, thereby lending assurance to their presence at the spot. The ocular account is consistent, confidence-inspiring and fully corroborated by the medical evidence, besides receiving further support from the motive duly established on the record as well as from the positive report of PFSA. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant, without any lawful justification, acted with extreme aggression, as a consequence whereof one person lost his life while another sustained injuries and the prosecution has brought on record sufficient and trustworthy evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the learned Additional Prosecutor General submits that the impugned convictions and sentences call for no interference.

7.Arguments heard. Record perused.

8.A careful perusal of the record reveals that the instant case emanates from an occurrence which took place on 17.01.2021 at about 3:00 p.m. in the area of Rehman Saonka situated at a distance of approximately 15 kilometers from Police Station Mandi Ahmad Abad,

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

Okara. The occurrence was reported by the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6), through a computerized written application (Exh.PA), which was submitted to Muhammad Ali, ASI (PW.5), at about 7:30 p.m. on the same day. As per the contents of the crime report, two persons, namely, Ikram (PW.7) and Muhammad Imran (deceased), sustained firearm injuries during the occurrence. Out of the two, Muhammad Imran succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas injured Ikram (PW.7) was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. The occurrence was allegedly committed by the appellant, Muhammad Hassan, who happens to be the real nephew of the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6).

9.As noticed hereinabove, the occurrence took place on 17.01.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., whereas the matter was reported to the police at about 7:30 p.m. on the same day, resulting in a delay of approximately four hours and thirty minutes. To explain the said delay, the prosecution has taken the stance that, immediately after the occurrence, the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6), remained preoccupied with saving the life of his injured son, Ikram (PW.7), while his other son, Muhammad Imran (deceased), had already succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The injured Ikram (PW.7) was initially shifted to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad and thereafter referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, whereafter the complainant proceeded to report the occurrence to the police. However, the explanation so furnished does not inspire confidence when examined in the light of the material available on record. It is significant to note that Bagh Ali (PW.6) had himself mentioned his mobile phone number, i.e. 03444762289, in the complaint (Exh.PD). Thus, there was no apparent impediment in communicating the occurrence to the police through his mobile phone, particularly when a heinous offence involving the murder of his one son and injuries to another had allegedly been committed. His failure to communicate the occurrence to the police for approximately four hours and thirty minutes, therefore, assumes considerable significance and casts a serious doubt upon the spontaneity and veracity of the prosecution version. Another circumstance which further compounds

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

the doubt is the nature of the complaint (Exh.PD) which is a computerized, typed application. Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6), disclose as to who drafted or typed the said application, nor does the record reveal the identity of its scribe. In the circumstances, the preparation of a computerized written complaint, coupled with the unexplained silence of the complainant for a considerable period, raises a legitimate question as to whether the prosecution version was set out after consultation and deliberation. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances leads us to the conclusion that the FIR (Exh.PE) cannot safely be treated as a spontaneous and contemporaneous account of the occurrence and appears to have been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. Such a circumstance necessarily calls for a cautious and deeper scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence. It is trite that where the charge is of a capital nature, the Court is required to examine the evidence with the utmost care and caution. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1741), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- “........perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged after an unexplainable delay of 3 hours despite the fact that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 km. The time of occurrence is around 05:00/05:30 pm and the matter is reported at 08:30 p.m. The complainant had a bike that he used to go to the police station. This delay has not been encountered through plausible explanation by the prosecution. ”

10.The foregoing circumstances have impelled us to examine the ocular account with greater care and circumspection. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution case regarding the homicidal occurrence was narrated by the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6), injured Ikram (PW.7) and Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8). Out of these witnesses, Ikram (PW.7) claimed to have sustained firearm injuries on his face/mouth, which circumstance was relied upon by the prosecution as an affirmative indication of the truthfulness of his deposition. There can be no cavil with the proposition that the factum of an eye-witness having sustained injuries in the course of a homicidal occurrence is ordinarily a

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

circumstance lending assurance to his presence at the place of occurrence. However, such circumstance, by itself, cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of the truthfulness or reliability of his testimony. The testimony of an injured eye-witness, notwithstanding his status as an injured person, remains subject to the same settled principles governing the appraisal and scrutiny of evidence. His deposition must, therefore, withstand the test of credibility, consistency and intrinsic worth before it can safely be made the basis of a conviction. It would be wholly unsafe, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, to raise the edifice of conviction solely upon the testimony of an injured witness without first subjecting his evidence to a strict and cautious scrutiny for determining whether it inspires confidence and is worthy of reliance. Reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Amin Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) and Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527).

