Naseem Ahmad Vs State Etc

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 (Naseem Ahmad v. The State) and Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021 (Shamim Begum v. The State & another)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 08.10.2026 Appellant by:

Rai Usman Ali, Advocate.

Complainant by:

M/S Kamil Hameed Awan and Shehzada Irfan Awan, Advocates (for Mst.Shamim Begum wife of the deceased).

State by: Ms. Sumara Shafi, DDPP with Junaid SI.

ABHER GUL KHAN, J. The appellant Naseem Ahmad involved in case FIR No.315/2016 dated 17.04.2016 registered under Sections 302 & 324 PPC at Police Station City Depalpur, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur. Trial court vide judgment dated 26.08.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:- (i).Under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer imprisonment for life as ta’zir for committing qatl-i-amd of the deceased Abdul Waheed. He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. The compensation so imposed was ordered to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (ii).Under Section 324 PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years on two counts with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on two counts and in default thereof to further undergo SI for three months on each count.

(iii).Under Section 337-F(iii) PPC to pay daman amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the injured Hijaz Raheem and in default thereof to remain in jail till realization of the same. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the appellant was also held entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

Challenging his convictions and sentences the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 whereas the wife of deceased, namely Mst.Shamim Begum preferred Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021 for the conversion of the sentence of life

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

imprisonment of the appellant into death sentence. Both these matters are being decided through this single judgment.

2.Briefly stated the prosecution case as set forth by the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3) in the FIR (Exh.PB/1) is that he is a resident of Gawalmandi Lahore and earns his livelihood as a shopkeeper. On 17.04.2016, at about 2:00 p.m., the complainant accompanied by his brothers Abdul Waheed and Saeed Ahmad (PW.4), his nephew Hijaz Raheem (PW.6), and his niece Faiza Raheem (PW.7), was travelling in a carry van to attend a marriage- related treat at the house of his sister situated at Mohallah Abdullah Sher Ghazi, near Lorry Adda. As they were alighting from the vehicle, the appellant Naseem Ahmad armed with a pistol arrived at the spot and fired a shot which struck Abdul Waheed on his back, causing him to fall on the ground in an injured condition. The appellant thereafter fired another shot which hit Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) on his left leg followed by a third shot which hit Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) on her left leg. The complainant and his brother Saeed Ahmad attempted to apprehend the appellant, however, he resorted to indiscriminate firing thereby creating panic and fled away from the crime scene along with the weapon of offence. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by the complainant and Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) who transported the injured to THQ Hospital, Depalpur, where Abdul Waheed succumbed to his injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be the matrimonial discord between the appellant and the complainant’s sister, whose marriage with the appellant had been solemnized approximately eight years earlier but had subsequently been dissolved through khula.

3.On 17.04.2016, the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3) submitted a written application (Exh.PB) before Ghulam Hussain, ASI (since died) on the basis of which the formal FIR (Exh.PB/1) was registered. The investigation was entrusted to Manzoor Ahmad, SI (PW.8), who on the same day proceeded to THQ Hospital, Depalpur, prepared the injury statement (Exh.PF), inquest report

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

(Exh.PG) and handed over the dead body of Abdul Waheed to Fateh Muhammad, HC/524 for post-mortem examination. He also prepared the injury statements of the injured Hijaz Raheem and Mst.Faiza Raheem which were exhibited as Exh.PH and Exh.PJ, respectively. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence, secured blood-stained cotton through recovery memo (Exh.PC), took into possession three crime empties of .30-bore pistol through recovery memo (Exh.PD) and prepared the rough site plan (Exh.PK). On 16.05.2016, the investigating officer moved an application (Exh.PM) for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the appellant Naseem Ahmad and obtained the requisite warrants (Exh.PM/1). He subsequently moved an application (Exh.PN) for the issuance of a proclamation, pursuant to which the proclamation (Exh.PN/1) was issued and duly executed in accordance with law. On 20.06.2016, he submitted a report under Section 512, Cr.P.C., through the concerned SHO. On 20.02.2017, the investigation was entrusted to Dilshad Ahmad Inspector (PW.11) who learnt that the appellant was confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore, in connection with FIR No.246/2016, registered under Section 381-A, PPC, at Police Station Factory Area. Accordingly, on 02.03.2017 after fulfilling the requisite codal formalities, he joined the appellant in the investigation of the present case. On 08.03.2017 the appellant made a disclosure and in pursuance thereof led to the recovery of a .30-bore pistol (P.6) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PA). Upon completion of the investigation and fulfillment of the requisite legal formalities, the investigating officer submitted the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., before the competent court.

