Muhammad Ahtasham vs The State etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2024 (Muhammad Ehtisham v. The State and another)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 25.09.2026.

Appellant by: Messrs Muhammad Afzal Teja and Syed Zeshan Haider, Advocates.

State by: Mr. Zafar Iqbal Somoro, Deputy District Prosecutor.

Informant by: Messrs Pervaiz Akhtar, Mian Umair Mohsin and Muhammad Sharif Mayo, Advocates.

SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH, J.: Muhammad Ehtisham (‘appellant’) was charged and tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur (‘trial Court’), for offences under Sections 302 and 34 PPC, on allegations of committing qatl-i-amd of Tariq Khursheed in case FIR No.61/2023 dated 13.02.2023, registered with police station Sadar, Yazman, district Bahawalpur. Vide judgment dated 29.02.2024, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b), PPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life as ta’zir. Legal heirs of deceased were awarded compensation of Rs.300,000/-, under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C; in default whereof, appellant would further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended to the appellant (‘impugned judgment’).

2.Necessary facts, for deciding the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment, are that informant Izhar-ul-Haq (PW-12) submitted his written application (Ex.PJ), stating therein that on 13.02.2023, at 03:36 p.m., his sister namely Musarrat Parveen, informed him that her son, Tariq Khursheed, had not returned from the school, upon which the informant alongwith his brother Abdul Hafeez and nephew Amir started

searching for Tariq Khursheed. During this search, they reached Faisal Town, Chak No.117/DB and witnessed an unknown person driving a motorcycle, with the appellant sitting behind him and holding a bloodstained knife in his hand and his clothes were also stained with blood; that informant tried to apprehend the appellant but the latter, while brandishing the knife, extended threats of dire consequences, and succeeded in fleeing away. The informant and his witnesses then rushed to the park, which was in front of them, and there they found the dead body of Tariq Khurshed, who was lying there with a wound in his neck, and was soaked in blood. Motive was attributed to the appellant keeping a bad eye on Tariq Khurshed. Hence, FIR was registered.

3.The case was investigated by Abdul Razzaq, SI (PW-15), who deposed that on 13.02.2023, after receiving the information by police emergency service 15, he reached the place of occurrence where the informant preferred application for registration of case, upon which he recorded his proceedings Ex.PJ/1. He inspected the dead body, prepared injury statement (Ex.PF) and inquest report (Ex.PE) and thereafter dispatched the complaint to the police station through Sana Ullah Constable for registration of FIR, while deputing Ejaz Ahmad 588/C to escort the dead body for postmortem examination by 1122 emergency service to THQ Hospital Yazman. He inspected the place of occurrence on the pointation of informant and PWs, prepared un-scaled site plan (Ex.PP). On 14.02.2023, after postmortem examination, Ejaz Ahmad constable handed over to him the last worn clothes comprising Qameez (P-1), Shalwar (P-2), white Banyan (P-3), brown jacket (P-4) blood stained, brown boot (P-5), brown coloured socks (P-6/1-2), a ring (P-7), PMR and two sealed Khaki envelopes which he took into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PM). He recorded the statements of witnesses, who identified the dead body, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 26.02.2023, he received a call from Shabbir Hussain, upon which he reached the house of Shabbir Hussain and arrested the appellant, who confessed his crime. He recorded the statements of Shabbir Hussain and Adnan. On 02.03.2023, the appellant got recovered churri, blood stained, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PN) and prepared the site plan (Ex.PQ) of the place of recovery. The appellant also got recovered motor bicycle Honda

CD-70 bearing registration No.BRL-4745 (P-15) from his house, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PO) and the investigating officer prepared un-scaled site plan of place of recovery (Ex.PR).

4.After completing the investigation, police report, under Section 173, Cr.P.C, was submitted with the trial Court. The trial Court took cognizance, issued process, and after supply of copies of necessary documents, formally indicted the appellant. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses and closed its evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded appellant’s statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein he professed his innocence. He did not appear as his own witness, under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, however, produced Bilal Rabbani, EMT, (CW-1), Kashif Khureed, JCO, (CW-2), Nasir, PCO, (CW-3) and Abdul Razzaq SI, Incharge Wireless Control (CW-4) as defence witnesses. After considering the evidence led before it, the trial Court found the appellant guilty, and vide the impugned judgment, proceeded to convict him while passing the sentence, as already detailed in paragraph No.1 above. Hence, this criminal appeal.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The prosecution case, as emanating from the case FIR, hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence because the actual incident of how Tariq Khursheed lost his life went unwitnessed. The Honorable Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), laid down the parameters for appraising circumstantial evidence and held that where the facts and circumstances are such that there is no possible hypothesis other than one which is consistent with the guilt of the accused, the case becomes fit for convicting the accused, however, where the facts are such that they can be reconciled with any reasonable hypothesis that is compatible with the innocence of the accused, then the case is to be treated as one of insufficient evidence, and benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. In simpler terms, in murder cases built entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to provide evidence that is like a well-knit chain that touches the accused on one hand, while the other hand touches the neck of the accused. But where the prosecution fails and there is a missing link in the

chain, the same has the effect of breaking the whole chain and rendering the evidence unsafe to rely upon for conviction. In this case, the prosecution produced witnesses of wajtakar, medical evidence, extra-judicial confession, recovery and motive. Each of these is addressed in turn.

