Muhammad Qasam Alias Kashoo vs The State

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.322-J of 2020 (Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo v. The State and another) Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2021 (Muhammad Tariq v. The State, etc.)

Criminal Revision No.12 of 2021 (Mst. Kausar Bibi v. The State and another)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 10.09.2026

Appellants by: Syed Zeeshan Haider, Advocate.

State by: Mr. Zafar Iqbal Soomro, DDP.

Complainant by: Ch. Tahir Rasool, Advocate.

SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH, J.: Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo and Muhammad Tariq (‘appellants’) were charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur (‘trial Court’), for offences under Sections 302, 365, and 34, PPC, on allegations of committing qatl-e-amd of Umar Farooq, in case FIR No.175/2019 dated 12.04.2019, registered at police station Saddar, Dunyapur, district Lodhran (Ex.PL). On conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 21.12.2020, the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302(b)/34, PPC, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life as Tazir. Compensation of Rs.200,000/-, under Section 544- A, Cr.P.C, was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased; in default of which, they would be liable to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was, however, extended to the convicts (‘impugned judgment’).

2.Through Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2020, appellant Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo, and through Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2021, appellant Muhammad Tariq, have assailed their respective conviction and sentence recorded vide the impugned judgment; whereas Mst. Kausar Bibi (‘Complainant) has preferred

Crl.Appeal No.322 of 2020 (2) Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

Criminal Revision No.12 of 2021 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convicts/appellants. Since all three matters arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided through this single judgment.1

3.The gist of prosecution’s case, necessary for adjudication, as unveiled by informant Mst. Kausar Bibi (PW-2) in her written application (Ex.PB), is that on 01.01.2019, at about 07:00 p.m., her son Umar Farooq, aged 17 years, went to see appellant Qasim, son of Allah Bakhsh, but did not return by late night, whereupon she informed her husband Muhammad Ismail, who was away at Lahore for livelihood, and her brother Muhammad Aslam. On the following morning, i.e., 02.01.2019, at about 07:00/08:00 a.m., she, along with her husband and brother, went to the house of Qasim alias Kashoo and inquired about her son, whereupon he replied that her son had not come to him nor did he know about his whereabouts. She, thereafter, obtained call data record (‘CDR’), which reflected five calls made by her son, from his cell phone bearing SIM No.0340-7035235, to the cell phone of accused Qasim bearing SIM No.0349-1671322, the last of which was made on 01.01.2019 at 06:47 p.m. On confronting the accused with the CDR, he grew worried, dilly-dallied, and admitted that the deceased had come to him to obtain money, but did not disclose the complete story. Having developed a strong suspicion that accused Qasim had abducted her son, she, through the intervention of a panchayat, repeatedly approached him, but he ultimately refused to divulge any information regarding her son, whereupon the FIR (Ex.PL) was lodged, seeking recovery of her son and proceeding against the accused in accordance with law.

4.Initially, the case was investigated by Aamir Masood, SI (PW-4), who deposed that on 12.04.2019, while posted at police station Saddar, Dunyapur, the informant tendered her written application (Ex.PB), on the basis whereof he chalked out formal FIR (Ex.PL). He visited the place of occurrence on the same day, prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PM), recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C, and conducted a raid to arrest the accused, who could not be See Qasim Mahmood v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 463 Peshawar), wherein it was held that “In absence of any express barring clause in Cr.P.C. the court, in exercise of its inherent power, can decide such two petitions, through common judgment, fate of which has strong bearing on fate of other... So disposal of criminal appeal against conviction and criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, through common judgment is not an illegality or material irregularity which may vitiate the proceedings, so recorded.”

Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

traced. On 13.04.2019, he moved an application for procurement of the CDR, whereafter, on 02.05.2019, he was transferred to district Vehari. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to Mehboob Hussain, SI (PW-5), who deposed to have arrested accused Qasim alias Kashoo on 12.05.2019, obtained his physical remand on 14.05.2019, and during further remand granted on 17.05.2019, appellant Qasim alias Kashoo disclosed, in the presence of the informant and witnesses, that on 01.01.2019, at about 07/08:00 p.m., the deceased had come to them and that he, along with co-accused/appellant Muhammad Tariq, had committed his qatl-e-amd. Mehboob Hussain, SI (PW-5) further deposed to have recorded supplementary statements of the informant and witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C, nominating appellant Muhammad Tariq through the same, and that on 18.05.2019, both accused, while on physical remand, made a disclosure leading to recovery of the dead body of the deceased, and led the police party to Chak No.237/W.B, Mouza Haiderabad, where the dead body of Umar Farooq was recovered after digging out the earth, whereupon Section 302, PPC, was added to the case. Statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, was submitted before the trial Court, whereupon trial commenced.