11.In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have carefully scrutinized the record and find that, according to the prosecution case, injured Ikram (PW.7) was initially shifted to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad, Okara, where he was medically examined by Dr.Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3). Finding him in a precarious condition, the doctor referred him to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. In this regard, the MLC (Exh.PB) prepared by Dr.Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3) assumes considerable significance. A perusal thereof shows that injured Ikram (PW.7) was brought to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad on 17.01.2021 at about 5:15 p.m. and was escorted there by Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10). This circumstance unmistakably demonstrates that the occurrence had already come into the notice of the police prior to 5:15 p.m., nevertheless, the prosecution case portrays the occurrence as having been formally reported to the police at about 7:30 p.m., i.e. approximately two hours and fifteen minutes thereafter. The matter becomes still more perplexing when the testimony of Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10), is examined. While appearing before the learned trial Court, he stated that, upon receiving information regarding the occurrence, he reached the place of occurrence at about 8:45 p.m. on 17.01.2021, where he inspected the

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

dead body of Muhammad Imran, prepared the requisite documents and also prepared the injury statement of injured Ikram (PW.7), whom he thereafter escorted to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad. Thus, his deposition places his arrival at the place of occurrence more than three hours after the injured had admittedly been brought to the said hospital at 5:15 p.m. This chronology is prima facie irreconcilable with the prosecution's own documentary evidence. The discrepancy assumes greater significance in view of the specific stance taken by Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10), during cross-examination, which reads as under:- “I prepared injury statement ExPC/3 of Ikram injured/PW. Ikram injured PW was sent along with the injury statement on the docket for his medical legal examination to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad at about 09:00 p.m. on 17.01.2021. The place of occurrence is river area and it consumed about 02 hours for reaching from the place of occurrence to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad. Injured might be reached at RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad at 11:00 p.m. on the same day.”

The above stance taken by Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10), is in stark contradiction with the contemporaneous medical record, particularly the MLC (Exh.PB), wherein his presence has been specifically recorded at the time of medical examination of injured Ikram (PW.7), who was shown to have arrived at RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad at 5:15 p.m. The MLC (Exh.PB) further records that, at the time of his examination, injured Ikram (PW.7) furnished a brief history of the occurrence to Dr. Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3), stating that he had sustained a firearm injury in an occurrence which had taken place on 17.01.2021 at about 4:00 p.m., wherein one person had fired at him. This contemporaneous history, recorded by the attending doctor in the ordinary course of his professional duties, assumes considerable significance when examined alongside the testimony of the police witness. The aforesaid version recorded in the MLC was also acknowledged by Dr.Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3) during his cross- examination in the following terms:- “I mentioned history of fight as narrated by Muhammad Akram injured before me without any addition or deletion. Muhammad Akram injured narrated before me that it was a history of fight at 04:00 p.m. on 17.01.2021, one person opened fire at the victim narrated before me. It is correct that the said injured Muhammad Akram did not nominate any culprit who caused injuries to him.”