7.A wade through the evidence available on record provides that prosecution alleges that the occurrence took place on 13.02.2023 at about 03:36 p.m., whereas the first entry regarding the incident by Izhar-ul-Haq (PW-12) to set the machinery of law into motion was on the same day at 05:40 p.m., after lapse of almost two hours. This time lapse does not, at first glance and taken in isolation, seem sufficient for the possibility of consultation and fabrication to creep in. However, surrounding circumstances, which the Courts examine to verify whether the FIR was lodged at the time mentioned in column No.1 of FIR or whether an ante-timed FIR was lodged by stopping the relevant police registers to make an otherwise belated and delayed FIR appear as promptly registered, tell a different story. As stated earlier, the occurrence took place on 13.02.2023 at 03:36 p.m., but dead body did not reach the mortuary until 10:30 p.m., and even after such delay, the police papers were submitted with Dr. Arham Muneer, Medical Officer (PW-8) on the next day, i.e., 14.02.2023, at 10:30 a.m., whereafter he (PW-8) conducted the autopsy at 10:30 a.m. after inordinate delay of 19 hours and 4 minutes. Regarding the delay in conducting post mortem report of the deceased, an extract from the cross-examination of Dr. Arham Muneer (PW-8) is essentially required to be reproduced, which is as under: “There is absolutely not delay on my part in conducting autopsy of this case. Until I received police papers from the investigation agency I could not conduct autopsy as per our SOPs. On 14.02.2023, at 10:30 a.m. police papers of deceased Tariq Khursheed were handed over to me and I without wasting time started to conduct autopsy within ten minutes.”

From the above reproduced cross-examination of Dr. Arham Muneer (PW-8), it is crystal clear that the autopsy got delayed due to late submission of police papers, which reflects that until the post-mortem examination was conducted, the prosecution story was still in its embryonic stage and an ante-timed FIR

was registered by the police.1 Considering the above discussion, the delay in conducting a post-mortem examination becomes indicative of the fact that, till such time, the requisite documents had not been prepared, and that the intervening time duration was consumed in consultation and in procuring and planting witnesses for the purpose of concocting a false prosecution narrative prior to preparing the necessary police papers, required for conducting post-mortem examination, which circumstance itself casts serious skepticism upon the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution’s case. Reliance is placed on Muhammad alias Ahmad v. The State (2025 SCMR 2052).

8.Due to the above highlighted discrepancy, the remaining prosecution evidence was perused with due care and caution. To reiterate, the prosecution case emanating for FIR is that on 13.02.2023, after being informed by his sister that her son Tariq Khursheed had not returned from school, Izhar-ul-Haq informant (PW-12), along with Abdul Hafeez and Amir (PW-13), began searching for him. During the search, they allegedly saw the appellant riding pillion on a motorcycle, while holding a bloodstained knife and wearing bloodstained clothes. When they attempted to apprehend him, the appellant threatened them with the said knife and managed to escape. Shortly thereafter, they found Tariq Khursheed lying dead in a nearby park with a neck injury and his body soaked in blood. Both the said witnesses deposed in line with the FIR. However, during cross-examination, Izhar-ul-Haq (PW-12) stated that his house was at a distance of 7 to 8 kilometers from the park where the dead body was found, while Muhammad Amir Hussain (PW-13) during cross-examination stated that he run a motorcycle workshop situated at Chandni Chowk Yazman, which was situated at a distance of 6 to 6 1⁄2 kilometers away from Chak No.104/DB from the residence of Izhar-ul-Haq (PW-12), and that his workshop was situated at a distance of 2 to 21⁄2 kilometers from Faisal Town, Chak No.117/DB, where the park from where the dead body was found and recovered is located. Generally when witnesses are not residents of the locality where the alleged crime has purportedly taken place, they are, at best, chance witnesses because they were not supposed to be at the crime spot at the fateful time in the ordinary course of their place of 1Muhammad Ali v The State (2021 YLR 138 Lahore) and Muhammad Azam v The State (PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1053).

residence, business and normal course of events. As such, the presumption under the law is about their absence and that the occurrence went unwitnessed, unless they furnish some convincing explanation regarding their presence.2

