The State . Vs Maqsood alias Saeed

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 (Maqsood alias Saeed v. The State & another) and Murder Reference No.43 of 2023 (The State v. Maqsood alias Saeed)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 08.09.2026 Appellant by:

Mr. Aiyan Tariq Bhutta, Advocate.

Complainant by:

Mr. Shahid Ahmad Ranjha, Advocate (for Yasmeen Bibi daughter of the complainant).

State by: Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General.

ABHER GUL KHAN, J. The appellant Maqsood alias Saeed along with co-accused, Waheed, Muhammad Yousaf, Ibrar and Umer Dreaz was tried by Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Sahiwal in private complaint titled Muhammad Aslam v. Maqsood alias Saeed & 4 others for the offences under Sections 302, 148 & 149 PPC arising out of FIR No.19/2021 dated 15.01.2021 registered under Sections 302 & 34 PPC at Police Station Bahadar Shah. Trial court vide judgment dated 31.03.2023 acquitted the aforesaid co-accused, however convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:- Under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer death sentence as ta’zir for qatl- i-amd of the deceased Manzoor Ahmad. He was further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. The amount of compensation so imposed was ordered to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed preferred Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023, whereas the trial court sent Murder Reference No.43 of 2023 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to the convict/appellant Maqsood alias Saeed. Both the aforementioned matters are being disposed of through this single judgment.

2.Succinctly stated, the prosecution case, as set up by the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) in the FIR (Exh.CW.3/A) is that

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

he is the resident of Chak No.57/GD, Abadi Wan Araian, and an agriculturist by profession. On 15.01.2021, at about 06:15 p.m., he, along with his brother Manzoor Ahmad (deceased), proceeded towards their land for irrigation. Upon reaching near the soiling road, five accused, namely, Maqsood alias Saeed (appellant), Waheed (since acquitted), Muhammad Yousaf (since acquitted), Ibrar (since acquitted) and Umar Draz (since acquitted), allegedly emerged from the mustard crop. The appellant and accused Waheed were armed with .30-bore pistols, Muhammad Yousaf was carrying a .12-bore gun, whereas Ibrar and Umar Draz were armed with a sota and an iron rod, respectively. Immediately upon their emergence, the appellant raised lalkara exhorting the others to catch hold of Manzoor Ahmad and teach him a lesson for having got a criminal case registered against him. Thereafter, the appellant fired a shot from his .30-bore pistol which struck Manzoor Ahmad on the right side of his chest. Accused Waheed (since acquitted) fired another shot at the deceased, which hit him on the right thigh, whereas accused Muhammad Yousaf (since acquitted) resorted to aerial firing with his .12-bore gun with a view to create terror. In the meantime, accused Ibrar and Umar Draz (since acquitted) caught hold of the complainant, while the deceased was subjected to beating with their respective weapons. Upon hearing the commotion, Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) and Muhammad Iqbal (given up PW) who had come to the complainant's house in connection with some work, allegedly reached the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. The deceased Manzoor Ahmad succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused thereafter allegedly fled away from the scene while extending threats of dire consequences. The motive behind the occurrence statedly was that few days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the accused party, during which the deceased had sustained a fracture of his arm at the hands of the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and in consequence thereof, FIR No.480/20 dated 27.12.2020 was registered against the accused under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337- L(2), 148 and 149 PPC at Police Station Bahadur Shah.

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

3.On 15.01.2021 the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) appeared before Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4) who was present near Abadi Waan Araian, within the area of Chak No.57/GD and submitted a written application (Exh.PW-1/A). He recorded police proceedings (Exh.CW-4/A) and transmitted the same through Allah Ditta 1114/C to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. After registration of the case, investigation was entrusted to him. Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he prepared the injury statement of the deceased Manzoor Ahmad (Exh.CW-4/B), the inquest report (Exh.CW-4/C) and entrusted the dead body to Shehzad Aslam 72/C for its transportation to the District Headquarter Teaching Hospital, Sahiwal. From the place of occurrence, Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) secured blood-stained earth through recovery memo Exh.PW-2/A and took into possession two crime empties of .30-bore pistol (P.5/1-2) vide recovery memo Exh.PW-2/B. He also recovered a hoe/kassi (P.6) through recovery memo Exh.PW- 2/C and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.CW-4/D). On 16.01.2021, Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), arrested the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and accused Waheed (since acquitted). Their injury statements were prepared and after obtaining the requisite dockets, both were sent to RHC Noor Shah for medical examination. Subsequent to their medical examination, Muneer Ahmad, ASI, handed over their respective medico-legal certificates to Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4). During the course of investigation, on 27.01.2021, the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed allegedly made a disclosure, pursuant to which a .30-bore pistol (P-7), along with three live bullets (P-8/1-3), was recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PW-2/D. On 10.03.2021, after obtaining requisite permission from the learned Area Magistrate, Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), visited Central Jail, Sahiwal, where he recorded the statements of the appellant Maqsood Ahmad alias Saeed and accused Waheed (since acquitted) who were confined there. During investigation, co- accused Muhammad Yousaf, Ibrar and Umar Draz were found not to be involved in the occurrence, whereas accused Waheed (since acquitted)

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

was found to have been empty-handed at the spot. The appellant Maqsood alias Saeed also brought his cross-version on record. Ultimately upon completion of investigation, Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), reached the conclusion that the complainant-party was, in fact, the aggressor.