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

We have further noticed that Dr.Hafeez Ahmad (PW.3), while appearing before the learned trial Court, stated in his examination-in- chief that injured Ikram (PW.7) was in a stable condition, having blood pressure of 110/70 mmHg, pulse rate of 93/minute and respiratory rate of 17/minute. He further described the probable duration of the injuries, as mentioned in the MLC, as being within 1 to 2 hours, and stated that the injured was thereafter referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, for advanced treatment. On the other hand, injured Ikram (PW.7), while appearing before the learned trial Court, categorically stated that the occurrence had taken place on 17.01.2021 at about 3:00 p.m. This version, when juxtaposed with the medical evidence regarding the probable duration of the injuries sustained by Ikram (PW.7), gives rise to a material inconsistency which cannot be brushed aside lightly and appears to have been introduced to bring the ocular account in conformity with the prosecution case. It is further significant to note that Ikram (PW.7), while deposing before the learned trial Court, stated that the first shot fired by the appellant struck the deceased Muhammad Imran on his back, whereas the second shot hit him on his face/mouth. However, his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded after an unexplained delay of three months from the date of occurrence. The explanation furnished by Ikram (PW.7), as well as by the prosecution, for such delayed recording of statement is that he remained admitted at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, throughout the intervening period. In his examination-in-chief, Ikram (PW.7) stated that, after the occurrence, the prosecution witnesses shifted him to RHC Mandi Ahmad Abad, from where he was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, and that he remained admitted there for about three months. However, during cross-examination, he materially departed from this version and took a complete somersault by stating that, after sustaining the firearm injury, he became senseless and unconscious, he regained consciousness after about thirty minutes and that he was thereafter shifted to RHC Kaleer Kalan, where he arrived at about 5:00 p.m. This material departure from his own earlier account assumes considerable significance, particularly when examined in conjunction with the contemporaneous

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

medical record and the testimony of the police officials. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of Ikram (PW.7) is reproduced hereunder:- “After receiving the firearm injury I became senseless and unconscious. After 30-minutes of the occurrence, I again came in my senses/consciousness. I was shifted to Kaleer Kalan RHC and there at about 5:00 p.m.”

He further stated that, from his residence, he was initially shifted on a cot to the village of Rehman Saonka, situated at a distance of about 2 kilometers from his house, with River Sutlej intervening between his residence and the said village. Thereafter, he was transported in the car of one Sarfraz to RHC Kaleer Kalan. According to him, the journey from the village to RHC Kaleer Kalan took approximately half an hour. He further admitted that, after leaving him at RHC Kaleer Kalan, his father proceeded to the police station to report the occurrence, and stated that the distance between RHC Kaleer Kalan and Police Station Mandi Ahmad Abad was approximately 2 kilometers. The above admission assumes considerable significance in determining the actual sequence of events and the timing of the reporting of the occurrence. In view of the importance of this aspect, the relevant portion of the cross- examination of Ikram (PW.7) is reproduced hereunder:- “From my residence, I was shifted to the village on a cot which is situated at a distance of 02-km from my house and river Satluj comes in between our residence and the village Rehman Saonka. Thereafter, I was shifted on the car of one Sarfraz to RHC Kaleer Kalan. It took about half hour of my shifting on the cot from my village Rehman Saonka while riding on the car..... After leaving me at RHC Kaleer Kalan, my father proceeded to Police Station for informing about the occurrence. The distance between Kaleer Kalan and Police Station Mandi Ahmad Abad is about 02-km. I.O Muhammad Siddique came at 5:00 p.m. on 17.01.2021 at RHC Kaleer Kalan.”

The credibility of the statement of Ikram (PW.7) is further eroded by the fact that no treatment record, treatment chart or any other medical document pertaining to the period during which he allegedly remained admitted at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, has been brought on the record. Equally significant is the fact that none of the doctors who allegedly attended upon or treated Ikram (PW.7) at the said hospital was produced either during investigation or before the learned trial Court to

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

substantiate the prosecution’s assertion regarding his prolonged hospitalization. In the absence of such material corroboration, the explanation furnished by the prosecution for the delayed recording of his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. remains wholly unsubstantiated. The cumulative effect of the foregoing circumstances renders the testimony of injured eyewitness Ikram (PW.7) materially discrepant and lacking in the degree of confidence required for safe reliance. His statement, therefore, cannot be made the basis for sustaining the charge against the appellant with respect to the firearm injuries allegedly caused to him as well as the homicidal death of deceased Muhammad Imran.

