Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Muhammad Mujahid VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Muhammad Waheed Khan Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi
CITATION: 2026 PCrLJ 1318 CASE: 2026L3046 TITLE: Muhammad Mujahid VS State Honorable Justice Muhammad Waheed Khan Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PCrLJ ============================================================
305 2026 P Cr. L J 1318 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Waheed Khan, J Muhammad Mujahid ---Appellant Versus The State
and others---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 22958 of 2022, decided on 4th March, 2026. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 404---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence and DNA report---Dead body of minor recovered from deserted place ---Samples collected from crime scene---DNA profile of appellant matching with samples taken from body of deceased---Accused was charged for abducting the minor daughter of the complainant, subjecting her to rape and then murdering her---Main reliance of the prosecution was on medical evidence, coupled with positive DNA reports conclusively connecting the appellant with the crime---Record showed that, after the minor victim went missing from her house, her dead body was first seen by one R on 07.12.2019 at about 02:00 p.m., lying near Eucalyptus trees in a jungle/deserted place, far away from populated area, when said witness was available there for collecting wood---Said witness communicated such information to the complainant, who informed the police by telephone, whereafter the Police Inspector, along with other personnel, reached the place of occurrence, secured the dead body of the minor, prepared identification memo. and also got samples collected from the crime scene with the help of Crime Scene Unit---Lists of suspects were prepared and eighteen persons, including the appellant, were shortlisted---Samples taken from the dead body of the minor were found to have matched with the DNA profile of the appellant, whereafter certain other incriminating evidence, including last seen evidence and some other incriminating material, was also collected by the Investigating Team---Medical evidence proved that the minor was not only subjected to carnal intercourse by the appellant but was also murdered with a sharp-edged weapon---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab 1977(2) SCC 2010; Murarilal v. State of M.P 1980 (1) SCC 704; Shah Nawaz v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 621; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Muhammad Hanif v. The State PLD 1993 SC 895; Abdur Rehman and another v. The State 2001 YLR 749; Alamgir v. State NCT, Delhi; 2003 (1) SCC 21; Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and others 2005 PCr.LJ 1352; Noor Muhammad v. The State and another 2005 SCMR 1958; Abdul Ahad v. The State and another PLD 2007 Pesh. 83; Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others AIR 2010 SC 806; Mir Fayaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 PCr.LJ 1832; Bahader Khan v. The State and another 2012 PCr.LJ 24; Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and another (2019) 14 SC 220; Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others [2022] 13 S.C.R. 34; Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2023 SCMR 2016; Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain and others PLD 2021 SC 362; Lucy Letby and Rex [2024] EWCA Crim 748; Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and others v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau and another 2025 YLR 2565; C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai [2025] 3 S.C.R. 629 : 2025 INSC 309; Muhammad Ramzan and another v. The State 2025 SCMR 1742; Kattavellai alias Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu [2025] 7 SCR 984; 2025 INSC 845; Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69; State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (2010) 13 SCC 754; Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 502; Raghuvir Dessai v. State 2007 Cri.L 829; Chotu v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (17) Criminal CC 231; Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747 and Regina v. Jonathan Tsekiri (2017) EWCA Crim 40 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 404---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Hostile witness admitting material facts---Corroborative evidentiary value---Accused was charged for abducting the minor daughter of the complainant, subjecting her to rape and then murdering her---Record reflected that the witness of last seen evidence turned hostile before the Trial Court by stating that he did not know anything about the occurrence---However, said witness was cross-examined by the Prosecutor/ADPP, wherein he denied certain facts, but, in response to certain questions put to him by the Prosecutor, admitted certain facts which were paramount in nature---Thus, although such witness had turned hostile, he nevertheless admitted facts which were paramount in nature and, therefore, stood the test of corroborative evidentiary value in the case---Said witness not only admitted the factum of having last seen the victim in the company of the appellant but also recognized her by seeing her photographs and stated that she was the same girl who was going with the appellant---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 404---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and articles of deceased---Exclusive knowledge of appellant---Identification by mother and maternal uncle---Accused was charged for abducting the minor daughter of the complainant, subjecting her to rape and then murdering her---Record showed that the weapon of offence i.e. churri , and other articles i.e. gold earrings and chappal , were recovered at the instance of the appellant during investigation through recovery memo.