5.To substantiate its case against the appellants, the prosecution produced eight witnesses, including informant Mst. Kausar Bibi (PW-2) and the father of the deceased, Muhammad Ismail (PW-3). On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the trial Court recorded the appellants' statements under Section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein, in answer to the question as to why the case had been foisted upon them and why the witnesses had deposed against them, they replied that they stood falsely implicated owing to the mala fide intention of the complainant, and that the witnesses, being inter se related, had deposed against them only at her instance. The appellants neither opted to appear as their own witnesses on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor produced any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as detailed in paragraph No.1 above. Hence, the instant appeals and criminal revision.

6.Hearkened. Record perused.

Crl.Appeal No.322 of 2020 (4) Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

7.It is discernible from scrutinization of the material available on the judicial file that the unfortunate incident, wherein the deceased lost his life, went unwitnessed, and the case of the prosecution, in its entirety, hinges on circumstantial evidence. This Court is cognizant that when a case rests solely on such type of evidence, extraordinary care and caution is required while reappraising evidence.2 And while doing so, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the chain of evidence is like a well-knit chain and there’s no break therein, and the circumstances are such that the only logical hypothesis is that innocence of the accused cannot be suggested, the case is fit for conviction of the accused person on such conclusion; however, the Court finds that there is a missing link in the chain, the same renders is unreliable,3 and the conviction cannot be sustained.4 The crucial piece of evidence on which the case of the prosecution hinges upon are dilated in turn, hereinbelow.

8.It has straightaway been observed that the alleged occurrence took place on 01.01.2019 at about 07:00 p.m., whereas it was reported to the police only on 12.04.2019 at about 04:30 p.m., i.e., after a delay of three months and twelve days, notwithstanding that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is a mere nine miles. Although the complainant sought to explain away this delay on the ground that she, along with the witnesses, had been visiting the accused persons to secure the release of her son, and that the FIR came to be registered only upon their categorical refusal, such explanation does not commend itself to a prudent mind. If the complainant and the witnesses were, in fact, aware that the abductee/deceased was in the illegal custody of the accused persons, no plausible reason emerges as to why they chose to remain silent for a period of almost three and a half months. Considering the above, the delay in the registration of FIR lends credence to the view that time was consumed to fabricate a false, frivolous and vexatious narrative. Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad Nadeem v. The State (2026 SCMR 1323).

Osama v. The State (2026 SCMR 1146) and Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600).

Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR 986), Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) and Imran alias Dullay v. The State (2015 SCMR 155).

Osama v. The State (2026 SCMR 1146), Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), Imran v. The State (2015 SCMR 155), Muhammad Hussain v. The State (2011 SCMR 1127), Ibrahim v. The State (2009 SCMR 407), Barkat Ali v. Karam Elahi (1992 SCMR 1047), Saeed Ahmad v. Muhammad Irfan (PLD 1986 SC 690) and Karamat Hussain v. The State (1972 SCMR 15).

Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

9.It has further been noticed that the prosecution has relied upon two witnesses, namely, informant Mst. Kausar Bibi (PW-2) and Muhammad Ismail (PW-3), neither of whom is an eye-witness to the occurrence, but rather, they deposed regarding different links of circumstantial evidence. Mst. Kausar Bibi (PW-2) categorically alleged that she obtained the CDR, from which she learned that correspondence took place between the deceased and appellant Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo on the date of his abduction, and that she, along with the other witnesses, confronted the accused with the said record, whereupon he admitted the occurrence. Such conduct, at the very stage when the complainant is stated to have acquired knowledge of her son’s abduction, does not accord with natural human behaviour, and renders the prosecution's case highly doubtful.