4.To substantiate its case, the prosecution produced eleven witnesses, amongst whom Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Manzoor Ahmad SI (PW.8) and Dilshad Ahmad Inspector (PW.11), conducted the investigation, the salient features whereof have already been discussed hereinabove. Dr.Adal Rasheed (PW.10) performed the post-mortem examination of the deceased Abdul

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

Waheed, and prepared the post-mortem report (Exh.PO); he also medico-legally examined both the injured witnesses. Upon the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he was confronted with the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the allegations and professed his innocence, claiming false implication in the case. The appellant neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in his defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed above, hence the instant criminal appeal and criminal revision.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant/convict contends that although the FIR appears to have been lodged promptly, yet the same in fact was registered after manipulation of the record. Two prosecution witnesses including the complainant resiled from their earlier versions during the trial and categorically stated that the appellant has committed no offence. The testimony of the injured eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances of the case and stands contradicted by the medical evidence, which is in sharp conflict with the ocular account furnished by them. Despite setting up a specific motive for the occurrence, the prosecution failed to substantiate the same through cogent and reliable evidence. Furthermore, recovery of the .30-bore pistol was effected in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C., thus the positive report of PFSA is of no help to the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he is entitled to acquittal.

6.Conversely, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor well assisted by learned counsel for the wife of the deceased opposed the appeal contending that the FIR was lodged promptly which ruled out the possibility of deliberation or fabrication. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and that both injured eyewitnesses were accompanying the deceased to the house of their aunt to attend a marriage-related treat. Their presence at the scene stood established

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

by the fact that they themselves sustained firearm injuries during the occurrence. The prosecution case finds corroboration from the appellant’s conspicuous abscondence after the occurrence. The appellant has committed the cold-blooded murder of Abdul Waheed and caused firearm injuries to two other persons, therefore, he does not deserve any concession or leniency. On these grounds, dismissal of the instant appeal was sought.

7.Arguments heard. Record perused.

8.A perusal of the record reveals that the instant case stems from an occurrence which took place on 17.04.2016 at about 2:00 p.m. in Fakhar Shah Colony Depalpur situated at a distance of approximately one kilometre from Police Station City Depalpur. During the incident Abdul Waheed, Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) each sustained one firearm injury allegedly inflicted by the appellant, Naseem Ahmad with a pistol. All three injured were shifted to THQ Hospital, Depalpur where Abdul Waheed succumbed to his injuries. The record further reflects that on the same day at about 3:30 p.m., the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3) conveyed information regarding the occurrence to the police by submitting a written application (Exh.PB) before Ghulam Hussain, ASI (since died) at Police Station City Depalpur, on the basis of which formal FIR (Exh.PB/1) was chalked out.

9.In the light of above-mentioned facts, I have noticed that the occurrence took place on 17.04.2016, at about 2:00 p.m., whereas the matter was reported to the police by the complainant on the same day at about 3:30 p.m., i.e., within one and a half hour of the incident. Such prompt reporting in the absence of any circumstance suggesting otherwise lends support to the prosecution version and leaves little room for deliberation, consultation or fabrication. Furthermore, the record does not disclose any circumstance capable of casting a reasonable doubt upon the prosecution’s assertion regarding the time of lodging of the FIR. In these circumstances, the prosecution’s stance about the prompt registration of the case has remained unshaken. The promptitude with which the occurrence was

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

reported not only militates against the possibility of subsequent deliberation or concoction but also lends support to the presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Abdul Wahid v. The State (2023 SCMR 1278), wherein it was held as under:- “The unfortunate incident took place on 13.03.2010 at 10:45 p.m. whereas the crime report was lodged after one hour and fifty five minutes. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was firstly taken to hospital, which was situated at a distance of more than five kilometers from the place of occurrence whereas he succumbed to injuries and the matter was reported from the hospital, it would be considered a promptly lodged FIR. Promptness of FIR prima facie shows truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excludes possibility of deliberation and consultation. There was hardly any time with the complainant or other witnesses to fabricate a falsely story.”