9.Although the prosecution case is not one of direct evidence but rather the witnesses being wajtakar evidence because of their claim to have seen the appellant escape from in front of the park from where the dead body was found while the appellant had blood stains on his clothes and was also holding a blood stained knife., but the lack of evidence regarding their absence. At the same time, the probative strength and intrinsic value of wajtakar evidence rests on the doctrine of res gestae, in terms of Article 19, QSO, which is based on the assumption that statement of witnesses that constituted part of the res gestae is only attributed a certain degree of reliability when it is contemporaneous, making them admissible by virtue of their nature and the strength of statements connection with a particular event and the ability of the witnesses to explain the event comprehensively. 3 In this case, however, the failure of the wajtakar witnesses to establish their presence at or near Faisal Town, Chak No.117/DB, where the park from which dead body was found, casts serious suspicion as to whether they actually witnessed the appellant, with blood stained weapon in hand, decamp from near the park or not. To figure out whether the witnesses were actually present, and their evidence can be treated as wajtakar evidence, surrounding evidence was appraised and it became instantly evident that the wajtakar witnesses, even if present, cannot be relied on because it stands contradicted by other evidence. For instance, the wajtakar witnesses stated that the occurrence took place at 03:36 p.m., but according to column No. 3 of the inquest report (Ex.PE), the police found out about the death of Tariq Khursheed deceased and Abdul Razzaq SI (PW-15), along with other officials, reached at the place of occurrence on 13.02.2023 at 02:24 p.m. Relevant portion of the inquest report (Ex.PE) is reproduced as under:

13-2-2023 بجیدن مورخہ2/24 بوقت وقوع موت کے معلوم کرنے کی تاریخ ووقت 2 Muhammad Nadeem v. The State (2026 SCMR 1323), Muhammad Zubair v. The State (2026 SCMR 1193) and Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez (2015 SCMR 1142). 3 Muhammad Ijaz v. The State (2023 SCMR 1375).

The above portion of the inquest report (Ex.PE) demonstrates that the time of when police found out about the occurrence and found the dead body is much prior to the time of occurrence at which the prosecution witnesses claim the incident transpired. The finding of police in inquest report (Ex.PE) find independent support and corroboration from Nasir, Police Communication Officer (CW-3), who also contradicted the alleged time of occurrence as stated in the FIR (Ex.PG) and by the wajtakar witnesses and deposed in line with the time mentioned in the inquest report (Ex.PE). Relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as below:

“I have brought detail of call made to 15 (Punjab Safe Cities Project) on 13.02.2023, at 14:21 from cell No.0303-6903845, Adda Tailwala Yazman. The caller passed on the information of murder of a boy. According to police feedback, dead body of Traiq son of Khursheed 16/17 years old was found. Report is Exh.CW-3/A.”

Similarly, Abdul Razzaq, SI, Incharge Wireless Control, Bahawalpur, appeared as CW-4 and deposed in his examination in chief that: “I have brought logbook, according to which on 13.02.2023, at 02:26 p.m. an unknown caller made the call from cell No.0303-6903845 and reported that at main road Tailwala, a child 16/17 years old was found in a critically injured condition. This information was passed on to concerned quarters. I submit the copy of the concerned page of logbook as Exh.CW-4/A.”

Additionally, Kashif Khursheed, JCO, District Control Room, Rescue (CW-2) testified that:

“On 13.02.2023, I was posted at District Control Room, Rescue Service, Bahawalpur, on morning duty. On the said date, at 2:50 p.m. I received a call and the caller informed me that a dead body was lying in Faisal Garden, Tailwala. I confirmed from the caller whether it was a dead body to which the caller replied that there was a possibility that the body might be breathing and he further stated that huge blood loss had occurred and that he could not go near the body. At 02:52 p.m. I dispatched an ambulance from Yazman to the place of occurrence. According to online record, the ambulance had reached the location at 03:06 p.m. I produce attested copy of emergence call form Exh.CW-2/A.”

Lastly, Bilal Rabbani, Emergency Medical Technician (CW-1) appeared before the trial Court and testified that:

“On 13.02.2023, I was posted at RS-06 Yazman. On the said date, a call was received at 02:56 p.m. from control room. The

distance between our office and the place of occurrence was 21 Kms and I alongwith LTV Muhammad Naeem reached the place of occurrence (Faisal Town Yazman) in seven minutes. When we reached the spot, the police was already present who had cordoned off the crime scene. The dead body of Tariq Khursheed was lying there and clotting was already present. The dead body had already expired having neck injury and the same was shifted to THQ Yazman. The persons present at the spot had disclosed that some unknown person had cut his throat with sharp weapon. I submit attested copy of response form as Exh.CW-1/1.”

