Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1474
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-01-16
Parties: The State, Ameer Sultan vs Ameer Sultan, The State and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-01-16, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1474. In this matter between The State, Ameer Sultan and Ameer Sultan, The State and another, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025LHC1474
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadaqat Ali Khan, Sadiq Mahmud Khurram Title: The State, Ameer Sultan vs Ameer Sultan, The State and another Case No.: Murder Reference No.57 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2025-01-16 Reported As: 2025 LHC 1474 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. -Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan (convict) was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal in case F.I.R No. 605 of 2022 dated 29.12.2022 registered at Police Station City Chakwal, District Chakwal in respect of offences under sections 302 and 449 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Haji Muhammad Hayat son of Dost Muhammad (deceased) . The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.10.2023 convicted Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan :- i) Death under section 302(b) PPC as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Haji Muhammad Hayat son of Dost Muhammad (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment thereof, the convict was directed to undergo further six months of simple imprisonment. ii) Imprisonment for Life under section 449 P.P.C. and directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine; in case of default of payment thereof, the convict was directed to undergo further six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till death. The convict was, however, extended the benefit available under section 382-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan (convict) lodged the Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2023 assailing his conviction and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.57 of 2023 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the
---
## Page 2
sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2023 and the Murder Reference No.57 of 2023 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely the facts necessary, as stated by Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) , the complainant of the case, are as under:- "It is stated that on 29.12.2022 I was working as Munshi in under construction Danish School system at Chakwal. Haji Muhammad Hayat deceased and Muhammad Aslam were working as a Chowkidar in said school. On the mid night of 29.12.2022 at about 12:30 am. we all three persons were present at the place of occurrence and both the Chowkidars were present in the guardroom while illuminating fire and I was sleeping in the adjacent room. Meanwhile, an unknown person came there through main gate and said that he wants to reside there. Haji Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Aslam tried to turn him out of the room, meanwhile altercation took place between them and I also attracted there. Said unknown person took wood/Danda from the burning woods and gave its many blows on the head of Muhammad Hayat, due to which he sustained injuries at his head, face and nose.Haji Muhammad Hayat fell on the ground. The said unknown person was having average height aged about 35/40 years, fled away from the place of occurrence who could be identified by me. Said person had committed access while causing injuries to the deceased. Motive behind the occurrence was that said person forcibly intended to reside there and on refusal of the deceased he committed the occurrence. I called at Rescue 1122 and shifted deceased, the then injured, at District Headquarter Hospital, Chakwal. Police Khidmat Centre Chakwal prepared injury statement of the deceased, the then injured. His medical examination was conducted by the doctor. Meanwhile, IO arrived at District Headquarter Hospital, Chakwal. I got recorded my oral statement which was reduced into writing by the IO as Exh.PN which was read-over to me and I signed the same. The injured was shifted to District Headquarter Hospital Rawalpindi from the District Headquarter Hospital Chakwal. The injured was succumbed to the injuries at District Headquarter Hospital Rawalpindi. Afterwards I alongwith IO and PFSA team visited the place of occurrence where PFSA team collected blood stained earth through cotton which was made into a sealed parcel and IO took the same into his possession through a recovery memo. IO took an electric bulb P7 into his possession vide recovery memo Exh.PO, attested by me and Muhammad Aslam PW. IO recorded our statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan of the scene of occurrence on our pointation. On 06.01.2023, on IO alongwith draftsman visited the place of occurrence where in our presence, draftsman took rough notes on our pointation. On 12.01.2023, I alongwith Muhammad Aslam PW was called upon in Sub Jail Chakwal and we duly identified the accused Ameer Sultan present in court during identification parade proceedings.IO recorded our statements u/s 161 Cr.PC in this regard and I nominated the accused in this case. On 23.01.2023, accused made disclosure in pursuant whereto, he got recovered wood/Danda P8 from inside Danish School, Chakwal/place of occurrence. The same was taken into possession by the IO vide recovery memo Exh.PP attested by me and Muhammad Aslam PW. IO also recorded our statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. He also prepared site plan of place of recovery in our presence." 4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the appellant namely Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan was sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 11.04.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got recorded statements of fourteen witnesses. Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) gave evidence regarding the ocular account. Aqib Javed 460/C (PW-3) stated that on 29.12.2022, he prepared the injury
---
## Page 3
statement (Exh.PB) related to Haji Muhammad Hayat (then injured later deceased) and also handed over the clothes of Haji Muhammad Hayat (then injured later deceased) to the Investigating Officer of the case. Ishrat Ali 321/HC (PW-4) stated that on 29.12.2022, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain blood stained swab, an electric bulb and the clothes of Haji Muhammad Hayat (then injured later deceased) and on 30.12.2022, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him the last worn clothes of the deceased and on 05.01.2023, he handed over the sealed parcel said to contain blood stained swab to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore . Muhammad Awais 711/C (PW-6) stated that on 30.12.2022, he got conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer and handed them over to the Investigating Officer of the case. Musawar Hayat (PW 7) stated that on 30.12.2022, he identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination. Saqlain Safdar draftsman (PW 8) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PL). Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-12) stated that on 29.12.2022, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PN/1). Yasir Bilal, learned Magistrate (PW-13) stated that on 12.01.2023, he supervised the test identification parade proceedings held to establish the identity of the appellant and prepared his report (Exh.PR). Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) investigated the case from 29.12.2022 till 25.01.2023, arrested the appellant on 05.01.2023 and narrated the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the the learned trial court. 