4.Aggrieved by the manner in which the investigation had been conducted, the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) instituted a private complaint (Exh.1/B), whereupon the trial proceeded. In support of its case against the appellant, the complainant examined three witnesses, including Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2), who furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. The learned trial court also examined five witnesses as Court witnesses. Among them, Dr.Zahid Iqbal (CW.1) conducted the autopsy of the deceased Manzoor Ahmad on 15.01.2021 and prepared the post-mortem report (Exh.CW.1/A), accompanied by pictorial diagrams (Exh.CW.1/B and Exh.CW.1/B/1). Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), conducted the investigation, the salient features whereof have already been noticed hereinabove. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., and all incriminating circumstances emerging against him from the prosecution evidence were put to him. He denied the allegations, professed his innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. He did not opt to make statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however, he produced certain documents in support of his defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful appraisal of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove, hence, the instant criminal appeal and Murder Reference.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that although the FIR appears on the face of the record to have been promptly registered, yet a closer scrutiny thereof reveals apparent manipulation of the record. The occurrence was unwitnessed and the appellant was subsequently made a scapegoat at the instance of the complainant in connivance with the local

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

police. The ocular account furnished by the prosecution witnesses is wholly unreliable, as they failed to satisfactorily establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Their depositions are also materially at variance with the medical evidence available on record. The occurrence allegedly took place at about 06:15 p.m. in the month of January, yet the prosecution failed to establish the source or adequacy of light at the place of occurrence, thereby leaving a serious possibility of mistaken identification and false implication. The alleged recovery of the .30-bore pistol at the instance of the appellant is equally inconsequential, particularly when the crime empties had been dispatched to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency after the arrest of the appellant, thereby rendering the recovery incapable of furnishing any independent incriminating circumstance against him. The motive set up by the prosecution is vague, unsubstantiated and merely an attempt to lend artificial support to an otherwise doubtful prosecution case. Notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial court proceeded to record the conviction against him. The impugned judgment, is thus founded upon an improper appreciation of the evidence and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are unsustainable in the eye of law.

6.Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab, well assisted by learned counsel for the complainant’s daughter, vehemently opposed the appeal and contended that the FIR had been lodged with promptitude which furnished strong support regarding the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence. The ocular account furnished by the prosecution witnesses finds full support from the medical evidence and that no material discrepancy exists between the two. The prosecution case gets independent corroboration from the positive report of PFSA as well as the motive attributed to the appellant who has committed the cold-blooded murder of an innocent person without any justifiable cause, thus he deserves no leniency. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the conviction and sentence are prayed for.

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

7.Arguments heard. Record perused.

8.A meticulous examination of the record reveals that the present case emanates from an occurrence which had taken place on 15.01.2021 at about 06:15 p.m. in the area of Chak No.57/GD, Abadi Waan Araian, situated at a distance of approximately two kilometres from Police Station Bahadur Shah. During the occurrence, Manzoor Ahmad sustained two firearm injuries, one on the right side of his chest and the other on his left thigh, allegedly caused by shots fired by the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and his co-accused Waheed (since acquitted) with their respective .30 bore pistols. According to the prosecution, upon sustaining the said injuries, Manzoor Ahmad fell on the ground and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The record further reflects that the law was set into motion through a written application (Exh.CW.1/A) submitted by the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) before Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), near Abadi Waan Araian, within the area of Chak No.57/GD, on 15.01.2021 at about 07:05 p.m. On the basis thereof, the formal FIR (Exh.CW.3/A) was registered at about 07:25 p.m. It is further borne out from the record that the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and co-accused Waheed (since acquitted) also sustained injuries during the occurrence. The appellant, after obtaining the requisite medico-legal certificates, got recorded his cross-version. Both the FIR and the cross-version were investigated by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4). The complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1), being dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation had been conducted, instituted a private complaint (Exh.PW.1/B), whereupon the trial proceeded.

9.Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to observe here that in the FIR (Exh.CW.3/A) as well as in the private complaint (Exh.PW.1/B), the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) attributed participation in the occurrence to five persons, namely, Maqsood alias Saeed (appellant), Waheed, Muhammad Yousaf, Ibrar and Umer Draz. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 15.01.2021 at about 06:15 p.m., the complainant, accompanied by his brother Manzoor Ahmad (deceased), was proceeding towards their fields for the purpose of irrigation. Upon

