Muhammad Iqbal vs State etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2021 (Muhammad Iqbal v. The State and another)

PSLA No.30 of 2021 (Muhammad Arslan v. The State and others)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 30.09.2026

Appellant by: Mirza Muhammad Azam, Advocate.

State by: Mr. Zafar Iqbal Soomro, DDP.

Complainant by: Syed Zeeshan Haider, Advocate.

SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH, J.: Muhammad Iqbal (‘appellant’), along with co-accused, was charged and tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Haroonabad, district Bahawalnagar (‘trial Court’), for offence under Section 3(2), Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (‘Act’) in private complaint filed by Muhammad Khalid Shafique. Vide judgment dated 08.06.2021, the trial Court acquitted co-accused of the appellant; however, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years, along with direction to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/-, under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C, to the legal heirs of complainant. Amount of compensation was directed to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and in default thereof, the appellant would further serve six months simple imprisonment (‘impugned judgment’).

2.The appellant has filed criminal appeal No.246 of 2021 against impugned judgment and seeks his acquittal; whereas Muhammad Arslan, son of complainant, has filed PSLA No.30 of 2021 against acquittal of co-accused. Since both these matters arise from the same impugned judgment, they are decided together.

3.Necessary facts for adjudication of these appeals are that complainant Muhammad Khalid Shafique (who murdered during pendency of the private

Crl. Appeal No.246 of 2021 (2) PSLA No.30 of 2021

complaint) had filed a complaint under Section 3/4, Act, against the appellant and co-accused, alleging therein ownership status of Kila No.1 Square No.45 measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas. The appellant purchased 10 marla land situated in Rectangle No.32, Kila No.18, from his father, Shafique Anwar, through mutation No.1583 dated 28.05.2012, and possession of this land had been handed over. However, the appellant, in connivance with co-accused, illegally dispossessed his father from Kila No.1 Square No.45 and filed a suit for permanent injunction titled: Muhammad Iqbal v. Shafique Anwar, but the civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2019. After dismissal of suit, the instant private complaint was filed before the trial Court, and after recording cursory evidence, as well as conducting inquiry in which the SHO and Tehsildar concerned submitted their reports, the learned trial Court issued process to the appellant and others. After they entered appearance, the learned trial Court complied with the pre-trial procedure before formally indicting them. The appellant and co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. To substantiate its case, the complainant produced Muhammad Shahbaz (PW-1) and Muhammad Lateef Janbnaz (PW-2), while the trial Court summoned, inter alia, Ehsan ul Haq, Patwari (CW-1) and Pervez Akhtar, SHO (CW-2). Thereafter statement of appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C, was recorded, wherein he professed his innocence; however, he neither produced any defence evidence, nor appeared as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted co-accused of appellant, while convicting and sentencing him as detailed in paragraph No.1 above.

4.Arguments heard, record perused.

5.In order to secure a conviction under Section 3, Act, complainant has to establish, through cogent evidence, that: (i) complainant is the lawful owner or was the lawful occupier of the subject immovable property;” (ii) the complainant was in lawful possession over, and had dominion, the property; (iii) the accused had entered into or upon the said property on a particular date, time and the manner, without having any lawful authority; (iii) the accused had done so with the intention to dispossess, or to grab or to control or to occupy the said property.1 Najma Bibi v. Zakir Abbasi (Crl.P.L.A.768/2024), Niaz Ahmed v. Aijaz Ahmed (PLD 2024 SC 1152) and Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan (2010 SCMR 1254).

