Abdul Rehman Vs The State etc.

HCJDA 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Appeal No.57483 of 2021

Abdur Rehman versus The State, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 02.10.2026 Barrister Abdul Qadoos Sohal, Defence Counsel at State Appellant by:

expense.

State by: Mr.Nisar Ahmad Virk, District Public Prosecutor.

Complainant by: Nemo for the complainant.

Farooq Haider, J.:- This appeal has been filed by Abdur Rehman (appellant) against the judgment dated: 13.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal/trial court, whereby in case arising out of F.I.R. No.236/2020 dated: 17.07.2020 registered under Section: 302 PPC at Police Station: Sadar Bhalwal, District: Sargodha, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section: ‘Life Imprisonment’ as Tazir for committing 302 (b) PPC read qatl-i-amd of Mst. Hameeda Bibi (deceased). with Section: 311 Cash Rs.1300 (P-2/1-4) was ordered to be given PPC to husband of murderee for their distribution among all the legal heirs of the murderee, except the convict, as per their legal shares.

Benefit of Section: 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant/convict.

2.Brief however necessary facts are that Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) produced application (Ex.PL) for registration of case to Muhammad Ashraf, Sub-Inspector regarding murder of his mother-in- law namely Mst. Hameeda Bibi by the accused/appellant while inflicting Chhuri blow on the belly of Mst. Hameeda Bibi who fell down; he inflicted three more blows of Chhuri on neck and chest of Mst. Hameeda Bibi; on the basis of said application (Ex.PL), case was registered vide F.I.R. No.236/2020 (Ex.PK) on 17.07.2020 under Section: 302 PPC at Police

Station: Sadar Bhalwal, District: Sargodha; for ready reference, relevant portion of the F.I.R. (Ex.PK) is hereby scanned below: - Abdur Rehman (appellant) was formally charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; prosecution produced eleven witnesses to prove the charge against the accused; ocular account was furnished by Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW-7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW-8) whereas Muhammad Irfan (PW was given up); medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Iqra Ramzan (PW-5) whereas Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./Investigating Officer (PW-10) deposed about investigation of the case; after recording of evidence, appellant was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him; he did not appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, some of the legal heirs of the deceased (DW-1 to DW-6) appeared before trial court and made statement regarding compromise with the appellant.

Trial Court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through the impugned judgment.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the ‘law and facts’ of the case; ocular account is neither trustworthy nor corroborated/supported by any other independent

evidence; prosecution has remained unable to prove its case. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

5.Conversely, learned District Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at 10:00 a.m. ) ڑ ڑof Canal, area of Afzaal Tarar falling in on 17.07.2020 near Patrri (پٹی

the Chak No.6-Northern {which is at a distance of 4 kilometers from the police station as per column No.4 of the Crime Report (Ex.PK)}, occurrence was reported by Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW-7) through written application (Ex.PL) to Muhammad Ashraf, Sub- ) ڑ ڑof Canal, area of Inspector/Investigating Officer (PW-10), at Patrri (پٹی Afzaal Tarar falling in the Chak No.6-Northern, who reached at the place of occurrence and after recording his proceedings on the application sent the same at 12:30 p.m. on 17.07.2020 to the police station and Crime Report (F.I.R./Ex.PK) was recorded on the basis of said application at 12:45 p.m. on 17.07.2020. So application for registration of the case was produced with the delay of about two and half hours after the occurrence to Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./I.O (PW.10) and F.I.R. was recorded with the delay of about two hours and 45 minutes of the occurrence. Any plausible and valid reason is not available on the record to show that why after the occurrence which statedly took place at 10:00 a.m., neither Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) nor his accompanying witnesses namely Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8) and Muhammad Irfan (given up PW) who were also having motorcycle (as per application Ex.PL), proceeded to the police station for the registration of the case during two and a half hours and only provided information to the police at 12:30 a.m. when police station was just at a distance of 04 kilometers from the place of occurrence, so F.I.R. has been got registered with un-explained delay which reflects that none of the cited eye-witnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence and time

was consumed for procuring/engaging witnesses and tailoring the story for prosecution and getting the case registered after deliberation and consultation, therefore, F.I.R. which is always considered as “cornerstone” has lost its value in the case and superstructure i.e. case of prosecution built on the basis of this F.I.R. is bound to fall like house of cards; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “GHULAM ABBAS and another versus The STATE and another” (2021 SCMR 23), “PERVAIZ KHAN and another versus The STATE” (2022 SCMR 393), “GHLAM MUSTAFA versus The STATE” (2021 SCMR 542) and “MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR and another versus The STATE and others” (2024 SCMR 1741).