12.We have also examined, with due care, the testimony of complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) and the other purported eyewitness, Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8). Although Bagh Ali (PW.6), while appearing before the learned trial Court, attributed the firing of both shots to the appellant Muhammad Hassan, alleging that one struck the back of deceased Muhammad Imran and the other hit the face/mouth of injured Ikram (PW.7), yet his testimony, when tested on the touchstone of the settled principles governing the appraisal of evidence, does not attain the standard of confidence required to sustain the conviction, particularly one carrying the extreme penalty of death. At the outset, it is noteworthy that the complainant, both while setting the criminal law into motion and in his examination-in-chief, stated that on 17.01.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., his two sons, namely Muhammad Ikram (PW.7) and Muhammad Imran (deceased), were cutting fodder for cattle in their field where the appellant arrived and fired upon them, causing the injuries attributed to him. However, during cross-examination, Bagh Ali (PW.6) admitted that his residence was situated at a distance of about two acres from the place of occurrence. This admission, by itself, casts a serious doubt upon his presence at the scene at the relevant time. His subsequent conduct further deepens the doubt regarding his alleged presence. As already noticed, the complainant admittedly possessed a mobile phone, yet he neither made any effort to summon Rescue 1122 for immediate transportation of his injured son to a medical facility nor

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

communicated the occurrence to the police for approximately four hours and thirty minutes. Such conduct is difficult to reconcile with that of a father who had allegedly witnessed his son being shot and another son sustaining firearm injuries. The medical record also does not lend support to the prosecution’s assertion regarding the presence of the complainant. The MLC (Exh.PB) of Ikram (PW.7) does not show Bagh Ali (PW.6), or any other eyewitness, accompanying the injured at the time of his medical examination. Moreover, the complainant did not disclose, either during investigation or before the learned trial Court, the mode of conveyance by which injured Ikram (PW.7) was allegedly taken first to RHC Mandi Ahmadabad and thereafter to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Although Ikram (PW.7), during cross-examination, stated that he had been taken to the RHC in the car of one Sarfraz, however neither the identity of any person accompanying him nor the registration number of the said vehicle has been brought on record. More importantly, Sarfraz was neither associated with the investigation nor produced before the learned trial Court. These omissions assume considerable significance when the prosecution’s account is subjected to close scrutiny. It is also significant to observe that, according to the prosecution itself, deceased Muhammad Imran and injured Ikram (PW.7) were cutting fodder at the time of occurrence. However, the sickles allegedly being used by them were neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor taken into possession during investigation. The withholding of such material articles, coupled with the aforementioned circumstances, further weakens the prosecution version and renders the alleged presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence doubtful. We have also carefully scrutinized the testimony of the other purported eyewitness, namely Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8). Although he, while appearing before the learned trial Court, supported the version narrated by complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6), yet his own presence at the scene is also rendered doubtful by the fact that he was a resident of village Rehman Saonka, situated at a distance of about four kilometers from the place of occurrence. This material circumstance

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

was candidly admitted by Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) during cross- examination in the following terms:- “My residence is situated in the village Rehman Saonka. If someone proceeds to Bhaini Kareem Wali Rehman Saonka i.e. my village, then river Satluj comes in between. The distance between my house and Bhaini Kareem Wali Rehman Saonka i.e. place of occurrence is about 04-km.”

Furthermore, Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) failed to furnish any plausible explanation for his presence at the place of occurrence, despite the fact that his residence was situated at a considerable distance therefrom. His testimony, therefore, does not provide any meaningful corroboration to the already fragile prosecution case. The presence of both complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) and Muhammad Ahmad (PW.8) at the scene is further rendered doubtful from the contents of the inquest report (Exh.PC/4). The said document shows that none of these two witnesses identified the dead body of deceased Muhammad Imran at the spot. If, as asserted by the prosecution, both witnesses were actually present at the place of occurrence, it would be but natural for them to have identified the dead body of the deceased. Their omission in this regard, therefore, assumes considerable significance and casts a further shadow upon their alleged presence at the scene. Furthermore, the inquest report (Exh.PC/4) discloses that the dead body of the deceased was identified by Ashfaq Ahmad (PW.11) and Zulfiqar Ali (given up PW), who was subsequently given up by the prosecution. However, when Ashfaq Ahmad (PW.11) appeared before the learned trial Court, he did not utter even a single word regarding having identified the dead body of deceased Muhammad Imran. This material omission, when considered in conjunction with the circumstances discussed hereinabove, further undermines the prosecution version and renders the alleged presence of purported eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence highly doubtful. The cumulative effect of these circumstances is that the ocular account furnished by the complainant and the purported eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence and falls short of the standard required for sustaining conviction, particularly where the sentence imposed is death.

