Sufian Jagha . Vs The State .

HCJDA 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Appeal No.39330-J of 2021 Sufyan alias Jagha vs The State

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 01.10.2026.

Appellant by: Mr. Faseeh Ullah Khan, Advocate.

Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, District Public State by:

Prosecutor.

Mr. Muhammad Younas Bhullar, Advocate for Complainant by: and with the complainant (complainant has been identified by his learned counsel).

Farooq Haider, J.:- This appeal has been preferred by Sufian alias Jagha (appellant) assailing conviction recorded and sentence awarded to him vide impugned judgment dated: 31.05.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Pasrur, District Sialkot/trial court.

2.Sufian alias Jagha (appellant) was tried in case arising out of F.I.R. No.270/2020 dated:16.05.2020 registered under Section: 324 PPC (subsequently, offence under Section: 302 PPC was added during the investigation) at Police Station: Saddar Pasrur, District: Sialkot and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 31.05.2021 has convicted and sentenced the appellant; in this regard, relevant portion from paragraph No.28 of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under: - “28. As a as result of above discussion, the prosecution has succussed [sic] in proving his case beyond shadow of doubt, however, it is found to be a case of mitigation so, the accused is convicted under Section 302 (b) of PPC and awarded Life Imprisonment as Taz'ir for committing the murder of Rehman Ali son of Naseer Ahmed. The convict shall pay Rs.4,00,000/-compensation to the legal heirs of deceased-Rehman Ali as required under Section 544 (A) of Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and for non-payment of compensation, the convict shall undergo six months simple imprisonment. The convict is given the benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C.”

3.Briefly, on 16.05.2020, Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) moved application (Ex.PB) for registration of case to Sarfraz Ahmad, A.S.I. (PW-4) at Police Station: Saddar Pasrur, District: Sialkot regarding receiving of injury by his son namely Rehman Ali at the hands of Sufian (appellant) who gave him blow of large sickle ( )درانترwhich hit at his right thigh, upon which, he became severely injured and fell on the ground; for ready reference, relevant portion of said application (Ex.PB) is hereby scanned below: -

On the basis of aforementioned application (Ex.PB), case was registered vide F.I.R. No.270/2020 dated: 16.05.2020 (Ex.PC) under Section: 324

PPC (subsequently, offence under Section: 302 PPC was added during the investigation) at Police Station: Saddar Pasrur, District: Sialkot. After completion of investigation, report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before trial court where he was formally charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution during trial examined fourteen witnesses, out of whom, ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) and Farman (PW-3), Dr. Muhammad Junaid (PW-8), Dr. Muhammad Shaban (PW-9) and Dr. Asim Majeed (PW-10) provided medical evidence whereas detail of investigation was deposed by Asghar Ali, S.I. (PW-12) and Fayyaz Ahmad, S.I. (PW-13). Prosecution after giving up PWs namely Muhammad Shahbaz and Waheed Ahmad being unnecessary and tendering reports of experts, closed its evidence. Thereafter statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he refuted allegations levelled against him, he did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. however produced copy of MLC No.442/20 alongwith Injury Statement as Ex.DA. 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 and learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.It has been noticed that occurrence took place at about 09:00 a.m. on 13.05.2020, which was reported by Muhammad Naseer (complainant/ PW-2) through written application (Ex.PB) to Sarfraz Ahmad, A.S.I. (PW-4) at Police Station: Saddar Pasrur, District: Sialkot and on the basis of the same, crime report (F.I.R./Ex.PC) was recorded on 16.05.2020 at 02:10 a.m. under Section: 324 PPC; Rehman Ali (the then injured/now deceased of the case) expired on 19.05.2020, upon which, offence under Section: 302 PPC was added in the case. As per application for registration of case (Ex.PB) as well as statements of Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) and Farman (cited eyewitness/PW-3), on 13.05.2020, after the occurrence, Rehman Ali (the then injured of the case/son of the complainant) was shifted to Civil Hospital, Pasrur from where he was referred to AIM Hospital, Sialkot, then to Mayo Hospital, Lahore and thereafter occurrence was brought into the notice/knowledge of the police through aforementioned application (Ex.PB) for registration of case and resultantly, case was registered; however close scrutiny of the evidence/record reveals that Rehman Ali (the then injured/now deceased of the case) was brought in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Pasrur where he was medically examined and in this regard, his Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Ex.PE, copy whereof is available at Page No.113-114 of the paper book) was issued by Dr. Muhammad Junaid (PW-8) of Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Pasrur. Perusal of aforementioned MLC (Ex.PE) reflects that Rehman Ali was accompanied by the police when brought to the hospital and Asghar Ali, S.I. of Police Station: Saddar Pasrur (Investigating Officer/PW-12) moved application (Ex.PN) to Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Pasrur for recording statement of Rehman Ali (the then injured) on 13.05.2020 and though it was opined on said application that he (the then injured) was not fit to have his statement recorded, yet the fact remains that