6. The prosecution also got Dr. Muhammad Mudassir (PW-5) examined who on 30.12.2022 was posted as a Medical Officer at DHQ hospital Chakwal and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Haji Muhammad Hayat son of Dost Muhammad (deceased). Dr. Muhammad Mudassir (PW-5) on examining the dead body of the deceased Haji Muhammad Hayat son of Dost Muhammad observed as under:- "I noted following injuries on the dead body:- 1. Swelling about 1x1 c.m on the middle of right eyelid, blackish purple in colour, right eyelid was closed. 2. Swelling about 1x1 c.m on the middle of left eyelid, blackish purple in colour, left eyelid was closed. 3. A stitched wound about 2.5 c.m in length horizentol in shape, black colour stitched on left prital (sic) region 14 c.m away from the middle of the left ear. 4. A stitched wound about 3.5 c.m in length horisentle in shape black colour stitched on the middle of the skull, 18 c.m away from left ear. 5. Lacerated wound about 3 x 1 c.m on the middle of right of forehead, bone was exposed, 2.5 c.m above from the middle of the right eyebrow. 6. Laceration about 0.5 x 0.5 c.m on the right side of the nose, 0.5 c.m below the nasal bridge, margins were black in colour. 7. Laceration about 0.5 x 0.5 c.m on the middle inner of the lower lip, margins were blackish purple in colour. 8. Abrasion about 2 x 2 c.m circular in shape on the middle of the right cheek. 9. Swelling about 2 x 1 c.m on the middle of the left cheek. 10. Swelling about 2 x 2 c.m on the right temporal region, 2 c.m away from right eye. OPINION. According to my opinion, injury No.3 & 4 ante mortim in nature and were sufficient to cause death." The prosecution also got Dr. Faraz Abid Janjua (PW-1) examined who on 29.12.2022 was posted as a Civil Medical Officer at DHQ hospital Chakwal and on the same day had medically examined Haji Muhammad Hayat son of Dost Muhammad (deceased) in an injured condition and observed the following injuries:-
---
## Page 4
"DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES: 1 Right recoon eye. 2 Laceration about 0.5x0.5 c.m on right side of nose. 3. Laceration about 1x1 c.m on perital region. Bone exposed. 3 (sic) Laceration about 4x1.5 c.m on left perital region, 8 c.m above left ear, bone exposed. 4 Laceration about 3x1 c.m, bone exposed, 2 c.m above right eyebrow. 5 Swelling about 2x2 c.m with pain on right sid of forehead. 6 Laceration about 0.5x0.5 c.m in the inner side of lower lip." 7. On 05.06.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Kamran and Ghulam Murtaza as being unnecessary and on 11.09.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Wajahat Husnain 409/C and Ajlal Haider 167/C as being unnecessary. On 25.09.2023, the learned Assistant Deputy Prosecutor General closed the prosecution evidence after tendering the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PU) regarding blood stained swab . 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined appellant namely Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you, he replied that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The appellant further stated that he had not committed the occurrence and had been made a scapegoat in the case in order to show efficiency by the police. The appellant namely Ameer Sultan son of Muhammad Khan opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 9. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the whole case was fabricated and false. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible and relevant evidence to prove the same. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) were not worthy of any reliance. He further contended that the appellant was neither nominated in the F.I.R nor in the statements of witnesses recorded on the first day and the test identification parade proceedings as conducted were full of procedural defects and of no legal worth and value. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the recoveries were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value and result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond the shadow of a doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a shadow of a doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant . The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) . The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the recoveries made during the investigation of the case corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, to substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeal.
---
## Page 5
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, the learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance have perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 13. The whole prosecution case revolves around the statements of Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) . These witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) claimed that they were present with the deceased on the night of occurrence and had witnessed the incident. The perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW11) failed miserably to prove their presence at the place of occurrence , on the night of occurrence. According to the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11), the occurrence had taken place within the premises of an under- construction school and the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) was performing his duties as a Munshi for the building contractor whereas the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) was performing his duty as a guard at the said construction site, however, both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) did not produce any documentary evidence in support of them being appointed as they claimed. The prosecution witness namely Muhammad Sami Ullah admitted during cross-examination as under:- " I have not produced any proof to the IO that I am "Munshi" at Danish School Project, volunteered that they asked me and I told them." It is also a fact admitted by the Investigating Officer of the case that there was no room present at the place of occurrence which was under the use of prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) on the night of the occurrence. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) had also claimed that the occurrence had taken place inside the room where the deceased was present and had lit wood, however, that claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) was also not verified by the Investigating Officer of the case. Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination as under:- "In complaint it was the version of the complainant that the deceased was sitting in the room with burning woods. It is correct that in the site plan Exh.PT, no such point is mentioned ------------- It is correct that no point of alleged residence of the complainant and Muhammad Aslam eye witness is shown in the site of place of occurrence Exh.PT. Had the same been pointed out to me by the PWs I must have mentioned the same in the site plan." (emphasis supplied) Similarly, Saqlain Safdar draftsman (PW-8) admitted during cross-examination , as under:- " I have not mentioned any other residential room near to place of occurrence; had it been so, I must had mentioned the same in my scaled site plan Exh.PL/1-2. I have not mentioned any point any room/place of occurrence where the deceased was sitting alongwith burning woods; had it been so I must had mentioned the same in my scaled site plan. I have not mentioned any point showing abode of the complainant in my scaled site plan"(emphasis supplied) Most importantly, Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination that according to the unscaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PT) as prepared by him, the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) were not even present inside the room where the incident had taken place. " In the site place of occurrence Exh.PT, both the alleged eye witnesses are not shown inside the room and they were shown to be present at a distance of 16/17 feet from the deceased."