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

reaching the soiling road of their land, the aforesaid five accused, who were allegedly concealed in the mustard crop, emerged therefrom. Allegedly, the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed raised a lalkara, exhorting his companions to apprehend Manzoor Ahmad and to avenge the criminal case got registered by him, and thereafter fired a shot from his .30-bore pistol which struck the deceased on the right side of his chest. Accused Waheed (since acquitted) allegedly fired another shot which hit the deceased on his right thigh. Accused Muhammad Yousaf, armed with a .12-bore gun, allegedly resorted to aerial firing with a view to create terror, whereas Ibrar and Umer Draz, armed with sota and iron rod, allegedly caught hold of the complainant Muhammad Aslam. Thereafter, all the accused allegedly subjected the deceased to indiscriminate beating with their respective weapons, as a result whereof he succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Upon hearing the hue and cry, Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) and Muhammad Iqbal (given-up PW), who had come to the complainant's house in connection with some work, reached the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. It is, however, significant to note that all the five accused were put to trial, but the learned trial court, through the impugned judgment, acquitted all of them except the present appellant Maqsood alias Saeed. The record further reveals that the complainant Muhammad Aslam challenged the acquittal of the said co-accused by filing Criminal PSLA No.44 of 2023, however the same was subsequently withdrawn by learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the legal heirs of the complainant and, accordingly, was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court through the order of even date. Consequently, the acquittal of the remaining co-accused has attained finality. In these circumstances, once the very same ocular account, in its essential features, has culminated in the acquittal of all the co-accused except the appellant, the conviction of the appellant cannot safely be sustained merely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses rather keeping in view the peculiar factual and evidentiary circumstances of the case, the ocular account requires independent and confidence-inspiring corroboration of a high degree before it can be safely relied upon for maintaining the conviction of the

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

appellant. Reference is made to the case reported as Altaf Hussain v. The State (2019 SCMR 274) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave the following observation:- “It is well settled by now that if a set of witnesses is disbelieved to the extent of some accused the same cannot be believed to the extent of remaining accused facing the same trial without there being any independent and strong corroboration.”

10.In the backdrop of the foregoing facts, it would be apposite to examine the manner in which the law was set into motion. According to the prosecution, the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) submitted a written application (Exh.CW.3/A) before Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), on 15.01.2021 at about 07:05 p.m., whereupon the formal FIR was registered. The prosecution, therefore, seeks to portray the reporting of the occurrence as prompt, contending that no sufficient time was thereby available for consultation, deliberation, fabrication or false implication of the appellant. The defence, however, has assailed the alleged promptness of the FIR and maintained that the occurrence had, in fact, been reported to the police earlier, whereafter the relevant police record was manipulated by withholding or suppressing the corresponding entries in the FIR register and daily diary, so as to give an appearance of prompt registration. This aspect of the matter, when examined in the light of the contemporaneous police record, gives rise to circumstances which cannot be brushed aside lightly. Although the written application (Exh.PW-1/A) is shown to have been received by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), at 07:05 p.m., yet the Rescue-15 record (Exh.DD) reveals that information regarding the occurrence had already been received at 06:17 p.m. through one Ahmad Zawar. It is further borne out from the record that Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), admittedly reached the place of occurrence at 06:44 p.m., whereas he furnished feedback to Rescue-15 at 09:35 p.m. Moreover, the Rescue 1122 record (Exh.DE) contains a materially different account, stating that Manzoor Ahmad had sustained bullet injuries on account of previous enmity and that, while being shifted to the hospital in a critical condition, he expired on the way. Thus, the earliest information admittedly available to the police was not the detailed version subsequently incorporated in the written application

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

and the FIR. This circumstance assumes further significance in view of the categorical admission made by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), during cross-examination that, according to the police record, the deceased Manzoor Ahmad had died while being taken to the hospital, whereas the complainant, in his written application (Exh.PW-1/A), specifically stated that the deceased had expired at the place of occurrence. The contradiction is not of a peripheral nature, rather it relates to the very circumstances in which the deceased was removed from the place of occurrence and the police machinery was set into motion. The aforesaid discrepancy, coupled with the existence of an earlier information entry and the admitted presence of the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence before the alleged submission of the written application, raises a serious question regarding the actual time and manner in which the written application came into existence and the FIR was thereafter registered. Consequently, the prosecution's assertion of an entirely prompt and spontaneous reporting of the occurrence does not appear to be free from doubt. Since the admission of Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), on this material aspect bears directly upon the credibility of the prosecution version and the manner in which the FIR was recorded, the relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:- “It is correct that present incident was reported to Rescue 15 through one Ahmad Zawar at about 18.17 dated 15.01.2021. It is correct that after receiving the information through wireless I arrived at the place of occurrence at 18.44 on 15.01.2021. It is correct that after visiting the place of occurrence and site inspection, I gave feedback to Rescue 15 at 21.35 same day.............It is correct that as per the feedback mentioned on case record Exh DD, given at 21.35 on 15.01.2021, fight happened in 57/GD, and the injured Manzoor who was taken to Hospital by Rescue 1122 died on arrival at Hospital and further proceedings are under way.”

Furthermore, upon receipt of the written application (Exh.PW.1/A), Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), admittedly conducted certain police proceedings thereon and entrusted the same to Allah Ditta 1114/C for transmission to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. In such circumstances, Allah Ditta 1114/C was a material witness, as his testimony could have established the crucial link between the receipt of

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

the written application by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), its subsequent transmission to the police station, and its delivery to the Moharrar/Station Clerk for registration of the FIR. Despite his evident importance, the said witness was neither cited by the complainant as a prosecution witness in the private complaint nor examined by the learned trial court as a Court witness. This unexplained omission assumes significance and further detracts from the prosecution's assertion regarding the spontaneous and prompt registration of the FIR. Viewed cumulatively, the discrepancies noticed hereinabove, coupled with the material gaps in the prosecution evidence and the withholding of a witness who was directly connected with the transmission of the written application to the police station, render the prosecution's claim of prompt lodging of the FIR highly doubtful. In these circumstances, the alleged promptitude of the FIR cannot safely be treated as a circumstance lending support to the prosecution case, rather the surrounding circumstances procreate a reasonable doubt as to the actual time and manner of its registration.