Asghar Ali, S.I. (Investigating Officer/PW-12) when moved application (Ex.PN, which has neither been challenged nor disputed by the prosecution rather it was tendered in evidence by the prosecution itself) on 13.05.2020, then it became crystal clear beyond shadow of doubt that police came to know about the occurrence as well as admission of Rehman Ali (the then injured of the case) in Civil Hospital, Pasrur on 13.05.2020 while reaching over there, but why case was not registered then and there at that time and why it was recorded with much delay at belated stage i.e. at 02:10 a.m. on 16.05.2020? Farman (cited eyewitness) while appearing before the Court as PW-3 himself admitted that the police came at Civil Hospital, Pasrur and got the injured medically examined but he neither informed the police about the occurrence at Civil Hospital, Pasrur nor police asked him about the incident; in this regard, relevant portions of his statement are as under: - “Police came at civil hospital Pasrur and got conducted medical examination of injured.”

“I also have not inform the police about the occurrence at civil hospital nor police asked me about the incident.”

Perusal of statements of Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) and Farman (PW-3) reveals that they shifted Rehman Ali (the then injured/now deceased of the case) to Civil Hospital, Pasrur on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.05.2020; meaning thereby that they were present over there at Civil Hospital, Pasrur but they did not give any oral or written statement for registration of case to the police then and there; though, at the cost of repetition, it is mentioned here that Asghar Ali, S.I. (Investigating Officer/PW-12) reached there at Civil Hospital, Pasrur on 13.05.2020 and moved application (Ex.PN) for getting permission to record statement of Rehman Ali (the then injured of the case). And in such circumstances, it can be safely held that case was registered with unexplained and undue considerable delay after the

occurrence which is fatal for the case of prosecution and leads to the conclusion that neither the complainant (PW-2) nor any other cited eyewitness was present at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene and this time was consumed in consultation and deliberation for engaging/ procuring witnesses, tailoring story for the prosecution, and then getting the case registered in its present form. Furthermore, Muhammad Naseer (complainant) while appearing before the Court as PW-2 himself admitted that he did not file application about the occurrence on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.05.2020; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “It is correct that I did not file application about the occurrence on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.05.2020.”

Resume of the above discussion is that F.I.R. which is always considered as “cornerstone” of the case 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) and “ABDUL GHAFOOR versus The STATE” (2022 SCMR 1527).

Ocular account produced by the prosecution comprises Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) and Farman (cited eyewitness/ PW-3). It is relevant to mention here that as per application (Ex.PB) for registration of case, on 13.05.2020 at about 09:00 a.m., Rehman Ali (son of the complainant/now deceased of the case) on donkey cot went to bring fodder for cattle from the land situated in Mouza Feroze ke Nagrah " "موضعر رفتوزر ےکر ناگرہرand when he reached over there, then in the meantime, Sufiyan alias Jagha (present appellant) came there and started asking for giving large sickle ( )درانترfor cutting fodder however son of the complainant refused to give the same, upon which, Sufiyan alias