Furthermore, as per case of prosecution, case was registered at 12:45 p.m. but even then dead body was received in dead house at 5:00 p.m., police papers were produced at 5:10 p.m. and post-mortem examination was conducted at 5:20 p.m. on 17.07.2020 i.e. after more than seven hours of the occurrence and more than four house of the recording of the F.I.R. and reason for said delay in conducting post-mortem examination was that police papers were produced with delay at 05:10 p.m. These facts also reflect that complainant and cited eyewitnesses were subsequently called, time was spent on this process as well as in concocting story and thereafter case was registered in its present form with much delay showing anti-time and it is of course fatal to the case of prosecution, in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “SUFYAN NAWAZ and another versus The STATE and others” (2020 SCMR 192) and relevant portion from Paragraph No. 4 (Page 194) of the same is being reproduced as under: - “The unexplained delay of about ten hours in autopsy of Kabeer Ahmad (deceased) alone creates dent in the prosecution story so far as presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is concerned.”

Ocular account produced by the prosecution comprises Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8). They both were not resident of the place of occurrence so they are chance witnesses and thus were

required to offer valid, plausible and cogent reason for establishing their presence at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene. Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) stated that he informed Rana Iqbal who told police to come to the place of occurrence and had come at the place of occurrence but he was not produced as witness in this case; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced:- “I informed Rana Iqbal and he told police to come to the place of occurrence. Rana Iqbal had come at the place of occurrence. He is not witness in this case.”

Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) neither produced motorcycle on which he alongwith witnesses came at the place of occurrence nor provided any detail qua its registration number, model, make, engine number or chassis number so much so he did not state about any valid, plausible and cogent reason for coming to the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence.

It is also relevant to mention here that Mst. Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case) was mother-in-law ( )ساسas well as paternal aunt ( )پھوپھیof Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) but neither he intervened nor tried to apprehend accused at the spot. He neither mentioned number of the motorcycle in the application for registration of case which was used by the accused at the time of occurrence nor he stated about the number of this motorcycle during his statement before the court.

Similarly, Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8) was also paternal nephew ( )بھتیجاof Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case). He also did not mention in his statement before the court about the number of motorcycle which was used by the accused at the time and place of occurrence. He was also not resident of the place of occurrence and thus chance witness, hence, was required to offer valid and plausible reason acceptable to common prudent man of his presence at the place of occurrence but he remained failed to bring any such valid reason on the record, thus they both i.e. Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8) were chance witnesses who could not offer any valid reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus The STATE” (2014 S C M R 1698)

and “ARSHAD KHAN versus The STATE” (2017 S C M R 564); relevant portion from latter case law is as under: - “Both the eye-witnesses produced in this case, i.e. Zahid Khan complainant (PW8) and Muhammad Sadiq (PW9) were very closely related to Mst. Naheed Akhtar deceased and they were admittedly chance witnesses. The said witnesses had maintained before the trial court that at the relevant time they were proceeding towards a mosque in order to offer Fajar prayers but a bare look at the site-plan of the place of occurrence shows that the houses of the said eye-witnesses were not situated close to the house of occurrence and they were situated so far away that they could not find any mention in the site-plan of the place of occurrence at all. No mosque near the house of occurrence had been shown in the said site-plan and, thus, the stated reason for presence of the said eye-witnesses near the place of occurrence never stood established on the record through any evidence whatsoever.”

In above scenario, evidence of both aforementioned cited witnesses is “suspect” evidence and cannot be accepted without pinch of salt; guidance in this regard has been sought from the case of “Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM and another vs. QAISER PERVEZ and others” (2015 SCMR 1142) and relevant portion from paragraph No.14 of said case law is hereby reproduced: -

“14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot. True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt.”

Further guidance on the subject has been sought from the case of “MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias ACCHU versus The STATE” (2019 SCMR 652), “Mst. MIR and another versus The STATE” (2020 SCMR 1850) and “SARFRAZ and another versus The STATE” (2023 SCMR 670).

It is mentioned in the application for registration of case (Exh.PL) as well as in the F.I.R. (Exh.PK) that they witnesses managed Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case) when she fell down after receiving of injuries but

they did not state that they tried to pour water into her mouth. So much so they did not try to shift her to any clinic or hospital for confirmation of her death although they were having motorcycle with them as per their own claim.

It is most important aspect of the case that as per application for registration of case (Exh.PL), after the occurrence, Abdur Rehman, accused (now appellant in this appeal) fled away on the motorcycle from the place of occurrence and same fact has been mentioned by Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) in his statement before the court; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced:-

“On our lalkara accused fled towards Bhalwal.”