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

13.From a careful perusal of the record, we have noticed yet another circumstance of considerable significance, which, in our view, strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, the residence of complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) was situated at a distance of about two acres from the place of occurrence. However, during cross-examination, the complainant stated that, by the time the police arrived at the spot, the dead body of Muhammad Imran had already been shifted to his house and was lying on a cot in the courtyard. This circumstance necessarily suggests that, prior to the arrival of the police, the dead body had been transported from the place of occurrence to the complainant’s house. What is, however, of particular significance is that Bagh Ali (PW.6), during cross- examination, categorically admitted that there was no trail of blood between the alleged place of occurrence and his house where the dead body was found lying at the time of the police visit. Such an omission is not a matter of mere insignificance, particularly when the prosecution alleges that the deceased had sustained firearm injuries at the place of occurrence and was thereafter shifted to the complainant’s house. The absence of any blood trail along the intervening route, therefore, casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution’s account regarding the shifting of the dead body and, consequently, upon the presence and conduct of the complainant at the relevant time. Since this aspect bears directly upon the credibility of the prosecution version and the alleged presence of the complainant at the scene, the relevant portion of the cross- examination of Bagh Ali (PW.6) is reproduced hereunder:- “When the I.O visited the place of occurrence, the dead body of Imran deceased was lying in a cot, in the courtyard of my house.........There was no trail of blood in between the stated place of occurrence and my house where the dead body was lying at the time of visit of police.”

In addition to the foregoing, the rough site plan (Exh.PK), prepared by Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), assumes considerable significance. A careful perusal thereof reveals that no blood trail has been depicted between the alleged place of occurrence, i.e. the fodder crop, and the courtyard of the house of complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6),

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

where, according to the prosecution, the dead body of Muhammad Imran had been shifted prior to the arrival of the police. More importantly, Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), during cross- examination, candidly acknowledged that he did not depict any blood trail in the rough site plan because no such trail was found between the fodder crop and the courtyard of the complainant’s house. The admission of the Investigating Officer, therefore, furnishes independent support to the circumstance that no blood trail existed along the alleged route through which the dead body was purportedly transported. This circumstance assumes further significance when examined in conjunction with the complainant’s own admission regarding the absence of such trail. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), is reproduced hereunder:- “There was no trail of blood available in between the fodder crop and the courtyard of house of Bagh Ali that is why I had not shown the same anywhere in the unscaled scaled plan and nor in the inspection notes.”

Furthermore, Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), claimed to have collected blood-stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence on 17.01.2021, where Muhammad Imran was stated to have been murdered, and took the same into possession vide memo Exh.PF. However, this assertion stands materially belied by the report of the PFSA (Exh.PM), which categorically states that no human blood was detected on the said soil. In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish with the degree of certainty required in a criminal trial, the very place where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.

14.We have also carefully scrutinized the testimony of Dr.Muhammad Sharjeel Akram (PW.4), who conducted the post- mortem examination of deceased Muhammad Imran on 18.01.2021 at about 3:15 a.m. and prepared the post-mortem report (Exh.PG). His testimony, when read in conjunction with the post-mortem report, reveals that the dead body of the deceased was received in the mortuary on 18.01.2021 at about 3:15 a.m., whereas the requisite police papers were received at about 3:30 a.m. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 17.01.2021 at about 3:00 p.m. and