11.We have further examined the testimony of the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2), both of whom are admittedly related to the deceased Manzoor Ahmad. Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) is his real brother, whereas Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) is stated to be his close relative. A careful appraisal of their depositions, when examined in juxtaposition with their earlier versions available on record, reveals material improvements, omissions and contradictions touching upon significant aspects of the occurrence, thereby casting serious doubt upon their claimed presence at the place of occurrence. According to the FIR (Exh.PW-1/A) and the private complaint (Exh.PW.1/B), Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) attributed a specific role to each of the accused. He alleged that the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and co-accused Waheed each fired a shot from their respective pistols, which struck the deceased on the right side of his chest and right thigh, respectively. He further alleged that Muhammad Yousaf, armed with a .12-bore gun, resorted to aerial firing, whereas Ibrar and Umer Draz, armed with a sota and an iron rod respectively subjected the deceased to

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

beating. The prosecution case, as originally set up, was that Manzoor Ahmad succumbed to his injuries at the place of occurrence. However, during cross-examination, the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) stated that, after the occurrence, Rescue 1122 arrived at the spot and shifted the injured Manzoor Ahmad to the hospital, but after covering some distance the deceased succumbed to his injuries. He further stated that the ambulance thereafter returned to the place of occurrence and the dead body was taken out therefrom, whereafter the police arrived at the spot. These facts do not find any mention in his written application (Exh.PW-1/A), and when confronted therewith, the witness candidly admitted that he had stated them for the first time during his examination-in-chief before the trial Court. The aforesaid additions cannot be dismissed as inconsequential embellishments, rather the same relate directly to the manner in which the deceased was removed from the place of occurrence, the circumstances attending his death and the subsequent initiation of police proceedings. Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) further disclosed during cross-examination that his mobile phone number was 0301-4032068 and admitted that neither he nor Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) or Muhammad Iqbal (given-up PW) made any call from their respective mobile phones to Rescue 1122 or Rescue-15. He nevertheless maintained that Rescue 1122 had reached the place of occurrence at about 06:15 p.m. and shifted Manzoor Ahmad in its vehicle, whereafter the deceased expired shortly thereafter. Another circumstance which further impinges upon the claimed presence of Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) is that Muhammad Aslam (PW.1), during cross-examination, admitted that Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) was permanently residing in Sahiwal City. His presence at the place of occurrence, situated away from the city, therefore, called for some independent and convincing explanation, particularly when the prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of these two witnesses. Likewise, Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) has introduced material improvements in his deposition before the trial court. Although, in his examination-in-chief he reiterated the version furnished by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1), yet he stated that Rescue 1122

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

arrived at the place of occurrence, shifted Manzoor Ahmad in a serious condition and, after the ambulance had travelled a short distance, the deceased expired, whereafter the ambulance returned to the spot. However, when confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., as well as his cursory statement, he admitted that these material facts did not find mention therein. Similarly, Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) deposed before the trial court that he and Muhammad Iqbal (given-up PW) reached the place of occurrence upon hearing the alarm raised by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1), yet when confronted with his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., he admitted that the alleged alarm raised by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) was not recorded therein. He further introduced the facts that the deceased had fallen on the ground in an injured condition and that the accused had left the place while extending threats. Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) also admitted that these facts are conspicuously absent from the statements with which he was confronted. The manner in which Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) allegedly reached the place of occurrence, the condition of the deceased immediately after the firing, the conduct attributed to the accused following the occurrence and the subsequent arrival of Rescue 1122 constitute material circumstances which, if the same had actually occurred in the manner narrated before the trial Court, would reasonably have been expected to find mention in the earlier statements of the eyewitnesses. Thus, the testimony of Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2), when examined in the light of their earlier statements and the independent contemporaneous record, is found to suffer from material improvements and significant omissions on vital aspects of the occurrence. Their credibility has, therefore, been substantially impaired, rendering their ocular account unsafe to be relied upon for sustaining the conviction of the appellant, particularly in the absence of independent and confidence-inspiring corroboration. In arriving at such conclusion, we are enlightened from the observation of Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in case reported as Muhammad Arif v. The State (2019 SCMR 631) wherein it was held as under:-

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

“It is well established by now that when a witness improves his statement and moment it is observed that the said improvement was made dishonestly to strengthen the prosecution, such portion of his statement is to be discarded out of consideration. Having observed the improvements in the statements of both the witnesses of ocular account, we hold that it is not safe to rely on their testimony to maintain conviction and sentence of Muhammad Arif (appellant) on a capital charge.”