(emphasis added)

Similarly, Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8) also mentioned said fact in his statement during trial of the case; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced:-

“On our lalkara accused fled towards Bhalwal.”

(emphasis added)

But it is very much important to mention here that Fakhar Ali, F.S. (Forensic Scientist) was produced by the prosecution during trial of the case and his statement was recorded as PW.4 who in his statement categorically stated that on 17.07.2020 (said day is the day of occurrence), he was called by police and he alongwith his personnel visited Chak No.6-NB i.e. place of occurrence, took photographs of the deceased and took buccal swabs, right and left hand nails swabs of deceased for her DNA sampling and then he took buccal swabs of suspect Abdur Rehman, accused (now appellant in this appeal) and handed over the same to Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./I.O. who took the same into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PF); relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced:- “Stated that on 17.07.2020, I was posted as Incharge Satellite station, Sargodha Division, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore. On the same day, police called us and I alongwith my personnel visited Chak No.6 N.B. There I photographed dead body of Mst. Hameeda Bibi lying over ground. Then I took buckle swab,

right and left hands nail swabs of deceased for her DNA sampling. Then I took buckle swab of suspect Abdur Rehman, accused present in the court, at the identification and say of police for his DNA sampling. I made the swabs into four sealed parcels vide Exhibit Sheet, Ex/P.E., which is under my hand and bears my signature, and handed them over to Muhammad Ashraf, S.I. who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Exh.PF which was attested by me as witness. I.O. recorded my statement u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C.”

(emphasis added)

During cross-examination he (PW.4) further stated that the suspect accused Abdur Rehman of this case is son of Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case), who was present at the place of occurrence and he was weeping near the dead body, when he visited the spot; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced:-

“The suspect accused Abdur Rehman of this case is on of deceased, who was present at the place of occurrence and he was weeping near the dead body, when I visited the spot.”

(emphasis added)

Now when in the application for registration of case (Exh.PL) as well as statements recorded by witnesses namely Javed Iqbal (complainant/ PW.7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8), accused (now appellant in this appeal) fled away from the place of occurrence on motorcycle, however, Fakhar Ali (Forensic Scientist/PW.4) clearly stated that on the day of occurrence he was called at the place of occurrence where police was present and in the presence of police he secured buccal swabs of deceased of the case as well as of accused (now appellant in this appeal) who was present there and weeping near the dead body then this state of affairs has on the one hand clearly negated the ocular account whereas on the other hand it also raises question that if he (appellant) was found present at the place of occurrence, weeping near the dead body and his buccal swabs were also secured by Fakhar Ali (Forensic Scientist/PW.4) in the presence of police then why Chhuri was not taken from him and why he was not arrested then and there and it goes without saying that as per case of prosecution, he was arrested in this case on 18.07.2020 and in this regard, relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./I.O. (PW.10) is reproduced:-

“On 18.07.2020, I arrested accused Abdur Rehman from ‘canal bridge Chak No.13 N.B.’ when he was riding on motorcycle No.3558/SGL.”

So when above discussed factors are taken into consideration in totality then it has been found that ocular account is neither trustworthy nor reliable, hence hereby discarded.

As far as medical evidence is concerned, suffice it to say that it is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence; it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury, therefore, it cannot provide any corroboration and hence is of no help to the case of prosecution; in this regard guidance has been sought from the case of “MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus The State” (2025 SCMR 762), relevant portion from the case law is as under:- “It is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant.”

So far as recovery of Chhuri P8 from the appellant on 22.07.2020 vide recovery memo Exh.PC is concerned, suffice it to say at the cost of repetition that when as per PW.4 on the day of occurrence accused/appellant was present at the place of occurrence and weeping there near the dead body, police was present there then if he was having any knife or Chhurri then why it was not taken from him and furthermore it was statedly recovered from approximately at a distance of 5/6 feet away from the place of occurrence and relevant portion from the statement of Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./I.O. (PW.10) is reproduced:-

“Place of recovery of Chhuri was approximately 5/6 feet away from the place of murder.”

Now again question does arise that when police reached at the place of occurrence, inspected the place of occurrence and if Chhuri was available at a distance of 5/6 feet away from the place of occurrence

then why it was not taken into possession then and there and particularly when it was an open place accessible to every one as per site plan (Exh.PP) and copy of the same is available at page No.105 of the paper book.