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

Muhammad Imran succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Thus, the dead body remained un-dispatched to the mortuary for approximately twelve hours after the occurrence. Such unexplained delay assumes considerable significance, particularly when viewed in the backdrop of the surrounding circumstances appearing on the record. As noticed hereinabove, the MLC (Exh.PB) shows that injured Ikram (PW.7) was medically examined on 17.01.2021 at about 5:20 p.m. and, at that time, Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW.10), a police official, was accompanying him. This circumstance demonstrates that the occurrence had come to the notice of the police within approximately one hour and forty minutes of the alleged occurrence. In these circumstances, there appears to be no plausible explanation as to why the dead body of Muhammad Imran was not shifted to the mortuary without undue delay. The considerable lapse of time in dispatching the dead body, therefore, constitutes another circumstance which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution version. The matter assumes further significance in view of the testimony of Dr.Muhammad Sharjeel Akram (PW.4), who stated before the learned trial Court that the probable duration between the infliction of injuries and death was approximately 20 to 30 minutes. This medical opinion indicates that the deceased survived for a short period after sustaining the injuries. If the eyewitnesses were actually present at the place of occurrence, their natural conduct would have been to attend to the injured/deceased and make some effort to transport him to a nearby medical facility in an endeavour to save his life. The absence of any such conduct, particularly in the circumstances asserted by the prosecution, further detracts from the alleged presence of the eyewitnesses at the relevant time. Dr.Muhammad Sharjeel Akram (PW.4) further stated that the probable duration between death and post-mortem examination was approximately 12 to 13 hours. The said opinion, when juxtaposed with the time of occurrence, the alleged death of Muhammad Imran at the spot, and the time when his dead body was received in the mortuary, brings into sharp focus the unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination. This circumstance, coupled with the other infirmities discussed hereinabove,

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

further weakens the prosecution case and renders its entire edifice doubtful. It is, however, equally well settled that medical evidence is essentially corroborative in nature. It may assist the Court in determining the nature, seat and extent of injuries, the kind of weapon employed, the cause of death and, within permissible limits, the probable interval between death and post-mortem examination. Such evidence, by itself, neither identifies the perpetrator nor furnishes substantive proof of the guilt of an accused. Medical evidence can lend support to an otherwise trustworthy ocular account, but it cannot, standing alone, be made the basis for recording a conviction where the ocular testimony itself suffers from material infirmities and does not inspire confidence. Reference is made to the cases reported as Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 53) and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another (2008 SCMR 1103). The relevant extract from the former cited case is being reproduced hereunder:- “It is also settled law that medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime.”

15.We have also anxiously examined the evidence relating to the alleged recovery of .12-bore pump-action gun (P.7) at the instance of the appellant on 31.01.2021. The said firearm weapon was subsequently forwarded to the PFSA for ballistic examination and comparison with two crime empties (P.1/1-2) allegedly secured from the place of occurrence. Although the PFSA report (Exh.PN) states that the two crime empties recovered from the crime scene were fired from the weapon allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, yet the circumstances surrounding the recovery, custody and preservation of the said crime empties call for close and cautious scrutiny. According to Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), the appellant Muhammad Hassan was arrested on 25.01.2021, whereas the alleged recovery of the .12-bore pump-action gun (P.7) was effected at his instance on 31.01.2021. This version, however, does not sit comfortably with the testimony of the complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6), who during cross-

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

examination made a categorical admission that the appellant Muhammad Hassan had been produced by one Shah Nawaz Shangrah on the very next day of the occurrence, i.e. 18.01.2021, along with the gun in question. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of complainant Bagh Ali (PW.6) is reproduced hereunder:- “It is correct that Hassan accused was produced by one Shah Nawaz Shangrah on the next day of the occurrence i.e. on 18.01.2021 along with the gun.”

It is also significant to note that as reflected from the PFSA report (Exh.PN), the parcel containing the crime empties was received at the PFSA on 21.01.2021, whereas the parcel containing the .12-bore pump- action gun was received on 03.02.2021. As discussed hereinabove, the appellant had, according to the categorical admission made by the complainant during cross-examination, already been produced before the police along with the gun on 18.01.2021. Thus, the crime empties were dispatched to the PFSA after the appellant had admittedly come into police custody. In such circumstances, the possibility of the crime empties having been subsequently manipulated, substituted or otherwise maneuvered cannot safely be excluded, particularly when the prosecution has failed to furnish any convincing explanation regarding their safe custody and unimpeachable chain of transmission during the intervening period. The subsequent opinion of the PFSA, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances in which the incriminating material was allegedly recovered, preserved and transmitted. Where the very foundation upon which the ballistic comparison rests is rendered doubtful by material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, the PFSA report, howsoever affirmative in its terms, loses much of its corroborative force. The PFSA report (Exh.PN), in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, consequently does not provide any support to the prosecution case and cannot be relied upon to lend the requisite corroboration to an otherwise doubtful ocular account.