10.This Court has further observed that in the written application (Exh.PB) the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3) specifically alleged that on 17.04.2016 at about 2:00 p.m. he along with his brothers Abdul Waheed (deceased), Saeed Ahmad (PW.4), his nephew Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and his niece Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) proceeded to the house of his sister situated at Mohallah Sher Ghazi, near Lorry Adda, Depalpur to attend a feast arranged in connection with the marriage of Abdul Waheed. According to the complainant, as the members of the party were alighting from the carry van the appellant Naseem Ahmad armed with a pistol, suddenly appeared at the spot and fired a shot at Abdul Waheed which struck him on the back and caused him to fall on the ground in a pool of blood. The appellant thereafter fired a second shot hitting Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) on his left leg, followed by a third shot which struck Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) on her left leg. The complainant further stated that all three injured were immediately shifted to THQ Hospital, Depalpur, where Abdul Waheed succumbed to his injuries. It is significant to note that in FIR (Exh.PB/1) the complainant specifically nominated only the appellant notwithstanding the fact that the occurrence resulted into one death and firearm injuries to two other persons. This circumstance shows that the complainant did not unnecessarily implicate any other person in the occurrence.

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

Furthermore, the appellant was ex-husband of sister of complainant and the deceased which excludes the possibility of mistaken identity. The presence of another eyewitness namely Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) is also borne out from the recovery memos relating to blood-stained cotton (Exh.PC), empty cartridges (Exh.PD) and blood-stained clothes (Exh.PE), which were prepared by Manzoor Ahmad SI (PW.8) in his presence. The inquest report (Exh.PG) further reveals that the dead body of Abdul Waheed was identified by Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) along with Mian Rab Nawaz (given up PW). These circumstances lend support to the presence of both the complainant and Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) at the place of occurrence. However, during the course of trial, the complainant submitted an affidavit stating that a compromise had been effected with the appellant and made a statement before the learned trial Court to the same effect. Similarly, Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) resiled from the prosecution version and stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence. On the strength of these subsequent statements, learned defence counsel vehemently contended that the appellant’s conviction under Section 302(b) PPC was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is important to note here that the criminal proceedings regarding the murder of Abdul Waheed and the firearm injuries sustained by Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) were initiated on the written application submitted by Muhammad Khalid (PW.3). However, when he appeared before the learned trial Court, he departed from his earlier version and adopted a stance favourable to the appellant. In his examination-in-chief, he acknowledged that FIR No.315/2016 under Sections 302 and 324, PPC had been registered at Police Station City Depalpur, but asserted that he had compromised the matter with the appellant Naseem Ahmad claiming that the latter had not participated in the occurrence. He further expressed his unwillingness to pursue the case and stated that he had no objection to the appellant’s acquittal. In view of his departure from the prosecution version, the learned trial Court declared him hostile. However, during his cross-examination by the learned ADPP, the

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

complainant admitted having submitted the written application (Exh.PB) for registration of the case. Likewise, Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) while appearing before the learned trial Court acknowledged that Abdul Waheed (deceased) was his real brother but claimed that he knew nothing about the occurrence and was not present at the relevant time. He too was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned ADPP. During such cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on the recovery memos (Exh.PC, Exh.PD and Exh.PE). He further acknowledged that he was present at the hospital at the time of the post-mortem examination and had identified the dead body of the deceased. In the circumstances noted above neither the affidavit submitted by the complainant nor the resiling statement made by Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) can by itself constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302(b), PPC. The mere fact that these witnesses subsequently resiled from their earlier versions or expressed their unwillingness to support the prosecution does not render their entire testimony liable to be discarded. The admitted portions of their statements and the circumstances acknowledged by them particularly the lodging of the FIR on the complainant’s written application, the signatures of Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) on the recovery memos and his identification of the dead body, must be evaluated in the context of the evidence as a whole. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in its entirety merely on account of such a declaration, rather the portion found credible and corroborated by the remaining evidence may be relied upon. While holding so, reliance may be placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Suleman and 4 others v. The State (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 223) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:-

“There is no cavil to the proposition that the testimony of a hostile witness or a witness, who was not examined being won over was either produced by the defence or was examined as Court Witness, must not be left out of consideration for mere reason that he did not support the prosecution rather the evidence

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

of such a witness must be considered with utmost care and caution. The testimony of a witness who speaks in the different tone at different times is certainly not reliable unless strong confirmatory evidence of independent character is available on record.”