Furthermore, though said Chhuri was sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency and as per report of said Agency, human blood was identified on swab(s) taken from the blade of Chhuri but nothing is available in said report that blood available on the swab taken from blade of Chhuri was of the blood group of Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case) though blood stained soil of the deceased taken from the place of occurrence was also sent to said agency; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “KHALID JAVED and another versus The STATE” (2003 SCMR 1419) and relevant portion from the same is hereby reproduced:-

“Thus its result would be that on discarding the said portion of the statement incorporated in the recovery memos, the prosecution is left only with the recoveries of dagger and Churri Article P.7 and P.19 and now the burden is upon it to prove through other evidence that these articles being crime weapons were used for the murder of deceased. This could not be done without matching the stains of blood allegedly available on these articles. One may pose a question to himself as to that how would it be possible for the prosecution to match the blood group of deceased with the blood available on these articles because these articles were recovered on 28-2-1993 and 3-3-1993 respectively from appellants whereas deceased was buried on 10th February, 1993. The answer to this query is that at the time of post-mortem the concerned Doctor should have got determined her blood group from Chemicals Analyser for future use during investigation and trial of the case. Such practice can be adopted invariably in all the criminal cases.”

And case of “MUHAMMAD ASIF versus The STATE” (2017 SCMR 486) can also be advantageously referred on the subject, relevant portion from said case law is hereby reproduced below: - “18. Before parting with this judgment, we deem it essential to point out that, mere sending the crime weapons, blood stained to the chemical examiner and serologist would not serve the purpose of the prosecution nor it will provide any evidence to inter link different articles.

19.We have noticed that the Punjab Police invariably indulge in such a practice which is highly improper because unless the blood stained earth or cotton and blood stained clothes of the victim are not sent with the same for opinion of serologist to the effect that it was human blood on the crime weapons and was of the same group which was available on the clothes of the victim and the blood stained earth/cotton, such inconclusive opinion cannot be used as a piece of corroboratory evidence. Therefore, copy of this judgment be sent to the Prosecutor General, Punjab, and Chief Incharge of Investigation, Punjab Provincial Police to issue instructions to the investigating agencies in this regard.”

It is also relevant to mention here that as per own case of prosecution Chhuri was recovered and secured into sealed parcel vide recovery memo (Exh.PC) after making parcel of the same but perusal of said recovery memo reveals that it is nowhere mentioned therein that any swab(s) was obtained from its blade or handle and also secured into said parcel and it is noteworthy that as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, human blood was identified on the swab(s) taken from the blade of Chhuri but case of prosecution is silent on the point that when and where swab(s) was taken from the blade of Chhuri.

As per application for registration of case (Exh.PL) as well as statements of both eye-witnesses namely Javed Iqbal (complainant/PW.7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW.8), accused fled away from the place of occurrence and it was neither mentioned in the application for registration of case nor in the statements of above-mentioned eye-witnesses that the accused after throwing or concealing said Chhuri under the bushes ( )سرکنڈےat the Patrri ( )پٹریof canal ( )نہرfled away from the place of occurrence. It is also noteworthy that if accused fled away from the place of occurrence with the Chhuri then he was having ample time/opportunity to wash its blood and a man of common prudence does not accept that he would keep the same 5/6 feet away from the place of occurrence. In view of what has been discussed above, recovery has not been proved and is of no help to the case of prosecution.

Motive alleged in the application for registration of case (Exh.PL) was that appellant was used to demand ( )مانگتا تھاthe money from her mother (now deceased of the case) who had been refusing to give money and due to said grudge Abdur Rehman, accused/appellant murdered her

with the blows of Chhuri but any evidence to prove that when and where, how much amount and in whose presence was demanded by Abdur Rehman accused/appellant from her mother and in whose presence her mother refused to give money to him, is not available on the record. Though it is mentioned in the application for registration of case (Exh.PL) that Hameeda Bibi (deceased of the case) went alongwith appellant on motorcycle for obtaining money from Ahsas Programme ()احساس پروگرام and at about 10:00 a.m. she after obtaining Rs.12000/- was coming back with the appellant when this occurrence took place but any card or any other document to show that she was enrolled/registered or entitled for receiving money from said Programme or any entry of the record to show that on said day she went and obtained money from Ahsas Programme ()احساس پروگرام or any official of said Programme from whom she obtained money has not been produced to prove said fact, therefore, said motive has not been proved.

8.Nutshell of the above discussion is that when case of the prosecution is analyzed from all angles, then this Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has been failed to prove its case against the appellant.

9.In view of what has been discussed above, instant appeal filed by Abdur Rehman (appellant) is allowed; conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment dated: 13.08.2021 are hereby set-aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Farooq Haider) Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(Farooq Haider) Judge This judgment has been dictated, prepared and signed on 02.10.2026.

*Iftikhar*