Jagha (present appellant) became infuriated and while forcibly snatching large sickle ( )درانترfrom Rehman, inflicted blow of the sickle ()درانتر, which hit on right thigh of Rehman, due to which, he became severely injured and fell on the ground; Farman (PW-3, present at the spot) with very difficulty and beseeching Sufiyan alias Jagha, rescued son of the complainant. So, as per application for registration of case (Ex.PB), Rehman Ali (the then injured) alone went on donkey cot for bringing fodder; neither the complainant (PW-2) nor Farman (PW-3) were accompanying him and after infliction of injury at right thigh of Rehman Ali (the then injured), Farman (who was present at the place of occurrence) got him rescued but it has not been mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case that complainant was present over there; even otherwise, had he been present there, he would certainly have intervened in time to rescue his son. It is noteworthy that in application for registration of case (Ex.PB), it has been mentioned that after rescue of Rehman Ali by Farman from the assailant, they took Rehman Ali for treatment to Civil Hospital, Pasrur. So, perusal of application for registration of case (Ex.PB) clearly reflects that the complainant neither accompanied Rehman Ali (the then injured) from home to the place of occurrence nor has been mentioned as already available there when assailant caused sole injury to Rehman Ali or when Farman (PW-3) got rescued Rehman Ali from the assailant rather he (complainant) only brought injured son to Civil Hospital, Pasrur with Farman; and it goes without saying that by merely mentioning of taking Rehman Ali in injured condition to the hospital, cannot be interpreted to say that the complainant (PW-2) came with his son from home to the place of occurrence or was there at the time of receiving injury by his son. It is further relevant to mention here that Muhammad Naseer (complainant) while appearing before the Court as PW-2 also deposed that he has not got recorded in application

(Ex.PB) that he reached at the place of incident, witnessed the occurrence and then accused fled away from the scene of crime; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “I have not got recorded in application EX.PB that I reached at the place of incident, witnessed the occurrence and then accused fled away from the scene of crime.”

So, it can be safely said that the complainant (PW-2) was not present at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene. It is also relevant to mention here that though in the application for registration of case (Ex.PB), it was mentioned by the complainant that they took Rehman Ali (the then injured) for treatment to Civil Hospital, Pasrur but during cross- examination it came on the record that he was firstly taken to some private clinic; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) is reproduced as under: - “We firstly shifted my son from the place of incident on motorcycle driven by Farman pw while putting on my lap to a private clinic at Farooz Ka Naghra where the doctor dressed by injured son and at that time my wife and brother joined me there.”

But said doctor who provided medical aid to injured in private clinic, was not produced during the trial.

Admittedly, Muhammad Naseer (complainant/PW-2) was not resident of the place of occurrence; so, he was chance witness and thus required to establish cogent and valid reason regarding his presence at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene. Though he claimed that he had purchased land from where his son i.e. Rehman Ali (the then injured/now deceased of the case) went to bring fodder but he did not produce any document to prove the same; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “I have not produced any registry, mutation, record of rights or Khasra Ghardawri to IO about one acre land situated at Farooz Kay Nagra.”

Similarly, Fayyaz Ahmad, S.I. (Investigating Officer) while appearing before the Court as PW-13 also stated that he did not join into

investigation any revenue officer in order to ascertain the ownership of land where the occurrence took place; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement reads as under: - “I did not join into investigation any revenue officer in order to ascertain the ownership of land where the occurrence took place.”

It is also noteworthy to mention here that had complainant been present at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene, then he would have definitely knowledge that why Sufiyan (accused/appellant) demanded sickle (انت )در رfrom his son but he could not explain the same when asked from him rather he clearly stated that it would be in the knowledge of accused/appellant that why he demanded sickle (انت ;)در رin this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “It will be in the knowledge of accused Sufian that why he demanded fodder cutter/Darantar from my deceased son.”

Similarly, Farman (cited eyewitness/PW-3) was neither resident of the place of occurrence nor was having any land over there; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) is reproduced below: - “Farman PW has no land surrounding the place of occurrence.”

It is also noticeable to mention here at the cost of repetition that it has not been mentioned in the application for registration of case (Ex.PB) that Farman accompanied Rehman Ali from village to the place of occurrence, therefore, he was also a chance witness and thus required to establish his presence while bringing on record valid reasons providing strong corroboration to his testimony for establishing his presence; relevant portion of statement of complainant (PW-2) in this regard is as under: - “I have not got recorded in application EX.PB about the presence of Farman s/o Sarfraz while going with my deceased son Rehman Ali went to said land.”