The above findings and dispositions remained unrebutted and unshattered, and as such, no other opinion can be reached other than the fact that the time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution does not reconcile with the testimonies of court witnesses, as well as the inquest report (Ex.PE) which the prosecution itself produced and tendered in evidence. In other words, the above contradicts the intrinsic substance of the testimonies of wajtakar witnesses, and therefore, their testimonies are not worthy of credence. Reliance is placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (2026 SCMR 60) and Fateh Khan v. The State (2025 SCMR 1408). Further, the above pointed discrepancy regarding the time with the time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not such that it can be termed an insignificant or incidental lapse; rather, it creates a serious and unexplained lacuna in that goes to the root of the prosecution case, and renders doubtful the chronology regarding the occurrence, reporting of the matter, and commencement of investigation. Thereby, this lacuna shatters the chain of circumstantial evidence, and creates sufficient reasonable doubt with regards to the authenticity and veracity of the prosecution case, benefit of which cannot be withheld from the appellant.

10.Insofar as the alleged confession of guilty by the appellant in presence of Shabbir Hussain (PW-10) and Adnan Ashraf (PW-11) is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that, it can, at best be termed as an extra-judicial confession, which is a weak type of evidence and as a rule of prudence, it requires corroboration from independent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring evidence emanating from an unimpeachable source before it can be made the basis of a conviction.4 In Shahid Ali v. The State (PLD 2026 SC 126), the Honorable Supreme Court held that:

4 Imran alias Dully v. The State (2015 SCMR 155).

“the fundamental principle regarding the admissibility and assessment of a confession, judicial or extra judicial, is that it ought to be genuine voluntary and must have been made out of one's free will. It must have been given freely and without any coercion or influence in any form.”

In this case, neither any independent corroboration is present, nor is there any explanation with regards to why the appellant was not produced by Abdul Razzaq, SI (PW-15), before a Magistrate for recording his alleged admission to the purported crime, in terms of Sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said allegation of confession by appellant, cannot be stated to have been made voluntarily, out of his own free will, without any coercion or influence, especially considering that the appellant denied the charge and also asserted his innocence in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. As such, this piece of evidence neither stands proven, nor does it advance the prosecution’s case in any regard.

11.The next piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged recovery of blood stained Chhurri (P-11), secured vide recovery memo (Ex.PN). In this regard, it has been observed that the appellant was arrested on 26.02.2023, 13 days after the occurrence. In such circumstances, it is neither expected nor believable that the appellant would keep the weapon of offence as a souvenir when he had ample opportunity to destroy or tamper with the same. Reliance is placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) and Bashir Ahmed alias Mannu v. The State (1996 SCMR 308). Regarding recovery of motorcycle Honda CD-70 bearing registration No.BRL-4745 (P-15), which was recovered from his house and taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PO), this Court has observed that the mandatory provision of Section 103, Cr.P.C, was violated because no person of the locality was associated with the search and seizure. In Hassan Khan v. The State (PLD 2026 SC 187), the Honorable Supreme Court held that weapon of offence, which was recovered from a residential house without recourse to witness of the locality being associated with the seizure during recovery proceedings violated of the provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C, therefore, such recovery could not be relied upon. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be reached is that the recovery fails to connect the

appellant with the alleged crime. Considering the above, the aforementioned recovery does not furnish any meaningful corroboration to the prosecution version, and is inconsequential.

12.Regarding the motive aspect of this case, it was alleged that the appellant used to keep a bad eye on the deceased Tariq Khursheed. Appraisal of evidence provides that, except oral assertions, no material was produced to substantiate the motive, which is a double-edged sword which might be the reason for commission of an offence, but at the same time, it can very readily be the reason for false involvement of an accused in a criminal case. Reliance is placed on Azhar Iqbal v. The State (2026 SCMR 182). Therefore, the motive is discarded.

13.In light of the above discussion, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the prosecution has failed to meet the evidentiary standard required to form a well-knit chain. Contrarily, the chain of circumstances in this case are not strong or sufficient to conclude that one end touches the appellant’s neck while the other touches the dead body of the deceased because the chronological chain of events does not appeal to reason and stand contradicted by the documents and testimonies given by court witnesses. In this regard, it is an established principle of law that it is not necessary that there must be multiple infirmities or several circumstances in the prosecution case that create doubt, but even if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the appellant, the said benefit is to be extended to the appellant as a matter of right and is sufficient to acquit the appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ali Imran v. The State (2026 SCMR 1370) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).

14.In consequence of the aforementioned discussion, criminal appeal No.138 of 2024 of appellant Muhammad Ehtisham is allowed; the impugned judgment dated 29.02.2024, passed by trial

Court, is set aside; and, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. If not required in any other case, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

Approved For Reporting

JUDGE

This judgment has been pronounced on 25.09.2026; dictated, prepared on 28.09.2026, and signed on 29.09.2026.

Rana Yamin*