It is further observed that the affidavit (Mark-A) asserting that a compromise had been effected with the appellant was submitted exclusively by the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3). Muhammad Saeed (PW.4) who is also the real brother of the deceased neither executed any such affidavit nor made any statement asserting that he had entered into a compromise with the appellant. In these circumstances, the affidavit of the complainant and the statements relied upon by the defence cannot be termed as sufficient to dislodge the conviction recorded against the appellant, particularly when the wife of the deceased Mst.Shamim Begum has approached this Court through the aforesaid criminal revision seeking the conversion of the appellant’s sentence from imprisonment for life to death under Section 302(b) PPC.

Be that as it may, even if the statements of the complainant Muhammad Khalid (PW.3) and Saeed Ahmad (PW.4) are excluded from consideration, the pivotal question remains whether the prosecution has produced sufficient, reliable and confidence- inspiring evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer to this question must necessarily be given through a careful appraisal of the ocular account furnished by the injured eyewitnesses, namely Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst. Faiza Raheem (PW.7), the medical, forensic and other evidence available on the record. Therefore, I have assessed the intrinsic worth of the testimony of both the injured witnesses in conjunction with the remaining evidence. Before marching any further, it is considered appropriate to mention here that the presence of an injured witness at the place of occurrence ordinarily carries a high degree of assurance as the injury sustained by such a witness furnishes independent evidence of his/her presence at the relevant time. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the cases reported as Jahangir etc. v. The

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

State (NLR 1998 Criminal 687) and Azhar Nawaz v. The State

(2017 SCMR 1877).

Having examined the statements of both injured eyewitnesses, I find that while appearing before the learned trial Court Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) reiterated the prosecution version substantially in line with the contents of the FIR (Exh.PB/1), attributing the fatal firearm injury sustained by Abdul Waheed as well as the injuries caused to them exclusively to the appellant Naseem Ahmad. During cross-examination, Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) acknowledged that the complainant Muhammad Khalid was his maternal uncle and that Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) is his sister. He further disclosed that approximately eight to ten years before the occurrence his maternal aunt, Mst.Safia Bibi, had obtained khula from the appellant. It was also brought on record through his cross- examination that the appellant had allegedly been extending threats to the family during the intervening period between the dissolution of the marriage and the occurrence. Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) further stated that his statement was recorded by the police approximately one and a half to two hours after the occurrence. He confirmed that he and Mst. Faiza Raheem (PW.7) were medically examined and that his maternal uncle Abdul Waheed, succumbed to his injuries approximately half an hour after reaching the hospital. He also acknowledged that Abdul Waheed was brought to the hospital in an injured condition along with him and Mst.Faiza Raheem, and that both injured witnesses were medically examined before the post- mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. Additionally, the defence counsel instead of establishing the innocence of the appellant otherwise proved the case of the prosecution and reaffirmed the presence of witnesses at the spot. The cross- examination of Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) brought forth material particulars regarding the specific positions of the witnesses, the deceased and the appellant at the time of the occurrence, which cannot be overlooked while assessing the credibility of the ocular account. The witness stated that he and his sister, Mst.Faiza Raheem

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

were standing in front of the gate of Khalil Ahmad, whereas his maternal uncle Abdul Waheed was standing in a vacant plot at a distance of approximately eight to ten feet from them. He further stated that the house of Khalil Ahmad was situated behind the bus stand at Depalpur at a distance of approximately 800 to 900 metres, of which the main entrance opened towards the east onto the street, and it had only one outer door opening into that street. The witness further clarified that he and Mst.Faiza Raheem were standing approximately two to four feet from the outer door of the house and were together, while Abdul Waheed was standing eight to ten feet away from them. According to him, the appellant was at a distance of approximately fifteen to twenty feet from the two injured witnesses and fired while standing at the same place. He also specified that Abdul Waheed was towards their north-west when he sustained the firearm injury, whereas he and Mst.Faiza Raheem were towards the east of the deceased when they were hit by the subsequent shots. According to the witness, the appellant was positioned at the western corner when he resorted to firing. In view of the significance of these particulars in determining the consistency and plausibility of the ocular account, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) is reproduced hereunder:- “I and my sister Faiza Raheem were standing in front of the gate of Khalil Ahmad and my maternal uncle Abdul Waheed was standing in the vacant plot at a distance of 8 to 10 ft. The house of Khalil Ahmad is situated at the back of bus stand Depalpur at a distance of 800/900 meter. The main door of the house of Khalil Ahmad is situated towards the east on the street. There was only one outer door of the house of Khalil Ahmad in the said street..... I and Faiza Raheem were at a distance of 2/4 ft from the outer door of the house of Khalil Ahmad. I and Faiza Raheem were together. Abdul Waheed was at a distance of 8/10 ft from us. The accused was at a distance of 15/20 ft from me and Faiza Raheem. The accused made firing by standing at one place where he was standing..... Abdul Waheed was on north west side from us when he received fire and that I and Faiza Raheem were towards east from Abdul Waheed when we received fires. Accused was in the west corner from us when he made firing.”

Likewise, Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) while appearing before the learned trial Court reiterated in her examination-in-chief that the

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

appellant Naseem Ahmad fired the first shot which struck Abdul Waheed on his back, the second shot hit her brother Hijaz Raheem (PW.6), on his left leg and the third shot struck her on her left leg. During cross-examination, she acknowledged that she, her brother Hijaz Raheem and Abdul Waheed were brought to the hospital from the house of Khalil Ahmad at about 2:00 p.m. She further admitted that three of them were not standing together at the time of the occurrence, as she and her brother were standing near the gate of their maternal aunt’s house, whereas Abdul Waheed was standing in a vacant plot, approximately eight to ten feet away from the house. The witness further disclosed that she and Hijaz Raheem were standing at a distance of approximately two feet from the gate of the house, while the place of occurrence was surrounded by residential houses. She also stated that the appellant was approximately ten feet away from her and Hijaz Raheem when they sustained firearm injuries, whereas Abdul Waheed was standing towards the north- west, at a distance of eight to ten feet from them. She further stated that the appellant was at a distance of only two to three feet from her maternal uncle, Abdul Waheed, when the latter sustained the firearm injury. Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) further stated that she was medically examined at THQ Hospital, Depalpur, at about 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., and that her statement was recorded by the police approximately at the same time. On account of relevancy, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “I, Hijaz Raheem PW and Abdul Waheed deceased were not standing together at the time of occurrence. I was standing with my brother Hijaz Raheem whereas Abdul Waheed was at a distance of 8/10 ft from house at the vacant plot. I and Hijaz Raheem my brother were standing at a distance of about 2 ft from the gate of house of my maternal aunt. The place of occurrence is surrounded with the residential houses but we did not note as to whether the public was coming and going on the said road or not. The accused was at a distance of 10 ft from me and Hijaz Raheem when we received fires. Abdul Waheed was standing in the corner of north west. Abdul Waheed was at a distance of 8/10 ft from me and Hijaz Raheem. The accused was at a distance of 2/3 ft from my maternal uncle Abdul Waheed when Abdul Waheed received firearm injuries..... At about 3:30/4:00 p.m., I

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

was medically examined in THQ Hospital Depalpur and at the same time my statement was recorded by the police.”

I have further observed that both the aforesaid injured eyewitnesses, while appearing before the learned trial Court remained steadfast in their testimony and unwaveringly maintained their allegations against the appellant without retreating from their respective accounts of the occurrence. A meticulous examination of their statements does not reveal any material infirmity or inherent improbability sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt upon their credibility and as a necessary corollary, I find no justification to discard their testimony.

11.I have also evaluated the testimony of both injured eyewitnesses in the light of the medical evidence available on record. In this regard, it is noticed that Dr.Adal Rasheed (PW.10) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Abdul Waheed and prepared the post-mortem report (Exh.PO). He also medically examined Hijaz Raheem (PW.6) and Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) in respect of whom the relevant medico-legal documents were produced as Exh.PP and Exh.PQ, respectively. During the post- mortem examination of Abdul Waheed the doctor observed a firearm lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm along with a corresponding exit wound. As regards Hijaz Raheem (PW.6), the doctor after conducting his medico-legal examination issued MLC (Exh.PP) and opined that the possibility of fabrication of the injury was excluded and that the injury had been caused by a firearm. With respect to Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7), Dr.Adal Rasheed (PW.10) stated in his examination-in-chief that she had been brought to the Emergency Department with a history of firearm injury. After providing her with first aid, he referred her to DHQ Hospital, Okara, for further management. In support of his statement, the doctor also produced an attested copy of the relevant OPD register (Exh.PQ). Although the medico-legal certificate of Mst.Faiza Raheem (PW.7) is not available on the record, yet this omission by itself is insufficient to discredit her testimony, particularly when the relevant

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

OPD register (Exh.PQ) has been produced and the doctor has categorically confirmed that he examined her and referred her to DHQ Hospital, Okara for further treatment. The factum of injuries sustained by both injured witnesses is further corroborated by their respective injury statements (Exh.PH and Exh.PJ), prepared by Manzoor Ahmad SI (PW.8) on 17.04.2016. A cumulative appraisal of the medical evidence reveals that it lends material corroboration to the ocular account furnished by the two injured eyewitnesses and remains consistent with the prosecution version regarding the firearm injuries sustained by them as well as the deceased.

12.The record further reveals that the occurrence took place on 17.04.2016 and the appellant Naseem Ahmad was arrested in the instant case on 02.03.2017. Prior to his arrest, Manzoor Ahmad SI (PW.8) had obtained warrants of arrest against him (Exh.PM/1) and initiated proceedings for his proclamation (Exh.PN). Thus, the appellant remained at large for a considerable period after the occurrence. During his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant was specifically confronted with his abscondence, however, he failed to offer any plausible explanation for his conduct. Although abscondence by itself cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt, yet the appellant’s unexplained conduct, when considered in conjunction with the other incriminating circumstances established on the record, lends support to the prosecution case.

13.It is further observed that at the time of his arrest in the instant case the appellant was already confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore, in connection with FIR No.246/2016, registered under Section 381- A, PPC, at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. Upon knowing the appellant’s confinement, Dilshad Ahmad Inspector (PW.11) formally arrested him in the present case on 02.03.2017. Subsequently, pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant before the said investigating officer, a .30-bore pistol was recovered at his instance on 08.03.2017. As reflected in the report of PFSA the three crime empties secured from the place of occurrence on the day of the incident by Manzoor Ahmad SI (PW.8) vide memo Exh.PD matched

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

with .30-bore pistol so recovered. Therefore, the positive forensic report furnishes a further piece of corroborative evidence lending support to the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the recovery on the ground that the mandatory requirements of Section 103, Cr.P.C., were not complied with, as no independent witness from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings. I have considered this contention but find that the mere non-association of private witnesses by itself does not render the recovery inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary value. The recovery in question was effected pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant while in police custody, therefore, the admissibility and probative value of the discovery are to be examined in the light of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the circumstances surrounding the recovery. Furthermore, the positive PFSA report connecting the crime empties secured from the place of occurrence with the recovered weapon provides independent corroboration to the prosecution version and lends further support to the ocular account. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon the case reported as Sh.Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- “Further it is noted that as per Article 40, corresponding to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is revealed in consequence of information received from any accused in custody of a Police Officer, such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as it relates distinctly to the fact whereby discovered, may be proved. The information supplied by the appellant, under Article 40 ibid, relating to incriminatory articles is admissible.”

14.As regards the motive in absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the learned trial Court rightly discarded the same from consideration and consequently extended the concession of a lesser sentence by awarding imprisonment for life to the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC. In these circumstances, no compelling reason exists for this Court to undertake a further examination of the question of motive.

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

15.I have also examined the plea taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication alleging that the both the injured witnesses have falsely deposed against him at the behest of his ex-wife Mst.Safia Bibi. However, such a plea being a bare assertion unsupported by any oral or documentary evidence does not by itself suffice to discredit the otherwise confidence-inspiring prosecution evidence. As stated above, the occurrence took place at 2:00 p.m., the crime scene is surrounded with residential houses and in the circumstances the commission of such a gruesome occurrence by any person other than the appellant without attracting notice appears highly improbable. It is also significant to note that the appellant neither produced any witness from his family to substantiate his plea of innocence nor opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., to rebut the allegations levelled against him. When examined in juxtaposition with the prosecution evidence discussed hereinabove, the appellant's stance fails to generate any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. On the contrary, the prosecution version finds corroboration from the ocular account furnished by two injured eyewitnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon of offence and its forensic linkage with the crime empties. The cumulative effect of these circumstances renders the prosecution case more credible, cogent and convincing, whereas the defence plea remains an unsubstantiated assertion and, therefore, does not merit acceptance.

16.For the foregoing reasons, and upon an anxious appraisal of the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court rest upon a sound and proper appreciation of the evidence and suffer from neither misreading or non-reading of the material on record nor any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 preferred by the appellant Naseem Ahmad being devoid of merit is dismissed and

Criminal Appeal No.59747-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021

the convictions and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court are maintained.

17.For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Revision No.59478 of 2021 seeking conversion of sentence of life imprisonment of Naseem Ahmad (respondent No.2) into that of death sentence under Section 302 (b) PPC being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

(ABHER GUL KHAN)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

JUDGE

The judgment was announced on 08.10.2026,dictated, prepared, and signed on 20.10.2026.

Najum*