It is further noticeable fact that Farman (cited eyewitness/PW-3) and Rehman Ali (the then injured) were two in number and large sickle ( )درانترwas also in possession of Rehman Ali (the then injured) whereas assailant/appellant, being alone and empty handed, had come to take the sickle ( )درانترfrom Rehman Ali. In such circumstances, if an altercation had taken place between Rehman Ali and the assailant/appellant, then it would not be acceptable to any prudent person that a single empty handed person would engage in a quarrel with a person armed with a sickle ( )درانترand accompanied by a companion i.e. Farman (PW-3); thus conduct of Farman Ali (PW-3) watching the occurrence including snatching of sickle (انت )در رby the assailant/ appellant from Rehman Ali and then inflicting injury on right thigh and only thereafter interfering and prior to that remaining as silent spectator, is very unnatural; and similarly if complainant/PW-2 (who is father of Rehman Ali, the then injured/now deceased of the case) was also present over there at the place of occurrence, then they were three in number i.e. Rehman Ali (the then injured), Farman (PW-3) and complainant (PW-2); and in such situation, how it was possible for single person to snatch sickle from one, out of those three persons, and then inflict the injury to the injured in presence of his two companions including his father. They (i.e. PW-2 and PW-3) did not intervene during the entire occurrence for rescuing Rehman Ali as well as apprehending/ catching hold the appellant particularly when as per own case of the prosecution, appellant was not equipped with any sophisticated firearm weapon like Kalashnikov from which various shots can be fired within twinkling of an eye rather he was firstly empty handed and then only with sickle (انت )در ر. Said conduct of aforementioned cited eyewitnesses including the complainant (who is father of the deceased), falsifies their presence at the place of occurrence; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “PATHAN versus The STATE” (2015 SCMR 315)

and “ZAFAR versus The STATE and others”(2018 SCMR 326); relevant portion from the latter case law is being reproduced:- “7. The conduct of the witnesses of ocular account also deserves some attention. According to complainant, he along with Umer Daraz and Riaz (given up PW) witnessed the whole occurrence when their father was being murdered. It is against the normal human conduct that the complainant, Umer Daraz and Riaz (PW since given up) did not make even an abortive attempt to catch hold of the appellant and his co-accused particularly when the complainant himself has stated in the FIR and before the learned trial Court that when they raised alarm, the accused fled away. Had they been present at the relevant time, they would not have waited for the murder of their deceased father and would have raised alarm the moment they saw the appellant and his co-accused standing near the cot of their father.”

(emphasis added)

It is also relevant to mention here that Farman while appearing before the Court as PW-3 did not depose that he got recorded his statement under Section: 161 Cr.P.C. before the police on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.05.2020 rather he categorically deposed that the police recorded his statement at the place of occurrence on 16.05.2020; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced as under: - “Police recorded my statement at the place of occurrence on 16.05.2020.” (emphasis added)

He (PW-3) did not offer any valid reason for not recording his statement immediately after the occurrence though as per his own claim (as detailed above), he was present in Civil Hospital, Pasrur when Asghar Ali, S.I. came there on 13.05.2020 and by now it is well settled that if there is delay in recording statement of any witness, then his statement loses its legal efficacy and evidentiary value; in this regard, case of “BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN versus The State” (2022 SCMR 986) can be advantageously referred. So much so, though complainant (PW-2) stated that during shifting of the injured, his clothes were stained with blood yet he did not produce the same to the police; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: -

“During shifting my clothes were also stained with blood. I changed my clothes at Lahore and later-on did not produce to police.”

Likewise, Farman (cited eyewitness/PW-3) also claimed that his clothes became blood stained but he did not produce the same to the police as well; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “During shifted my clothes were stained with blood. Neither I delivered the said clothes to police nor they demanded to me.”

Aforementioned clothes of the cited eyewitness including the complainant, which were statedly stained with blood of the deceased, were important piece of evidence for providing corroboration to their testimony but by not producing the same during investigation as well as trial, prosecution on the one hand has lost strong piece of corroboratory evidence and on the other hand, it goes against the prosecution; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM and another Vs. QAISER PERVEZ and others.”

(2015 SCMR 1142), relevant portion is being reproduced: - “Both the eye-witnesses admitted that their clothes were stained with the blood of the deceased while lifting and handling him but the investigating officer, otherwise showing extraordinary interest in the case, did not take the same into possession because if these were sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and grouping with that of the blood stained clothes of the deceased, the same would have provided strongest corroboration to the testimony of the two eye-witnesses. This omission strikes at the roots of the case of the prosecution and bespeaks volumes about the dishonest and false claim of the said witnesses.”