16.Turning finally to the question of motive, the prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that the complainant, Bagh Ali (PW.6),

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

attributed the occurrence to a pre-existing family dispute with the appellant Muhammad Hassan, who is admittedly his nephew. Although while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant attempted to elaborate upon the alleged motive by stating that a dispute existed between his sons and the appellant Muhammad Hassan over a family matter, yet he failed to disclose the nature of the said family matter, or to explain what particular dispute could have infuriated the appellant with a motive to take the life of Muhammad Imran, deceased, and cause serious firearm injuries to Ikram (PW.7). Moreover, during cross-examination, Bagh Ali (PW.6) admitted that he had nominated the appellant Muhammad Hassan on account of a family quarrel but neither the nature of the alleged quarrel nor its time, date or place has been brought on record. The prosecution also failed to examine any witness, either during investigation or before the learned trial Court, to substantiate the alleged motive or to establish the occurrence of the purported family dispute. The aforesaid deficiency assumes further significance in view of the testimony of Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), who, during cross-examination, candidly admitted that no witness had been produced during investigation to verify the motive attributed to the appellant. He further admitted that even the female members of the complainant’s family were not associated with the investigation, despite the prosecution’s assertion that the alleged motive arose out of a family dispute. Such an omission cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when the prosecution seeks to rely upon an unspecified family quarrel as the motive for a capital offence. In view of the importance of this aspect, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Muhammad Saddique, Inspector (PW.12), is reproduced hereunder:- “I also perused the motive part regarding the domestic fight. During investigation, complainant party did not nominate the person with whom the above said family fight/dispute had arisen. It is correct that as long as the investigation remained with me, complainant remained mum regarding showing the names of dispute from both sides. Similarly, no witness was produced by the complainant to verify the version of motive mentioned in the FIR as well in the statements of PWs u/s 161 Cr.P.C. I myself did not interrogate the women folk belonging to the complainant party for the verification of motive part of this case.”

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

The prosecution has also failed to bring on record any further material demonstrating that the alleged animosity between the parties persisted with such intensity as could furnish a compelling motive for the appellant to commit the offence in question. Thus, the motive set up by the prosecution, as reflected in the FIR and subsequently sought to be elaborated upon by the complainant, remains vague, unspecified and unsupported by any independent evidence. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the motive alleged by the prosecution is wholly inadequate to lend meaningful support to its case. It is trite that motive, in a given case, may furnish corroboration to the prosecution version, however, it may equally provide a basis for false implication of an accused. For this reason, motive has consistently been regarded as a double-edged weapon, which must be assessed with due caution and in the light of the overall evidence available on record. In the present case, the alleged motive, being vague and unsubstantiated, does not advance the prosecution case in any meaningful manner. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- “The motive is always a double-edged weapon. The complainant Sultan Ahmad (PW9) has admitted murder enmity between the parties and has also given details of the same in his statement recorded before the trial court. No doubt, previous enmity can be a reason for the appellant to commit the alleged crime, but it can equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the appellant in this case for previous grouse.”

17.For the foregoing reasons, and upon a careful appraisal of the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant Muhammad Hassan beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of the infirmities, contradictions, omissions and unexplained circumstances discussed hereinabove renders the prosecution case doubtful, and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of such doubt as a matter of right and not of grace. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 is ALLOWED. The appellant Muhammad

Criminal Appeal No.59042 of 2022 & Murder Reference No.232 of 2022

Hassan is extended the benefit of doubt and is accordingly ACQUITTED of the charge. His convictions and the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court are hereby SET ASIDE. The appellant is in custody; he shall be RELEASED FORTHWITH, if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. Resultantly, Murder Reference No.232 of 2022 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the death sentence awarded to the appellant/convict Muhammad Hassan is

NOT CONFIRMED.

(AALIA NEELUM) (ABHER GUL KHAN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

(AALIA NEELUM) (ABHER GUL KHAN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

The judgment was announced on 07.09.2026, dictated, prepared, and signed on 09.09.2026 Najum*