At the cost of reiteration, we have observed that it was the consistent stance of the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) as set out in the FIR (Exh.CW.3/A) as well as in the private complaint (Exh.PW.1/B) that Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) and Muhammad Iqbal (given up PW) had come to the house of the complainant in connection with some work and upon hearing the alarm raised by him, proceeded towards the place of occurrence, where they allegedly witnessed the incident. However, conspicuously, neither the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) nor Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) while appearing before the trial Court furnished any explanation as to the nature or purpose of the alleged work for which the said witnesses had visited the complainant's house. Furthermore, none of them disclosed the date or time of their arrival at the complainant's house. If it had been the actual reality then the site plan must have contained the factum of presence of the house of the complainant, however it is evident from site plan (Exh.CW.4/D) that it contains no reference of the house of the complainant near the place of occurrence which was surrounded by agricultural land. We have further noticed that according to both the alleged eyewitnesses, after the occurrence they shifted deceased Manzoor Ahmad, in an injured condition, into the vehicle of Rescue 1122 which had travelled some distance, the deceased succumbed to his injuries, whereupon the Rescue 1122 personnel returned the dead body to the place of occurrence and thereafter the complainant submitted an application (Exh.PW.1/A) for registration of the FIR. This version, however, raises a serious question as to the actual sequence of events and the circumstances in which the deceased came to be found at the place of occurrence, particularly when the contemporaneous police record does not lend support to such an account. In order to appreciate the evidentiary value of this assertion, it

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the examination-in-chief of complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1), which reads as under:- “After covering some distance, Manzoor Ahmad succumbed to the injuries. Vehicle 1122 returned to the place of occurrence and deboarded Manzoor Ahmad from the vehicle Rescue 1122.”

However, the aforesaid version of the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) does not find corroboration from the testimony of Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4), who having been entrusted with the investigation on the very day of occurrence, i.e. 15.01.2021, visited the place of occurrence, prepared injury statement (Exh.CW.4/B), inquest report (Exh.CW.4/C), rough site plan (Exh.CW.4/D), secured the blood-stained earth and crime empties vide recovery memos Exh.PW.2/A and Exh.PW.2/B, respectively, and thereafter dispatched the dead body to the mortuary through Shehzad Aslam 72/C for postmortem examination. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record even the slightest piece of evidence to establish that after sustaining the alleged injuries, the deceased Manzoor Ahmad was removed from the place of occurrence by Rescue 1122 and upon his death his dead body was brought back and placed at the same spot and in the same position. If indeed the alleged eyewitnesses were present at the place of occurrence and the injured was removed therefrom by Rescue 1122, only for his dead body to be subsequently returned to the place of occurrence, it would be natural to expect that the body would have been placed on a cot rather than left lying in the middle of the road. Furthermore, the rough site plan (Exh.CW.4/D) depicts the dead body as lying on the unpaved/soiled road, which circumstance materially detracts from the ocular account furnished by the prosecution. Besides that, the injury statement (Exh.CW.4/B) and the inquest report (Exh.CW.4/C) admittedly prepared by Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) after registration of the FIR, contain circumstances which are wholly inconsistent with the prosecution case. The injury statement does not mention the name of any accused, despite the prosecution's assertion that the assailants had been identified and nominated through registration of FIR from the very

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

inception. Likewise, the inquest report states that the dead body was identified by Abdul Hafeez (PW.3) and Ali Sher (given up PW), however Abdul Hafeez (PW.3) while appearing before the Court, did not state even a single word to the effect that he and Ali Sher (given up PW) had identified the dead body at the time of preparation of the inquest report. On the contrary, Abdul Hafeez (PW.3) specifically deposed that the dead body was identified by them at the time of postmortem examination of deceased Manzoor Ahmad. Thus, if the complainant or the remaining two eyewitnesses were present at the spot, what precluded them to become the witnesses of identifying the dead body at the time of preparation of inquest report (Exh.CW.4/C) and the postmortem report (Exh.CW.1/A). Moreover, Column No.23 of the inquest report is conspicuously silent regarding the recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence, although the prosecution subsequently relies upon the alleged recovery of such empties through Exh.PW.2/B. The credibility of both the alleged eyewitnesses is further eroded when their testimony is examined in juxtaposition with the evidence of Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4) who conducted the investigation. Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) did not merely implicate five persons in the occurrence, rather they assigned specific and active role to each of them. Their ocular account, therefore, necessarily rests upon the presence and participation of all the accused at the place of occurrence. It is, however, significant that the version furnished by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) did not find complete acceptance even by Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) who during the course of investigation examined the prosecution allegations with regard to the presence of the respective accused. Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), categorically stated before the Court that the CDRs of three co-accused, namely Muhammad Yousaf, Ibrar and Umer Daraz (since acquitted) did not establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. According to him, the location of Muhammad Yousaf was found at Renala Khurd, District Okara, whereas that of Umer Daraz was at Mauza Bhawanni Waan Mehr Shah. He further stated that the presence of co- accused Ibrar at the place of occurrence could also not be established.

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

During cross-examination Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) admitted that he did not believe the version of the complainant to the extent of co- accused Waheed (since acquitted). In view of the relevance of this piece of evidence, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), is reproduced hereunder:- “It is correct that as per the CDR of accused namely Ibrar, Yousaf and Umer Draz collected by me, their presence was not found at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. It is correct that according to CDR of Yousaf accused, which is Exh DC/1 his location was marked against serial No. 173 dated 15.01.2021 at 15.52 at Renala Khurd, District Okara. Similarly, the CDR of Umer Draz accused Exh DC/2, his location was marked on 15.01.2021 at 19.20 at Mauza Bhawanni Waan Mehr Shah. Similarly, the presence of Ibrar accused is also did not establish at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. According to my investigation, Waheed accused was empty handed and he received injuries during the occurrence. It is correct that to the extent of Yousaf accused, Ibrar, Umer Draz, I did not found correct the version of the complainant party being they were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. I also disbelieve the complainant party to the extent of firing made by Waheed accused at the time of alleged occurrence.”