Guidance on the subject has also been sought from the cases of “NADEEM alias KALA versus The STATE and others” (2018 SCMR 153), “Mst. MIR ZALAI versus GHAZI KHAN and others” (2020 SCMR 319) and “ZAFAR ALI ABBASI and another versus Zafar ALI ABBASI and others” (2024 SCMR 1773). Another important aspect of the case is that blood-stained earth was also not secured from the place of occurrence. It goes without saying that when blood-stained earth is not secured from the crime scene

for any reason whatsoever, then the place of occurrence cannot be said to have been established in stricto sensu. Even donkey cot, on which, Rehman Ali (the then injured of the case) went to bring the fodder, was not secured during investigation of the case.

Both aforementioned cited eyewitnesses including the complainant, who were chance witnesses, could not offer any valid, cogent and confidence inspiring evidence to establish their presence at the stated time of occurrence, at the crime scene; hence, their testimony is “suspect” evidence and cannot be accepted without pinch of salt; in this regard, guidance 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 cases 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).

Thus, while taking all aforementioned factors into consideration in totality, this Court has come to the conclusion that ocular account furnished by the prosecution has not been found as confidence inspiring/

truthful and trustworthy; hence, same cannot be relied and is hereby discarded.

As regards medical evidence is concerned, Dr. Muhammad Junaid conducted initial medical examination of Rehman Ali (now deceased of the case) when he was in injured condition and while appearing before the Court as PW-8, he deposed about detail qua conducting medical examination of aforementioned injured. Similarly, Dr. Muhammad Shaban (PW-9) issued operation notes of Rehman Ali (the then injured) and while appearing before the Court deposed complete detail of the same whereas Dr. Asim Majeed (PW-10) conducted postmortem examination over dead body of the deceased. However, it is trite law that medical evidence 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, same neither can provide any corroboration nor is of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in this regard guidance has been sought from the cases of “MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus The State” (2025 SCMR 762) and “IMRAN versus The STATE” (2026 SCMR 47); relevant portion from the latter case law is hereby reproduced as under: - “8. Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, it is by now well settled that the medical evidence is only supportive evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of "Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 53), "Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another" (2008 SCMR 1103) and "Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State" (2009 SCMR 1410).”

So far as recovery of sickle "( "درانترP-1) at the pointing out of the appellant as well as identification of human blood on swabs taken from its blade {as per report of PFSA (Ex.PT)} is concerned, suffice it to say that Fayyaz Ahmad, S.I. (Investigating Officer/PW-13) clearly stated

that the place of recovery was situated in an open place, which was a common place and easily accessible to anybody; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-13) is reproduced as under: - “It is correct that the place of recovery is situated in open place which is accessible to anybody.”

So, on this score alone, recovery is inconsequential and has no evidentiary value; in this regard, case of “MUHAMMAD SALEEM versus SHABBIR AHMED and others” (2016 SCMR 1605) can be advantageously referred and relevant portion from the same is hereby reproduced below: - “We have noticed that the weapon in issue had allegedly been recovered from a place which was open and accessible to all and sundry and, thus, it was unsafe to place reliance upon such recovery.”

In this regard, guidance can also be sought from the case of “AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN versus The STATE” (2023 SCMR 566);

relevant portion from said case law is also reproduced below: - “So far as recovery of blood-stained hatchet is concerned, the same was allegedly recovered on the pointation of appellant from a thoroughfare, which was easily accessible to everyone, therefore, it is settled law that the same is inconsequential.”

Moreover, as per case of prosecution, sickle "( "درانترP-1) was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant on 22.05.2020 vide recovery memo. (Ex.PK). It does not appeal to a common prudent man that the assailant/appellant will retain weapon of offence stained with blood for so many days after the occurrence when he was having sufficient time to wash & destroy the same; hence, such sort of recovery is of no help to the case of prosecution and in this regard, case of “BASHARAT and another versus STATE” (PLJ 1996 SC 139) can advantageously be referred and relevant portion from its paragraph No.11 is hereby reproduced:-

“11. The occurrence took place on 20.04.1988. Basharat appellant was arrested on 28.04.1988. The blood-stained Chhurri was alleged recovered from his house on 30.04.1988. It is not believable that he would have kept blood-stained Chhurri intact in his house for ten days when he had sufficient time and opportunity to wash away and clean the blood on it.”