10.The record reflects that investigation was initially conducted by Aamir Masood, SI (PW-4), who deposed regarding the proceedings undertaken between 12.04.2019 and 13.04.2019, whereafter, upon his transfer, the investigation was entrusted to Mehboob Hussain, SI (PW-5). The latter deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation on 12.05.2019, arrested appellant Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo on the same day, and obtained his physical remand on 14.05.2019, during which the appellant disclosed, in the presence of the informant and witnesses, that on 01.01.2019, at about 07:00/08:00 p.m., the deceased had come to them and that he, along with his co-accused, had committed his murder. It has been noted that accused Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo was nominated by the witnesses through a supplementary statement dated 18.05.2019, subsequent whereto he was arrested. It has further been observed that both the appellants jointly made a disclosure before the Investigating Officer leading to recovery of the dead body of the deceased, and led the police party jointly to Chak No.237/W.B, Mouza Haiderabad, where the dead body was recovered after digging out the earth, whereupon Section 302, PPC, was added to the case. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by Ejaz Mubashir, Inspector (PW-8), who categorically deposed that both accused jointly pointed out the place of recovery of the dead body, which was accordingly taken into possession after preparation of the rough site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.PO). It is noteworthy that in Ex.PO, the names of both accused stand recorded against the unscaled site plan at Point-I, which establishes that the pointation was made jointly

Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

by both accused persons. The joint pointation for recovery of the dead body in the present case runs contrary to the law and procedure governing such recoveries. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Mushtaq v. Mustansar Hussain (2016 SCMR 2123), wherein it was held that the joint recovery of dead body on pointation of several accused persons is inadmissible in evidence. Since such joint recovery is inadmissible, the same offers no assistance to the prosecution in sustaining the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court.

11.Turning to the remaining link relied upon by the prosecution, specifically, the statement of Dr. Muhammad Umair Ansari, Medical Officer (PW-7), who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Umar Farooq on 18.05.2019, while posted at Rural Health Centre, Chak No.231/W.B. It has been observed that Dr. Muhammad Umair Ansari, Medical Officer (PW-7) noted, in the post-mortem report, that the dead body was totally putrefied and unidentifiable. Dr. Muhammad Umair Ansari, Medical Officer (PW-7), during cross-examination, further conceded as under: “When dead body was brought to me, it was unidentifiable due to advanced putrefaction. Cause of death of deceased cannot be given even after receiving the PFSA report.”

It merits mention that not an iota of evidence exists on record by which the prosecution could establish that the dead body recovered was, in fact, that of the abductee/deceased Umar Farooq, no DNA report or analysis having been placed on record, which circumstance further shrouds the prosecution's case in doubt.

12.Regarding the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from accused Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo, it has been observed that Ejaz Mubashir, Inspector (PW-8), during cross-examination, categorically conceded as under: “Complainant party did not produce the box of mobile phone. I did not interrogate that who purchased the mobile phone P-3. Mobile phone of each and every company is easily available in the market. Recovery of mobile phone was affected more than four months after the date of occurrence. I did not interrogate about the ownership of SIM No.0349-1671322. I did not join any Lumberdar or Chowkidar of the Chak into recovery proceedings at the time of recovery affected on the pointation of accused Tariq. I did not go to Q- company for the verification of IMEI No. of mobile recovered on the pointation

Crl.Appeal No.24 of 2021 Crl.Revision No.12 of 2021

of accused Tariq. I did not make any effort to know about the ownership of SIM and mobile.”

Such recovery, considering that the ownership of the mobile phone itself being under a shadow of doubt, is of no assistance to the prosecution.

13.In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any unbroken chain connecting the appellants with the alleged occurrence. To this end, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person, regarding the guilt of an accused, entitles him to the benefit thereof, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Reliance is placed on Shahbaz alias Gillo v. The State (2016 SCMR 2123), Ali Imran v. The State (2026 SCMR 1370), and Iftikhar Ahmad alias Papu v. The State

(2026 SCMR 1010).

14.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against appellants Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo and Muhammad Tariq beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, both Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2021 are allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur, is set aside, and the appellants Muhammad Qasim alias Kashoo and Muhammad Tariq are acquitted of the charge by extending to them the benefit of doubt. They are on bail, and their bail bonds stand discharged from liability. The case property shall be disposed of by the trial Court strictly in accordance with law. Criminal Revision No.12 of 2021, filed by informant Mst. Kausar Bibi for enhancement of sentence, stands dismissed.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

This judgment has been pronounced on 10.09.2026;

dictated, prepared on 11.09.2026, and signed on 14.09.2026 Rana Yamin*