The aforesaid conclusion drawn by Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) was not an isolated assessment of the evidence, rather the same stood affirmed by the concerned SDPO as is evident from the following statement made by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4):- “It is correct that my investigation was confirmed by the SDPO as well.”

It is further evident from a careful perusal of the record that, although the complainant, in the private complaint (Exh.PW.1/B), alleged that the local police had connived with the accused and conducted a partial investigation with a view to distort his case and extending undue benefit to the accused, and further asserted that he had challenged the impartiality of the police as well as the conclusions drawn during investigation before the higher police authorities through various applications, yet no material has been brought on record to substantiate such assertion. Despite a meticulous examination of the record, we have not found a single document demonstrating that the complainant ever assailed the conclusion of the investigation before any competent authority or forum. The conclusion reached by Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), and affirmed by the concerned SDPO, thus remained

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

unchallenged by the complainant-side until the institution of the private complaint. Such conduct is hardly consistent with the assertion subsequently made in the private complaint that the complainant had, from the outset, been contesting the manner and outcome of the police investigation before the higher police authorities. It is well settled that the opinion formed by the police during investigation is neither binding upon the Court nor determinative of the guilt or innocence of an accused. Nevertheless, such opinion cannot be altogether disregarded where it is founded upon material available on record and is supported by credible and convincing evidence. In the circumstances of the present case, the unchallenged investigative conclusion assumes significance and cannot be brushed aside while assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution evidence. Reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Altaf Hussain and four others v. The State (NLR 2000 Criminal 232), Nazir v. The State (NLR 2002 Criminal 265), Zulqarnain v. The State (PLD 1994 FSC 34) and Ashiq Ali v. The State (NLR 1996 Criminal 544). We have further noticed that the occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place on 15.01.2021 at about 06:15 p.m. The complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) during his cross-examination, admitted that the relevant period was the fog season. Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4) also stated during cross-examination that the nights in January were ordinarily foggy and that, during the month of January, the sun would usually set at about 05:30 p.m. He also admitted that in the site plan (Exh.CW.4/D) he had not indicated any source of light available at the place of occurrence when he visited the spot during the night of the occurrence. In the absence of any indication in the site plan regarding the availability or source of light at the place of occurrence, coupled with the admitted foggy conditions prevailing at the relevant time, the ability of the alleged eyewitnesses to clearly observe and identify the assailants becomes a matter requiring careful scrutiny. In view of the importance of this aspect, the relevant portion of the cross- examination of Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), is reproduced hereunder:- “It is correct that in January i.e. in the days of occurrence, those were the foggy nights. It is correct that in January usually sun set round about 05.30 p.m. I have not mentioned any source of light available at

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

the place of occurrence at the time when I visited at the place of occurrence on the night of occurrence.”

Similarly, where the prosecution relies upon the identification of as many as five persons, allegedly emerging from a crop after sunset in foggy conditions, the absence of any disclosed or established source of light assumes considerable significance, particularly when the investigation itself failed to establish the presence of three of the nominated accused at the place of occurrence. In such eventuality, the failure of the prosecution to establish the availability and source of light at the relevant time constitutes a material deficiency which further impairs the credibility of the alleged eyewitnesses. This circumstance, when considered cumulatively with the other infirmities already noticed in their testimony and the investigative record, raises a serious doubt regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. Consequently, the possibility that Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) were not present at the crime scene and that the ocular account was subsequently introduced to implicate the appellant and his co-accused cannot safely be ruled out.

12.When the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2) is examined in juxtaposition with the medical evidence brought on record by Dr.Zahid Iqbal (CW.1), further material infirmities in the prosecution case become apparent. Dr. Zahid Iqbal (CW.1), who conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Manzoor Ahmad, prepared the post-mortem report (Exh.CW.1/A). A perusal thereof reveals that, although the dead body of Manzoor Ahmad was received in the dead house on 15.01.2021, the doctor failed to record the time of its receipt. Likewise, in the column relating to the conduct of the post-mortem examination, only the date, i.e. 15.01.2021, has been mentioned, with no time having been recorded. The lapse was not merely a matter of inference from the documentary record, rather Dr.Zahid Iqbal (CW.1) himself admitted the same during his cross- examination. In view of the materiality of this omission, the relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:-

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

“It is correct that I have not mentioned the time when the dead body of the deceased was received and when I conducted the postmortem examination.”