PSLA No.30 of 2021

6.Evidence led by private prosecution was appraised in light of the above principles enunciated by the Honorable Supreme Court. Although there is no statutory limitation for filing a private complaint under Section 3, Act. At the same time, inordinate delay in approaching the Court without any plausible or legal justification casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations levelled in the complaint. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan (2010 SCMR 105) and Muhammad Riaz v. The State (PLD 2018 Lahore 118). In the case at hand, there is a delay of one month and four days in lodging the private complaint, and in the absence of any reason justifying such delay, possibility of concocting a false and vexatious story against the appellant with an exaggerated narrative for sinister motives cannot be ruled out. Further, it is obvious from the averments of the complaint that the allegation of illegal dispossession from the subject property by the appellant through force has not been established because neither the date, nor the time, of the alleged occurrence has been specified, nor has any eye-witness of the alleged dispossession been produced, nor was any independent witness from the locality or adjoining property was produced to corroborate the allegation of forcible dispossession of land. Notably, the complainant himself passed away during the pendency of the complaint and his examination-in-chief could neither be recorded, and in absence thereof, the credibility of the allegations levelled by him could also not be impeached through the test of cross-examination, leaving the principal allegation(s) regarding possession, dispossession and the alleged conduct of the appellant without substantive support from its maker. It is also discernible that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses concerning the nature and extent of possession and the identification of the disputed portion. To this end, the documentary evidence in the shape of revenue report does not help the private prosecution case as it falls short of establishing the essential factual foundation of the charge because from perusal of record, it is evident that the property is part of a joint khata, with the appellant being owner of 10 marlas in it. This fact was itself admitted by the private prosecution. In such circumstances, the private prosecution ought to have established the precise identity, location, boundaries and extent of the particular portion of land/immovable property in the joint khata which was allegedly in the lawful possession of the complainant and after establishing this fact, it should have established that the appellant entered

PSLA No.30 of 2021

upon or forcibly occupied that identified part of land without lawful authority. However, the private prosecution failed to do so. In the absence of clear evidence regarding the specific property allegedly dispossessed, the question whether the appellant unlawfully entered into or occupied property over which the complainant had lawful possession and dominion cannot be said to have been proved. The revenue report, particularly in the absence of independent ocular evidence, cannot by itself establish the factum of forcible or illegal dispossession, much less the requisite intention on the part of the appellant to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property, which are essential ingredients to constitute the offence in question. The record further reflects prior civil litigation between the parties concerning the property. Although civil litigation does not place any embargo on criminal prosecution under the Act as held by the august Supreme Court in the case reported as Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769); however, in the peculiar facts of this case where the question of title of land is disputed, the element of ownership of the specific part of land cannot be resolved without final determination and finality of such decision in the civil case. It is also a matter of record that on the basis of the same evidence, only the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court, whereas the remaining accused person(s) were acquitted. Once evidence against co-accused was found riddled with discrepancies and contradictions and the allegations against them failed, then there was no valid reason for the learned trial Court to convict the appellant on the basis of the same tainted evidence.

7.In light of the above, the requisite elements of offence under Section 3, Act, could not be proved by the complainant because of the unexplained delay of one month and four days, absence of any specified date and time of occurrence, non-production of an eyewitness(es), failure to associate independent neighboring witnesses, joint nature of the khata where alleged occurrence took place, prior civil litigation, death of the complainant before recording of his evidence, material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, and the acquittal of all the other co- accused. All of these factors, cumulatively, create serious and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version. To this end, it is settled that the prosecution case does not need to suffer from numerous infirmities or multiple circumstances creating doubt; rather, even a single circumstance that bring suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the guilt of the appellant is sufficient to entitle the accused-

PSLA No.30 of 2021

appellant to its benefit. Reliance in this regard is placed on Gul Muhammad v. The State (2026 SCMR 1395).

8.Considering the above appraisal of evidence, criminal appeal No.246 of 2021 is allowed; impugned judgment dated 08.06.2021, passed by learned trial Court, is set aside; and appellant Muhammad Iqbal is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

9.For the same reasons, PSLA No.30 of 2021 filed by Muhammad Arslan is dismissed.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

This judgment has been pronounced on 30.09.2026;

dictated, prepared on 30.09.2026, and signed on 03.10.2026.

*Afzaal/*

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE.