Tahir Mehmood Tara . etc. Vs State Etc

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.80478-J/2021

Tahir Mehmood alias Tara & another vs The State

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Liaqat Ali vs Umair Raza, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 22.10.2026.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Dhuddi, Advocate alongwith Mr. Umair Safdar Malik, Advocate for Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (appellant No.1).

Appellants by:

Mr. Asif Mehmood Cheema, Advocate alongwith Barrister Abdullah Muhammad for Umair Raza (appellant No.2).

Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, District Public State by:

Prosecutor.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate for and with Liaqat Complainant by: Ali (complainant of the case, who has been identified by his learned counsel).

Farooq Haider, J: - This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.80478-J/2021 preferred by Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and Umair Raza (appellants) against their "convictions & sentences" and Crl. Revision No.8479/2022 filed by Liaqat Ali (complainant) for enhancement of sentences of Umair Raza and Tahir Mehmood alias Tara, as both these matters have arisen out of one and the same impugned judgment dated: 16.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambrial, District: Sialkot/trial court.

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

2.Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and Umair Raza (appellants) were tried in case arising out of F.I.R. No.216/2020 dated: 25.03.2020 registered under Section: 394 PPC {offences under Sections: 302, 114, 411 PPC were added during investigation of the case} at Police Station: Sambrial, District Sialkot; trial court after conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated: 16.12.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellants; in this regard, relevant portions from paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the impugned judgment are hereby reproduced as under: - “Therefore, while convicting u/s 302 (b) PPC, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I sentence accused Umair Raza to suffer 'LIFE IMPRISONMENT' with fine of Rs 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) to be paid to the heirs of the deceased u/s 544-A Cr.P.C recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of the said amount, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. The convict Umair Raza is also sentenced to suffer TEN YEARS rigorous imprisonment u/s 394 PPC alongwith fine of Rs. 100,000/- (One Lac) and in case of default in the payment of said amount, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

25.As the quantum of sentence for the convict Tahir Mehmood alias Tara u/s 302 PPC is concerned, since, he has no direct attribution of firing at the deceased and he is held liable for the murder of Ibrar Asim under the principle of vicarious liability, therefore, he also deserves life imprisonment instead of normal penalty of death. Consequently, while convicting him u/s 302(b) PPC, the accused Tahir Mehmood alias Tara is sentenced to suffer 'LIFE IMPRISONMENT' with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) to be paid to the heirs of the deceased u/s 544-A recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of the said amount, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. The convict Tahir Mehmood alias Tara is also sentenced to suffer TEN YEARS rigorous imprisonment u/s 394 PPC with fine of Rs.100,000/- (one Lac) and in case of default in the payment of said amount, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The convict Tahir Mehmood alias Tara is further convicted u/s 411 PPC and sentenced to suffer THREE YEARS simple imprisonment as well u/s 411 PPC.”

3.Machinery of law was set into motion in this case on submission of an application (Ex.PB) for registration of case by Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2) to Muhammad Afzaal, T/ASI (PW-15) at Police Station: Sambrial with the averments that on 24.03.2020 at about 4:30 p.m., he and his nephew Ibrar Asim were coming back from their land situated in Village Veramkay to their village Mango Kaman via canal bank road ()پٹری نہر, when they reached at Saifen Bridge, two unknown accused

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

persons armed with pistols intercepted them, ordered them to get off the motorcycle and hand over their belongings, threatening to shoot if they did not comply, snatched wallet containing Rs.20,000/- and essential documents, from Ibrar Asim, meanwhile, Ibrar Asim tried to pull out his licensed pistol .9mm, one of the accused persons took him (Ibrar Asim) into clasp (Japha) and they grappled with each other; other accused fired straight shot to rescue his companion, which hit at back of Ibrar Asim, due to which he (Ibrar Asim) fell down in injured condition; accused persons fled away from the spot while taking away motorcycle of Ibrar Asim, licensed pistol, Rs.20,000/- and other essential documents; they (complainant party) made call at Police Helpline 15 and shifted Ibrar Asim to Civil Hospital, Daska in injured condition, from where he was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore; On the basis of said application (Ex.PB), F.I.R (Ex.PY) was chalked out by Muhammad Afzaal, T/ASI (PW-15); for ready reference, relevant portion of the same (FIR) is hereby scanned below: -

On 03.04.2020, Ibrar Asim succumbed to the injuries in Mayo Hospital, Lahore upon which, offence under Section: 302 PPC was added by the Investigating Officer; on 05.05.2020, Hameed Hussain, Inspector/ Investigating Officer (PW-16) arrested Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Umair Raza (accused persons) under Section: 54 Cr.P.C. and on the same day, sent them to judicial lockup for the purpose of identification test parade; during test identification parade held on 08.05.2020, complainant identified the accused persons as culprits of the occurrence and on 10.05.2020, complainant got recorded his supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer (PW-16) while implicating Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and Umair Raza as accused persons; after completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court against the appellants by placing their names in column No.3 of the same; appellants were formally charge sheeted, however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention here that another accused namely Sufyan alias Sonny was also introduced as accused during the investigation but he died during trial of the case and proceedings to his extent were abated vide order dated: 13.11.2020 passed by the trial court; relevant portion of said interim order is hereby reproduced as under: - “Since accused Sufyan has died, therefore, proceedings against him are hereby abated.”

Prosecution during trial examined twenty witnesses and after giving up Mudassar Hussain, Pervaiz Ali, Ahsan Hussain, Irfan Fiaz 436/C, Naveed 435/C, Danish Ali 2284/C, Rafaqat Ali 1661/C and Shahid Mehmood 1395/C being unnecessary and tendering in evidence report of PFSA regarding Firearm and Tool Marks as Ex.PTT and report of PFSA qua DNA & Serology Analysis as Ex.PUU, closed its evidence; appellants were examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them; Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (accused) neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section: 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor opted to produce any evidence in his defence, however, Umair Raza (accused) though did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section: 340 (2) Cr.P.C., yet produced photocopies of his Matriculation and

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Intermediate Provisional Result Cards as Ex.DA and Ex.DB in his defence.

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

4.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that impugned judgment is against the ‘law and facts’ of the case; names of accused persons were not mentioned in the F.I.R. and prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has finally prayed for acquittal of the appellants.

5.Conversely, learned District Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant while submitting that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants up to hilt have prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Learned counsel for the complainant has also prayed for enhancing sentence of both convicts to death while accepting the revision petition.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case, occurrence took place at about 04:30 pm on 24.03.2020 at the bank of canal near Saifan Pull situated in the area of Malkhanwala which is situated at a distance of 5-km from the police station as per Column No.4 of the F.I.R. (Ex.PY); however occurrence was reported to the police on the next day by Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2) through submission of written application (Ex.PB) in the police station and resultantly at 07:30 pm on 25.03.2020, F.I.R. (Ex.PY) was recorded at the police station; so there was delay of about 27-hours in registration of the case after the occurrence. Though it is quite natural that when one person receives injuries during the occurrence, then 1st and foremost priority is to shift him to the hospital for medical treatment and thereafter to report the occurrence to the police and time consumed for shifting injured to hospital is treated as valid explanation qua delay in reporting the occurrence to the police and such delay is generally not

Crl. Appeal No.80478-J of 2021 & 6 Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

considered as fatal for the case of prosecution yet each case has its own facts and circumstances. It is relevant to mention here that as per own case of prosecution mentioned in the application for registration of case (Ex.PB), occurrence took place at 04:30 pm on 24.03.2020 and call was made by the complainant party to the police helpline (15) and Ibrar Asim was taken in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Daska. At the cost of repetition, relevant portion of the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case in this regard, is hereby reproduced as under: - ت ) رپ اکل یک اور اب رار اعمص وک رضمویب احل ںیم وسل اتپسہل15 ( "دعب ازاں مہ ےن وپسیل ہ ل پ النئ " ڈہکس ےل ےئگ ۔ ۔۔۔۔۔ ۔ ۔۔۔۔

Relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) in this regard is reproduced as under: - “Thereafter, we made call on Rescue-15 and escorted the injured Ibrar Asim to Civil Hospital Daska,...........”

The complainant (PW-2) stated during his statement before the Court that the police came at the place of occurrence after their departure to the hospital alongwith injured; in this regard relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced below: - “The police came at the place of occurrence after our departure to the hospital along with injured.”

And the complainant (PW-2) further stated that at the time of medical examination of the deceased (the then injured of the case), he was present there; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement reads below: - “At the time of medical examination of deceased, the then injured, I was present there.”

He (complainant/PW-2) also stated that when injured was in Daska Hospital, the police came there and Muhammad Arif, Inspector (first I.O. of the case) also came at the hospital but he did not make any statement before said Investigating Officer in respect of this occurrence in the

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

hospital; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below: - “When the injured was in Daska Hospital, the police came there. Mohammad Arif Inspector first I.O of this case, also came at hospital. I did not make any statement before Muhammad Arif inspector in respect of this occurrence in hospital.” (emphasis added)

Perusal of statement of Dr. Muhammad Arslan Naveed (PW-13, who conducted medical examination of Ibrar Asim in injured condition) reflects that on 24.3.2020, he medically examined Ibrahim Asim (the then injured) and administered all possible available life-saving treatment & management including chest intubation aseptic dressing, and securing haemostasis; which process naturally took time; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “A firearm lacerated wound of 2 x2.5 cm approx, Diagonal, Inverted Margins between the lower border of Left Scapula and Spine, Fresh blood oozing out. There was no exit wound/injury noted at the time of examination. After administering all possible available life saving treatment & management, Chest intubation aseptic dressing and haemostasis secured.”

And if the complainant (PW-2) was present in Daska Hospital, Muhammed Arif, Inspector (first Investigating Officer/PW-17) also came there in the hospital at that time, then why complainant (PW-2) did not make statement to him regarding the occurrence. This state of affairs makes it crystal clear that occurrence came into the knowledge of the police firstly when, on the day of occurrence, police reached at the place of occurrence and secondly when came at Civil Hospital, Daska where at that time, injured was already present in said hospital and as per claim of complainant (PW2), he was also present there; so, in such circumstances, not making the statement by complainant (PW-2) qua occurrence for registration of case to the police in Civil Hospital, Daska then and there rather with considerable delay of 27-hours in the police station reflects that the complainant (PW-2) was not present there at the time of occurrence, at the crime scene, his attendance was procured and after

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

consultation and deliberation, story for the prosecution was tailored and then the case was registered in its present form. So, such delay in registration of case has vitiated the legal efficacy and sanctity of the most vital document of the prosecution i.e. First Information Report; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “Mst. ASIA BIBI versus The STATE and others” (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64), “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).

In this case, ocular account produced by the prosecution only comprises Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2). As per own case of the prosecution mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case, he (complainant/PW-2) was coming alongwith Ibrar Asim from their land situated in Village Veramkay towards their Village Mangokaman. In his statement before the Court, complainant (PW-2) categorically stated that his residence in Village Mangokaman is at a distance of about 1 or 1-1/2 km from the place of occurrence whereas Village Veramkay is at a distance of about 6 Acres from the place of occurrence; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below: - “My residence in village Magokaman is at a distance of about 1 or 1 1/2 K.M from the place of occurrence whereas village Veramkay is at B a distance of about 6 Acres from the place of occurrence.”

So, the complainant (PW-2) was chance witnesses and thus required to establish valid, cogent as well as plausible reason regarding his presence at the “time & place” of occurrence. It is relevant to mention here that the complainant (PW-2) did not produce any proof regarding ownership of his land at Village Veramkay; relevant portion of his statement in this regard reads as under: -

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

“I did not produce any proof of ownership of our land at village Veerankay before police during investigation.”

Though the complainant (PW-2) mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case that they made call to Rescue-15 yet during his statement before the Court, he categorically stated that he himself did not make call to Rescue-15 but volunteered that Inayatullah made call when attracted at the place of occurrence; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “I myself did not make call to Rescue 15. Volunteered PW Inayatullah made call when attracted at the place of occurrence.”

But it is relevant to mention here that Inayatullah while appearing as PW-3 during trial of the case did not state that he made call to rescue 15. Likewise, the complainant (PW-2) also stated that they did not call Rescue-1122 from the place of occurrence; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement reads under: - “We did not call rescue 1122 from the place of occurrence.”

If as per case of prosecution, he (complainant/PW-2) accompanied and took Ibrar Asim in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Daska, then his name must had been mentioned in the Medical Provisional Report of Ibrar Asim as the person accompanying him but perusal of said Medical Provisional Report (Ex.PU, copy whereof is available at Page No.177 to 182 of the paper book) reveals that name of the complainant is not mentioned there as accompanying Ibrar Asim rather it has been mentioned therein that Ibrar Asim was accompanied by the police; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of Dr. Muhammad Arslan Naveed (PW-13) is reproduced below: - “It is stated that on 24.03.2020, I was posted at THQ Hospital, Daska District Sialkot. On the same day, I conducted medical examination of Ibrar Asim son of Muhammad Nazir caste Jatt aged 41 years male vide MLC No.435/2020 brought by Adnan Aslam 683/C through injury statement Ex.P-T bearing my seal & signature Exh.P.T/1. I observed following injuries as under.”

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Furthermore, complainant (PW-2) did not introduce himself to the doctor as uncle of the injured; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced as under: - “I did not introduce myself to the doctor being Uncle of injured.”

It is important to mention here that signature and thumb impression of accompanying relative of the injured are obtained on sworn statement ()حلفیہ بیان, on the MLC and said portion is reproduced below: - But signature and thumb impression of the complainant (PW-2) were not available on the MLC; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) is reproduced as under: - “Doctor did not obtain my signature or thumb impression on any document however the same might have been taken from nephew Mudassar, who was also present there.”

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2) even did not disclose colour/kind of purse of the deceased, detail of Rs.20,000/- as well as detail of important documents of the deceased during the investigation; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “I did not disclose the colour/kind of purse of deceased. I did not disclose the detail of Rs.20,000/- during investigation. I also did not disclose the detail of important documents of deceased during investigation.”

He (complainant/PW-2) also did not produce proof of ownership of the allegedly snatched motorcycle, during the investigation; relevant portion of his statement in this regard reads below: - “I did not produce the proof of ownership of alleged snatched motorcycle Honda 125 Red Colour during the investigation.”

Furthermore, the complainant (PW-2) also did not produce the original license of .9mm pistol of the deceased before the police; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “I did not produce the original lisence of 9-MM Pistol of deceased before Police.”

As per claim of prosecution mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case and statement of complainant (PW-2), Ibrar Asim tried to pull out his licensed pistol .9mm, one of the accused persons took him (Ibrar Asim) into clasp (Japha) and they grappled with each other; other accused fired straight shot to rescue his companion, which hit at back of Ibrar Asim, due to which he (Ibrar Asim) fell down in injured condition. But it is relevant to mention here that as per Site Plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PRR), assailant was at a distance of 10-feet from Ibrar Asim (the then injured, now deceased of the case) when fire shot was made with pistol .30 bore at him and even there was no burning, blackening, tattooing or scorching on the wound of the deceased; hence, any common prudent man cannot accept that when one of the assailant has taken into clasp, and caught hold the victim and they are grappling inter se, then other assailant would make fire shot with firearm weapon from such distance of 10-feet at the

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

victim because in such circumstances, there would be every possibility and risk of hitting firearm shot to the own companion of such assailant, also. In view of all above, any material is not available on the record to corroborate the presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence or in the hospital as accompanying Ibrar Asim (the then injured). Therefore, ocular account furnished by the prosecution comprising Liaqat Ali (complainant/ PW-2), is neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring/truthful; hence, same cannot be relied and is hereby discarded.

Admittedly, both the appellants were neither nominated in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case nor any features of accused persons whatsoever were mentioned therein. As per case of prosecution, Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and Umair Raza (present appellants) were arrested under Section: 54 Cr.P.C. in the case by Hameed Hussain, Inspector (Investigating Officer/PW-16) on 05.05.2020 when they were going on motorcycle and said motorcycle was secured/taken into possession by the police; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-16) is reproduced as under: - “On 05.05.2020, I apprehended the accused Tahir and Umair Raza present in the Court u/s 54 Cr.P.C. and interrogated them.”

Thereafter, both the appellants were sent to jail where, as per case of prosecution, they were identified in the identification test parade held on 08.05.2020 under the supervision of Mr. Jamshad Nawab, Magistrate Ist Class, Sialkot (PW-20), copy of proceedings of Identification Test Parade is available at Page No.203 to 207 of the paper book as Ex.PSS. It goes without saying that features including facial features of a person are most relevant and essential for his subsequent identification but description and facial features of unknown accused were neither mentioned by the complainant (PW-2) in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case nor disclosed throughout the investigation

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

and even he (complainant/PW-2) did not disclose the same before learned Magistrate prior to identification test parade; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) is reproduced below: - “I never disclosed the features/description of unknown accused persons throughout the investigation prior to identification parade. I did not disclose the features/description of unknown accused persons before Magistrate prior to identification parade.”

Similarly, Hameed Hussain, Inspector (Investigating Officer) while appearing before the Court as PW-16 categorically stated that features of the accused/assailants were not mentioned in the record prior to 05.05.2020; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below: - “Prior to 05.05.2020, features of accused Tahir and Umair were not mentioned in the record.”

Therefore, though prosecution claims that Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2) identified both the appellants during test identification parade yet same is of no avail to the case of prosecution; in this regard, case of “SIKANDAR ALI LASHARI and another versus The STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh” (2026 SCMR 1261) can be safely referred and relevant portion from its paragraph No.10 is hereby reproduced below:-

10.Now coming to the case of Muhammad Irfan Khan alias Faheem (appellant in Crl.A. No. 345/2023), we have noted that according to the prosecution case, the said appellant has been implicated in this case being one of the five (05) unknown accused mentioned in the FIR. The allegation against the said appellant was that he along with four (04) other unknown accused intercepted the car of the complainant party on the night of occurrence, forcibly dragged Aqib Hussain (deceased) out of his car and caught hold the deceased from his arms, whereupon Ghulam Abbas (co-accused since P.O), made 15/16 fire shots, on the body of the deceased. No description like colour, height or age etc of the unknown accused were mentioned in the contents of the FIR, therefore, identification of Muhammad Irfan Khan alias Faheem (appellant) in the identification parade carries no value in the eyes of law as observed in the cases reported as "State/Government of Sindh through Advocate General Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo" (1993 SCMR 585) and "Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State” (2011 SCMR 563).” (emphasis added)

It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant while appearing before the Court as PW-2 categorically stated that identification of both

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

the appellants was conducted in one session when they were sitting in separate rows; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “Identification of both the accused persons present in the Court was conducted in one session when they were sitting in separate rows.” (emphasis added)

Likewise, Mr. Jamshad Nawab, Magistrate Ist Class, Sialkot while appearing before the Court as PW-20 also stated that the identification parade of both the accused persons namely Tahir Mehmood and Umair Raza was conducted in one session; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced below: - “The identification parade of both the accused persons namely Tahir Mehmood and Umair Raza was conducted in one session.” (emphasis added)

By now it is well settled that when identification of the accused persons is not held separately rather conducted in one session, then it is termed as joint identification parade, which is of no legal value and thus of no help to the case of prosecution; in this regard, case of “ALI IMRAN and others versus The STATE and another” (2026 SCMR 1370) can be advantageously referred and its relevant portion from paragraph No.8 is hereby reproduced below: - “It is by now a well-settled principle of law that the identification parade of each accused person must be held separately and that a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons is unsafe and unreliable. Such a practice has consistently been disapproved by this Court. The holding of a joint identification parade has repeatedly been deprecated by this Court. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189), Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142), Ziaullah alias Jaji v. The State (2008 SCMR 1210), Bacha Zeb v. The State (2010 SCMR 1189) and Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537).”

Similarly, guidance on the subject can also be sought from the case of “MEHBOOB HASSAN versus AKHTAR ISLAM and others” (2024 SCMR 757) and its relevant portion from paragraph No.2 is reproduced as under: -

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

“The Magistrate who conducted the identification parade in jail, sated that five rows consisting of under-trial prisoners and the respondents were made. In each row, one of the respondents was made to sit. The witnesses were asked one by one to identify the accused. Consequently, they identified all the respondents in one go. Though the Magistrate managed to make five rows consisting of the under-trial prisoners and each of the respondents, but the fact remains that they all were present in the same premises under alone roof. The manner in which the Magistrate managed to conduct the identification parade leads us to a conclusion that it was a combined and is joint identification parade. This Court in the cases of Gulfam1, Shafqat Mehmood2 and Mian Sohail Ahmed3 has held that joint identification parade is a nullity.”

In view of above, when names of accused persons were not mentioned in the crime report (Ex.PY), their features whatsoever were not detailed therein and they were put to joint identification test parade, then such identification of the accused persons (appellants) is nullity in the eyes of law and is of no help to the case of prosecution against the appellants. Therefore, identification of both the appellants as assailants of the occurrence could not be duly established in accordance with law. As far as medical evidence is concerned, 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 or the person 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).”

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

So far as recovery of pistol .30 bore (P-4) taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Ex.PE) from Umair Raza (appellant No.2) is concerned, suffice it to say that as per statement of Qaisar Mehmood (one of witnesses of said recovery, who appeared before the Court as PW-4), Investigating Officer prepared sealed parcel of pistol .30 bore alongwith 3-live bullets and took the same into possession by preparing recovery memo (Ex.PE), which was attested by him and Ahsan Hussain; relevant portion of his (PW-4) statement in this regard is reproduced as under: - “The I.O prepared the sealed parcel of pistol 30-Bore and 3 live bullets bearing seal impression of “H.H” and took the same into possession by preparing recovery memo (Exh.P.E), which was attested by me and Ahsan Hussain.”

HOWEVER, as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PTT, copy whereof is available at Page No.38 of the paper book), only pistol .30 bore was found from said parcel and it is very much important to mention here that availability of three live bullets in the parcel of pistol is not mentioned in said report; so, safe custody and transmission of said parcel has been compromised and not established. It goes without saying that the occurrence took place on 24.03.2020 and as per statement of the complainant (PW-2), on the day of occurrence, after departure of the injured to Civil Hospital, Daska, police came there at the place of occurrence (as detailed above) and if cartridge case/empty was available there, then why it was not secured by the police then and there at that time i.e. on 24.03.2020; in this regard, at the cost of repetition, relevant portion of statement of the complainant (PW-2) is reproduced as under: - “The police came at the place of occurrence after our departure to the hospital along with injured.”

Furthermore, one cartridge case, secured from the place of occurrence, was submitted in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency and as per report of said agency (Ex.PTT), said cartridge case was identified as having been fired in item P2, which was the pistol statedly recovered from

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Umair Raza (appellant No.2), however, it is relevant to mention here that perusal of aforementioned report (Ex.PTT) reveals that parcel of cartridge case was submitted in said office on 06.04.2020 by Hameed Hussain, Inspector, who while appearing before the Court as PW-16 during the trial did not state that he received parcel of cartridge case from Moharrar of the police station or deposited the same in the office of PFSA; therefore, safe custody and transmission of said cartridge case from the police station to the office of PFSA has also not been established and for the afore-stated reasons, conclusiveness of aforementioned report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PTT) has been impaired, its sanctity has been eroded and it has become unreliable hence of no help to the case of prosecution; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “NAWAB ALI versus The STATE” (2019 SCMR 2009), “AKBAR ALI and others versus The STATE and others” (2021 SCMR 104) and “AZHAR HUSSAIN and another versus The STATE and others” (2022 SCMR 1907). Resultantly, recovery of pistol .30 bore (P-4) from Umair Raza (appellant No.2) is of no avail to the case of prosecution.

As far as recovery of pistol .30 bore (P-9) from Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (appellant No.1) is concerned, suffice it to say that as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PTT), cartridge case, secured from the place of occurrence, was not identified as having been fired from said pistol; therefore, recovery of said pistol (P-9) from Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (appellant No.1) is inconsequential.

Though as per case of prosecution, on 21.05.2020, Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (appellant No.1) got recovered pistol .9mm Viper No.AB- 66689 (P-20) alongwith purse having coloured copy of arms license, coloured copy of identity card of Ibrar Asim, yet in the F.I.R. (Ex.PY) neither pistol number was mentioned nor it was mentioned that license of

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

said pistol was in the name of Ibrar Asim; furthermore, original arms license and original identity card of Ibrar Asim were never produced to tally with said coloured copies and verify their genuineness. Hameed Hussain, Inspector (Investigating Officer/PW-16) even did not get the said arms licence as well as pistol number verified from concerned Arms License Branch; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below: - “I did not get verify from concerned Arm Lisence Branch, the arm lisence and pistol number of the deceased, which were told to me by the complainant on 02.05.2020. As per record, complainant never produced original Arm Lisence of the deceased before me.”

Therefore, recovery of these articles is also of no help to the case of prosecution.

So far as recovery of Honda motorcycle 125 (P-1) from Tahir Mehmood alias Tara (appellant No.1) at the time of his stated arrest by the police, is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that in the application for registration of case (Ex.PB), only motorcycle of Ibrar Asim 125-CC having red colour, was mentioned but neither company of said motorcycle nor its registration number, engine number or chassis number was incorporated therein; furthermore, complainant (PW-2) did not produce any proof regarding ownership of said motorcycle during the investigation; in this regard, relevant portion of his (complainant/PW-2) statement is reproduced as under: - “I did not produce the proof of ownership of alleged snatched motorcycle Honda 125 Red Colour during the investigation.”

It is worth mentioning here that though as per application for registration of case (Ex.PB), motorcycle of Ibrar Asim was statedly snatched by the assailants yet motorcycle (P-1) statedly taken into possession by police from the appellants at the time of their arrest and secured vide recovery memo. (Ex.PG), was not owned by Ibrar Asim (now deceased of the case);

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

in this regard, relevant portions of statement of Hameed Hussain, Inspector (Investigating Officer/PW-16) are reproduced as under: - “On 02.05.2020, the complainant appeared before me and got recorded the detail of engine number and chasis number of Honda-125 mentioned in FIR.”

“The motorcycle bearing Chassis number & Engine number of which was told to me on 02.05.2020, was not owned by the deceased.”

It also goes without saying at the cost of repetition that as per application (Ex.PB) for registration of case, aforesaid motorcycle was belonging to Ibrar Asim (now deceased of the case) but during the investigation somersault was taken by the prosecution and statedly recovered motorcycle through recovery memo. (Ex.PG) was got identified by Inayat Ullah (PW-3) as his motorcycle through identification memo. (Ex.PK); furthermore, said Inayat Ullah (PW-3) while appearing before the Court stated that on 24.03.2020, he came to meet Ibrar Asim at Village Magokaman on his motorcycle Honda 125, Ibrar Asim asked him to give key of his motorcycle Honda-125 for going to his lands at Village Veeramkay alongwith Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2), they i.e. Ibrar Asim and Liaqat Ali took the motorcycle and went off, and he has obtained information that his motorcycle has been recovered from the accused persons and is present in Police Station: Sambrial; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “Stated that on 24.03.2020, I came to meet Ibrar Asim at village Magokaman on my motorcycle Honda 125. Ibrar Asim asked me to give key of my motorcycle Honda 125 for going to his lands at village Veeramkay alongwith Liaquat Ali. Ibrar Asim and Liaquat Ali took the motorcycle and went off. Thereafter, I heard about the occurrence.

On 09.05.2020, I got information that my own motorcycle has been recovered from the accused persons and is present in Police Station Sambrial.”

He (PW-3) further stated that he alongwith Pervaiz Ali came to Police Station: Sambrial and identified his motorcycle Honda 125 (P-1); in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is also reproduced below: - “Thereafter, I alongwith Pervaiz Ali came to Police Station Sambrial and identified my motorcycle Honda 125 (P.1), bearing Engine No.354583 which was parked in the premises of Police Station Sambrial amongest other motorcycles. Thereafter, I joined the investigation and I.O prepared memo of identification (fard

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

Shanakht) of motorcycle Honda 125 (P.1), bearing Engine No.354583 (Exh.P.C) which was attested by me and Pervaiz Ali. I.O recorded my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C.”

BUT it was dishonest improvement, which has been proved so during cross-examination conducted over Inayat Ullah (PW-3); in this regard, relevant portion of his statement reads as under: - “My statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the I.O. I got recorded in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C before I.O that on 24.03.2020, I came to meet Ibrar Asim at Village Magokaman on my motorcycle Honda 125. Ibrar Asim asked me to give key of my motorcycle Honda 125 for going to his lands at village Veeramkay alongwith Liaquat Ali. Ibrar Asim and Liaquat Ali took the motorcycle and went off. Thereafter, I heard about the occurrence. Confronted with Exh.D.C, where it is not so mentioned.”

Furthermore, complainant (PW-2) neither in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case nor in his statement before the Court stated that said motorcycle (P-1) was of Inayat Ullah (PW-3) and obtained by Ibrar Asim (deceased of the case) from said Inayat Ullah for going to his lands. Therefore, said recovery of motorcycle (P-1) cannot be construed as an incriminating material against the appellants.

As per own case of the prosecution, both the appellants pointed out the place of occurrence on 21.05.2020 and memo. of pointing out of the place of occurrence (Ex.PW) was prepared however when said place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of police on the day of occurrence (as detailed above), then such pointing out of the place, at belated stage, is of no evidentiary value.

So far as taking into possession Call Data Record (CDR) of the accused persons through recovery memo. (Ex.PR) is concerned, suffice it to say that any forensically analyzed/tested voice recording transcript regarding said calls was not produced during trial of the case and by now it is well settled that mere production of CDR without voice recording transcript, is of no avail to the prosecution; in this regard, case of “Mst. SAIMA NOREEN vs The STATE and another” (2022 LHC 8798)

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

can be advantageously referred and relevant portion from the same is hereby reproduced below: - “10. Although any accused or witness can claim or admit possession and use of any SIM “Subscriber Identity Module’ by him or anybody else at the time of occurrence or any other relevant time yet mere such claim or admission is not sufficient for relying on CDR “Call Data Record” of said SIM because CDR only shows use of SIM in territorial/geographical jurisdiction of “Cell Phone Tower” installed by telecom operator and does not disclose that who is actually/exactly carrying and using said SIM; however, “Voice Record Transcript” or “End to End Audio Recording” can reflect the detail/identification of the user. Therefore, without “Voice Recording Transcript”, mere “Call Data Record” (CDR) alone of the SIM is inconclusive piece of evidence regarding identity of its user/carrier;”

Hence, said CDR is of no help to the prosecution. Now coming to the recovery of pistol .30 bore (P-15) from Sufian alias Sonny (accused, since dead) taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Ex.PQ); as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PTT), cartridge case/empty was not found matched with said pistol (P-15); therefore, recovery of the same is inconsequential. As far as preparation of memo. (Ex.PX) on 21.05.2020 regarding pointing out the place by Sufian alias Sonny (accused, since dead) from where he statedly made phone call to two accused persons is concerned, suffice it to say that same was already in the knowledge of the police; in this regard, relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Nisar (PW-12) is hereby reproduced as under: - “Stated that on 24.03.2020 at about 04:30/04:35 p.m, after getting free from important work at village Dhilam Blagan was coming back to my village and on my way, was drinking water from "null" / installed at bank of canal. An unknwon boy aged about 22/23 years, small height, slim body armed with pistol and "Gandami/ گندمی complexion was also drinking watter from adjoining "null". His motorcycle Honda 125 without registration was also parked near him. Thereafter, he started giving instructions to someone through mobile phone that two persons riding on red coloured motorcycle Honda 125 APPLIED FOR are coming towards you and come to me after completion of your task. Thereafter, I went to my house. After that I heard about the occurrence committed against Ibrar Asim and that he sustained fire arm injuries. I had strong suspicion that the boy I saw at canal bank had connection with the occurrence committed with Ibrar Asim and I could identify that boy. Thereafter, I told whole

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

story to complainant and joined the investigation on 31.03.2020 with I.O, who recorded my "daryaft".”

Furthermore, nothing was recovered from said pointed place. Therefore, said memo. (Ex.PX) is of no legal value for the prosecution. So far as identification of Sufian alias Sonny (accused, since dead) by Muhammad Nisar (PW-12) is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that he (PW-12) did not identify him in identification test parade under the supervision of Magistrate and relevant portion of his statement in this regard is reproduced as under: - “Police did not get arranged proceedings of identification parade in Jail under the Supervision of Magistrate.”

So, said identification was also having no legal value in the eyes of law. It is further important to mention here that the prosecution also claimed that mobile phone was recovered from Umair Raza (appellant No.2) but any forensically analyzed/tested voice recording transcript of any call made from said phone was not produced during trial of the case; therefore, same is of no help to the case of prosecution. Furthermore, prosecution also claimed that Honda 125-CC without number, red colour was secured from Sufian alias Sonny (accused, since dead), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Ex.PJ). Since in the statement of Muhammad Nisar (PW-12), registration number of the motorcycle parked near said Sufyan alias Sonny, was not mentioned, therefore, same is of no avail to the case of prosecution; even otherwise, when as per case of prosecution mentioned in the application (Ex.PB) for registration of case as well as statement of Liaqat Ali (complainant/PW-2), Sufian alias Sonny did not come at the place of occurrence on the motorcycle, then it cannot be termed as incriminating material in stricto senso.

Therefore, all aforementioned recoveries are of no legal help to the case of prosecution against the appellants.

Criminal Revision No.8479/2022

8.It is well established principle of law that single circumstance/doubt in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal; in this regard, cases of “MUHAMMAD BILAL versus The STATE” (2025 SCMR 1580) and “MUHAMMAD ASGHAR versus The STATE” (2025 SCMR 1616) can be safely referred.

9.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 both the appellants, therefore, there is no need to discuss defence version.

10.In view of what has been discussed above, instant appeal filed by Tahir Mehmood alias Tara and Umair Raza (appellants) is allowed; convictions recorded and sentences awarded to the appellants through impugned judgment dated: 16.12.2021 are hereby set-aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charge; they shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

11.Consequent upon aforementioned reasons, Criminal Revision No.8479/2022 filed by Liaqat Ali (complainant) seeking enhancement of sentences of Umair Raza and Tahir Mahmood alias Tara, stands dismissed.

(Farooq Haider) Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(Farooq Haider) Judge This judgment has been dictated and pronounced on 22.10.2026 whereas after preparation/ completion, signed on 23.10.2026.

Kashif