---
## Page 6
The prosecution witness namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) also claimed that he handled the deceased in an injured condition but still, his clothes were not stained with blood. In this manner, it is proved on record that the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) could not prove their presence at the place of occurrence, on the night of occurrence 14. We have also noted that according to the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) , the occurrence took place at about 12.30 a.m (night) on 29.12.2022, however, both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) did not mention that there was any light source available at the place of the occurrence in the light of which they were able to not only witness the occurrence but also to note the features of the then unknown accused person. The learned counsel for the complainant has rightly pointed out that Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) took into possession an electric bulb (P-7) from the place of the incident, proving that there was indeed sufficient light available to enable the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) to witness the occurrence , however, is unable to explain the failure of both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) in claiming that such an electric bulb (P-7) was present at the place of occurrence and also lit when the occurrence had taken place. Even Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) admitted during cross- examination that Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10), in his oral statement (Exh.PN) ,had not mentioned that there was any electric bulb or any other light source available at the place of occurrence. Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) admitted during cross-examination as under:- "It is correct that in complaint Exh.PN, Sami Ullah complainant did not disclose any source of light at the time of occurrence. " (emphasis supplied) Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) also admitted during cross-examination that according to the unscaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PT) as prepared by him, he had not shown any electric bulb installed inside the room where the occurrence had taken place. Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14) was further proved to have made a false statement with regard to the availability of the electric bulb (P-7) at the place of occurrence when during cross-examination he claimed that the electric bulb (P-7) had been installed in a veranda next to the room where the occurrence took place, however, admitted that such a veranda had not been mentioned in the unscaled site plan (Exh.PP/1) regarding the recovery of the piece of wood (P-8), which piece of wood (P-8) was also recovered from the same room where the occurrence had taken place.Zahid Iqbal, ASI (PW-14), stated during cross-examination as under:- " Room of alleged occurrence was without any bulb, volunteered that I have shown bulb at point No.6 in the veranda adjacent to the room of occurrence. I have correctly prepared site plan of place of recovery Exh.PP/1. It is correct that neither veranda nor source of light is available in the site plan of place of recovery Exh.PP/1. " (emphasis supplied) Then the recovered electric bulb (P-7) was never sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for analysis to prove whether the same was even in working condition or otherwise. These facts of the prosecution case prove that Zahid Iqbal ASI, (PW-14) made a failed attempt to show the availability of a light source at the place of occurrence , however, failed miserably in his endeavour. 15, We have also noted with grave concern and disquiet that the alleged eye witnesses, namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) made no effort either to save the deceased or to apprehend the accused. It is unnatural and unbelievable that the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW11) did not even move a limb to protect the deceased. According to the statement of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) when the appellant came to the place of occurrence he was not armed even any weapon and had picked up the wood from
---
## Page 7
the very room where the incident took place. It is strange and rather unbelievable that the accused still succeeded to inflict so many injuries to the deceased in the presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW11). The prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) did not act in any manner to save the life of Haji Muhammad Hayat (deceased). It is vexing to imagine that in what circumstances the accused succeeded in inflicting so many injuries to Haji Muhammad Hayat (deceased) in the presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) , without facing any resistance from either the deceased or the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) . During the whole episode , the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) kept watching the accused and did not interfere at all. No person with ordinary prudence would believe that the witnesses would remain watching the proceedings as mere spectators for as long as the occurrence continued without doing anything to rescue the deceased or apprehend the assailant. The allowance of prosecution witnesses to the assailant speaks loudly that if the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) had been present at the place of occurrence, they would have definitely intervened and prevented the assailant. It only proves that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailant and no one was there to save him. Such behaviour, on the part of the witnesses, runs counter to natural human conduct and behaviour. Article 129 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 allows the courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case. We, thus, trust the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11), as deposed by them, was opposed to the common course of natural events, human conduct and that the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Sami Ullah (PW-10) and Muhammad Aslam (PW-11) had not witnessed the occurrence. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has enunciated binding principles for the appreciation of evidence in such circumstances. Reliance is placed on the case of "Zulifqar Ali v. The State" (2021 SCMR 1373) wherein the august Supreme Court of…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.