Similarly, though as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PT), human blood was identified on item No.1.1 i.e. Swab(s) taken from the blade of “Drantar” yet recovery memo. (Ex.PK) of said sickle (انت )در ر

reflects only about recovery of sickle "( "درانترP-1) as well as securing the same into sealed parcel and it is nowhere mentioned in the recovery memo. (Ex.PK) that any swab(s) was taken from blade of the sickle ;)در رeven otherwise, entire case of the prosecution is silent in this (انت

regard that when and where swab(s) was taken from blade of sickle (انت )در ر,

on which human blood was identified. It is also relevant to mention here that as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PT), human blood was identified on swab(s) taken from “Drantar” (sickle انت )در رand nothing is

available on the record to show that blood allegedly available on said swab taken from blade of sickle "( "درانترP-1) was got compared with blood of deceased of the case available at his clothes through any expert report, therefore, without said grouping of blood, aforementioned recovery of sickle "( "درانترP-1) and report of PFSA (Ex.PT), is inconsequential; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “MUHAMMAD ASIF versus The STATE” (2017 SCMR 486) can be safely referred; 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.”

Guidance in this regard has also been sought from the case of “KHALID JAVED and another versus THE STATE” (2003 SCMR 1419) and relevant portion from said case law is hereby reproduced below: - “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.”

Therefore, aforementioned recovery of sickle "( "درانترP-1) is inconsequential and cannot be relied; hence, same is of no avail to the case of prosecution.

As far as motive behind the occurrence is concerned, as per own case of the prosecution, there was no previous animosity/enmity between the parties prior to the occurrence; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) reads as under: - “I have no previous enmity in any respect with the accused Sufian prior to this occurrence.”

So, in this case, any motive could not be proved through any independent and cogent evidence/material. Even otherwise, when substantive piece of evidence in the form of ocular account has been disbelieved, then motive or cause of occurrence is of no help to the case of prosecution as the same loses its efficacy and becomes immaterial for conviction.

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, therefore, though there is no need to discuss defence version yet if for the sake of argument, defence version (as stated by the appellant) in answer to question “Why this case and why the PWs have deposed against you? while recording his statement under Section: 342 Cr.P.C.), is taken into consideration, which is hereby reproduced as under: - “I am poor person belonging to Changar Brotheri and being a menial does my job at the Daria of Faisal Gujjar. On the day of occurrence I was going on foot from my village towards the Daira of Faisal Gujjar located in the Area of village Farooz Kay Naghra on the road on northern side of the place of occurrence. The injured who was present alongwith three unknown boys of their village called me there and asked me to cut their fodder but I refused to do so whereupon the injured and his companions started beating me. I was seriously injured by them, however, during this incident injured/deceased Rehman Ali received injury from his own hand. I went to my house in injured condition and due to my serious condition I was medically examined by the police on next day in THQ hospital, Pasrur wherefrom I was referred to AIM hospital, Sialkot. I remained admitted there and 1 was arrested from AIM hospital, Sialkot by the police. It is pertinent to mention here that injured was well aware of the fact that he had not received injury from my hand and this fact was in knowledge of his parents. At belated stage and with considerable delay the complainant got registered this case just to blackmail me in order to get money from me. It is also important to mention here that 10 has falsely booked me in this case as I was poor person and could not grease his palms. I am innocent.”

Even then perusal of aforementioned version reflects that the appellant was called by Rehman Ali (injured of this case) alongwith three unknown boys of the village and asked to cut fodder for them but he refused to do so whereupon the injured and his companions started beating him, he was seriously injured by them however during this incident, Rehman Ali (the then injured/now deceased of the case) received injury from his own hand; the appellant went to his house in injured condition and due to his serious condition, he was got medically examined by the police on the next day in Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Pasrur wherefrom he was referred to AIM Hospital, Sialkot where he remained admitted and was subsequently arrested from there by the police. By now it is well settled that if prosecution version has been

disbelieved and attention is drawn towards the defence version of the accused/appellant as set forth in his statement recorded under Section: 342 Cr.P.C., then the defence version is to be taken into consideration in toto; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “FAIZ AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE” (1983 SCMR 76). And when this defence version is considered in its entirety, then it would transpire that the appellant has committed no offence whatsoever.

9.In view of what has been discussed above, instant appeal filed by Sufiyan alias Jagha (appellant) is allowed; conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment dated: 31.05.2021 passed in aforementioned subject case, are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge, he shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Farooq Haider) Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(Farooq Haider) Judge

This judgment has been dictated and pronounced on 01.10.2026 whereas after preparation/ completion, signed on 02.10.2026.

Kashif