The aforesaid omission on the part of the doctor in recording the time of receipt of the dead body as well as the time at which the post-mortem examination was conducted assumes considerable significance. When such omission is viewed in the backdrop of the other circumstances appearing on record, the same gives rise to a legitimate inference that the exact timing of the post-mortem examination was deliberately left unrecorded so as to avoid any conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account. The absence of this material information, therefore, cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse, particularly when the timing of the post-mortem examination has a direct bearing upon the sequence of events projected by the prosecution. We have further noticed that Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2), both in their statements before the police and in their depositions before the learned trial court consistently maintained that, after the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and co-accused Waheed (since acquitted) had caused firearm injuries to deceased Manzoor Ahmad, the said accused, along with the remaining three co-accused (since acquitted) subjected the deceased to beating/torture. This part of the ocular account, however, does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. On the contrary, the testimony of Dr.Zahid Iqbal (CW.1), who conducted the post- mortem examination, materially contradicts the version furnished by the alleged eyewitnesses. The doctor, upon conducting the post-mortem examination, found only two firearm entry wounds along with their corresponding exit wounds on the body of the deceased and did not observe any mark of violence, beating or other injury suggestive of the alleged torture attributed to the accused by Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) and Zahoor Ahmad (PW.2). Thus, a material feature of the ocular account stands unsupported by the medical evidence rather is contradicted by it. Dr.Zahid Iqbal (CW.1) unequivocally admitted this position during his cross-examination. In view of the significance of this

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

admission, the relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:- “I did not observe any torture signs on the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem examination.”

In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the medical evidence stands in material and irreconcilable conflict with the ocular account furnished by the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the noticeable divergence between the medical and ocular evidence, materially erodes the prosecution case and constitutes yet another circumstance which renders the conviction of the appellant unsafe to sustain. In the case reported as Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129) the Supreme Court of Pakistan while dilating upon inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence observed as under:- “It is the settled principle of law that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution much less glaring conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or for that matter where presence of eyewitnesses is not free from doubt, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused.”

13.We have also carefully examined the PFSA report (Exh.PA), which states that .30-bore pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant, Maqsood alias Saeed, was found to have matched with two crime empties submitted for comparison. According to the testimony of Muhammad Ismail, SI (CW.4), the two crime empties (P.5/1-2) were taken into possession from the place of occurrence on 15.01.2021, the date of his first visit to the spot, through recovery memo Exh.PW.2/B. He further stated that the appellant was arrested on 16.01.2021 and that on 27.01.2021, he allegedly led to the recovery of a .30-bore pistol (P.7) along with three live bullets (P.8/1-3), which were taken into possession through memo Exh.PW.2/D. The PFSA report (Exh.PA), however, reveals that the parcel containing the two crime empties was received at the PFSA laboratory on 21.01.2021, whereas the parcel containing the .30-bore pistol was received on 29.01.2021. Thus, although the prosecution asserts that the crime empties had been secured from the place of occurrence on 15.01.2021, their dispatch to the PFSA took place

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

after the arrest of the appellant. In the circumstances, the possibility cannot safely be ruled out that, subsequent to the arrest of the appellant and the alleged recovery of the pistol, the crime empties were manipulated or substituted and thereafter dispatched to the PFSA for comparison with the recovered weapon, with a view to obtaining a report incriminating the appellant. Therefore, the PFSA report (Exh.PA) provides no meaningful corroboration to the ocular account.

14.We have also given our anxious consideration to the motive set up by the complainant in the FIR as well as in the private complaint. According to the prosecution, the genesis of the occurrence lay in a quarrel which had taken place a few days prior to the present incident, during which the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed allegedly fractured the hand of deceased Manzoor Ahmad, in consequence whereof FIR No.480/2020 dated 27.12.2020 was registered at Police Station Bahadur Shah under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 148 and 149, PPC. In this regard, it is noteworthy that FIR No.17/2019 and FIR No.480/2020 were admittedly got registered by Ali Sher against Maqsood and his co- accused on 14.01.2019 and 27.12.2020, respectively, a fact also conceded by the complainant during cross-examination. However, neither during the course of investigation nor at the trial did the complainant produce copies of the said FIRs so as to bring on record the nature and circumstances of the previous litigation between the parties. Although the existence of prior litigation between the parties seems to be proven yet the same by itself, cannot be treated as an unqualified circumstance corroborating the prosecution case. On the contrary, the possibility that such previous enmity may have furnished a motive for exaggeration or false implication of persons belonging to the opposite party cannot safely be excluded. It goes without saying that the motive sometimes supports the prosecution's case and frequently serves as a major reason for the false implication of an accused, making it consistently regarded as a double-edged sword. Guidance may be sought from the case reported as Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

“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.”

15.We have also examined another aspect of the case which, in our considered view, furnishes a decisive circumstance against the prosecution and proves to be the final nail in the coffin of its case. In his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant took a specific and consistent defence that the occurrence was, in fact, unwitnessed. According to him, on the day of occurrence, he along with his brother Waheed (since acquitted) and his minor son, proceeded on a motorcycle to attend a function arranged by his co-accused Umer Draz at the residence of Malik Muhammad Arshad, MPA. While they were returning on the same motorcycle, the deceased Manzoor Ahmad, Shahbaz, Ali Sher and their companion intercepted them and caused injuries to the appellant as well as his co-accused Waheed Ahmad. The appellant further maintained that, owing to the prevailing foggy conditions, the deceased sustained injuries at the hands of his own companion. The appellant did not rest his defence merely upon a bald assertion, rather he produced documentary material in its support. We have carefully scrutinized the statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the tenor of the cross-examination conducted on his behalf, as well as the documents brought on record in defence. These pieces of material, when examined in their entirety, disclose circumstances which materially lend support to the defence version. It emerges from the record that immediately after the occurrence, at about 6:30 p.m., the appellant made a call to Rescue 15 from his mobile number 0300- 4478227, whereas the complainant submitted an application seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant and others at about 7:05 p.m. on the same day. Thus, the appellant appears to have reported the occurrence before the complainant set the criminal law into motion, a circumstance which cannot be brushed aside lightly while evaluating the rival versions. Moreover, the document produced by the

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

appellant in defence, marked as Mark-DA, i.e. the DSMB report, further reveals that during the occurrence the appellant Maqsood alias Saeed and accused Waheed Ahmad, who was subsequently acquitted, also sustained injuries. As per Mark-DA the appellant was arrested on 15.01.2021 and was medically examined in police custody on 16.01.2021 at about 10:15 a.m. by Dr.Muhammad Umair Shahid, who issued MLC Exh.DF and noted three injuries on his person. The doctor, after examination, declared that there was no fabrication of injuries. The DSMB, in its report dated 19.06.2021, also endorsed the opinion of the initial medical examiner. The relevant portion of the DSMB report is reproduced hereunder:- “In view of above, all members of DSMB are of the unanimous opinion that site and characteristics of injury No.1 with comminuted fracture along with distal right humerus laterally, underneath it is not consistent with to be caused by fabrication/manipulation.”

Likewise, accused Waheed Ahmad (since acquitted) was initially medically examined by Dr.Muhammad Junaid Masood, who issued MLC Exh.DG and noted two injuries on the person of the accused- injured. The matter was subsequently placed before the DSMB, which vide its report Mark-DB, unanimously endorsed the opinion of the initial medical examiner, finding no reason to disagree with his report. This piece of medical evidence, therefore, lends further support to the defence version that the accused sustained injuries in the occurrence. The factum of medical examination of both the aforesaid accused, as well as the existence of injuries on their persons, was categorically admitted by the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) during his cross-examination in the following terms:- “It is correct that the police himself medically examined Maqsood and Waheed accused persons from DHQ Teaching Hospital Sahiwal on the following morning i.e. 16.01.2021. 1 have not annexed any application filed against Investigating Officer along-with instant complaint.”

The defence further produced on record the Call Data Record Exh.DC, which shows that, on 15.01.2021 at about 6:14 p.m., the appellant made a call to Rescue 15 from his mobile number 0300-4478227. The Rescue 15 record Exh.DD independently corroborates the making of the said call from the aforesaid number at the stated time. Thus, the defence

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

version finds material support from documentary evidence, which cannot be discarded without assigning cogent reasons. The defence taken by the appellant was also admitted by the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW.1) himself during his cross-examination in the following terms:- “It is correct that accused Maqsood during investigation took the version that on the day of occurrence he along with his brother Waheed and his minor son went to attend the dinner hosted by Umardraz on Motorcycle, when they came back to their home in the way near the tube-well of Shaukat Shah Sherazi where Manzoor deceased, Ali Sher son of Waryam, Ilyas and Shahbaz sons of Ali Sher intercepted us and caused injuries to me and my brother Waheed, it was also version of accused Maqsood that deceased and his companion made firing, it was foggy time and Manzoor received injuries during the firing, I and my brother also received injuries there, it was also the version of Maqsood accused that he made call to rescue 15 and police reached at the spot and apprehended him and Waheed in injured condition.”

The defence version also derives substantial support from the investigation conducted by Muhammad Ismail (CW.4). While dealing with the cross-version, the said Investigating Officer categorically stated that, according to the outcome of his investigation, it was the complainant party which had acted as the aggressor. He further disclosed that, in the cross-version case, all the accused except Rab Nawaz, were challaned by him. Such an unequivocal finding of Muhammad Ismail SI (CW.4) coupled with the contemporaneous medical and documentary evidence discussed hereinabove, materially corroborates the stance taken by the accused. The cumulative effect of the circumstances brought on record is that the defence version cannot be termed as a mere afterthought or a fanciful plea, rather, it finds support from independent and contemporaneous material available on the record. These circumstances, when considered cumulatively, cast serious doubt upon the prosecution's version and render its case unsafe for sustaining the conviction. The prosecution evidence, therefore, becomes embroiled in serious doubt, whereas the defence has succeeded in introducing a reasonable and plausible alternative account of the occurrence. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must necessarily accrue to the accused.

16.In view of the foregoing discussion and the cumulative effect of the infirmities noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that

Criminal Appeal No.23837 of 2023 & Murder Reference No.43 of 2023

the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant, Maqsood alias Saeed, beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence is fraught with material contradictions, omissions and circumstances creating serious doubt as to the truthfulness of its case. Such doubt is not to be resolved against the accused; rather, the benefit thereof is his legal entitlement and not a concession or matter of grace. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.67978 of 2022 filed by Maqsood alias Saeed is allowed. By extending to him the benefit of doubt, his conviction and sentence are set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in custody; he shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. Consequently, Murder Reference No.43 of 2023 is answered in the NEGATIVE, and the sentence of death awarded to the appellant, Maqsood alias Saeed, 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 09.09.2026, dictated, prepared, and signed on 15.09.2026 Najum*