--- There was no doubt that the same were recovered from a place which was in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant---Moreover, earrings and chappal belonging to the deceased were duly identified by her mother and maternal uncle, and an identification memo. was also prepared in that regard---Medical Officer had declared that two injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a sharp-edged weapon---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 404---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death---Appreciation of evidence---Chain of circumstantial evidence established---DNA evidence, last seen evidence and recovery proceedings forming complete chain---Conviction maintained---Accused was charged for abducting the minor daughter of the complainant, subjecting her to rape and then murdering her---Chain of circumstantial evidence was firm and continuous, leaving no margin for any hypothesis of innocence of the appellant, and the chain of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution linked the dead body of the deceased with the neck of the appellant without any broken link therein---Prosecution had, thus, proved its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt---Even otherwise, observations and findings of the Trial Court appeared to be reasonable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case; therefore, the defence version, being devoid of force, was repelled---Resultantly, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court were maintained---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi for Appellant. Miss Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Irfan Sabir Goraya for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 4th March, 2026. Judgment Muhammad Waheed Khan, J .--- Through this appeal, appellant, Muhammad Mujahid, has challenged his convictions and sentences awarded to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide judgment dated 24.03.2022, in case FIR No.215 dated 30.11.2019, registered under sections 302/364-A/376/404 P.P.C at Police Station Noor Pur, District Khushab, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Under Section 302(b) P.P.C sentenced to life imprisonment for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Sadaf Shaheen. He was also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased, which shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default thereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. (ii)
Under Section 376(3) P.P.C
sentenced to life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months incarceration. (iii)
Under Section 364-A P.P.C sentenced to life imprisonment . (iv)
Under Section 404 P.P.C sentenced to three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo six month incarceration. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convict. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by complainant Mst. Shaheen Noor Akhtar, in complaint (Ex-PX), on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex-PHH) was registered, are as under; That her marriage with Atta Ullah was solemnized about nine years ago while two daughters were born, one of them passed away, whereas the other, namely, Saddaf Shaheen aged 8/9 years was living with her as she had obtained divorce from her husband through court. Furthermore, she filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against Atta Ullah which was decreed for amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month but Atta Ullah did not pay any alimony. On 26.11.2019 at about 2:00 p.m., she received a call from Makhoor Elahi on her mobile phone who asked for talking to Sadaf Shaheen. Makhoor Elahi was son-in-law of Atta Ullah and for the reason, he was having his mobile number and on 13.10.2019, he had come to her house as well. On 26.11.2019, she went outside her house for cutting fodder while her daughter Sadaf Shaheen was alone in the house and when she came back at about 3:30 p.m., her daughter was not present there. She searched her daughter but could not find her. Her brother Akhtar Badshah told her that on the day of occurrence at about 2:00 p.m. he had seen Shafi Ullah along with two unknown co-accused at Adda of Adhi Kot. She had a doubt/suspicion that Shafi Ullah etc. had abducted her daughter Sadaf Shaheen. Initially the FIR was lodged under section 363 P.P.C
against the above said nominated accused, Makhoor Elahi and Shafi Ullah, however, their arrest was held in abeyance. During course of investigation, on 07.12.2019, dead body of minor Sadaf Shaheen, was recovered, on which offences under sections 302/376/364-A/404 P.P.C were added. Number of people of the locality were investigated and eventually DNA profile of the appellant got matched with the seminal material taken from the person and qameez of the deceased and finally report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court while declaring the appellant as guilty, he was summoned, charge was framed which was denied by him, hence, trial commenced. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as eighteen witnesses. Evidence of last seen was furnished by one Abdul Jabbar (PW-15), complainant Mst. Shaheen Noor Akhtar herself appeared as PW-16 and her brother Akhtar Badshah appeared as PW-17. Forensic evidence was tendered by Junior Forensic Scientists Kashif Imran (PW-8) and Arslan Anjum (PW-10). Medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Rabia Shaheen (PW-9), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Muhammad Fayyaz SI (PW-18), was the Investigating Officer of the case. The remaining witnesses were of formal in nature and the prosecution after producing certain documents closed its evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegation levelled against him. He did not opt to appear as his own witness under section 340 (2) Cr.P.C., however, produced Form- in his defence. After evaluating prosecution evidence available on record, learned trial Court found the prosecution version correct beyond any shadow of doubt which resulted into conviction and sentence of the appellant in the afore stated terms. 3. In support of the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case of the prosecution is inherently flawed, hence, fails to inspire confidence; that the FIR was lodged against two accused, Makhoor Elahi and Shafi Ullah, who, later on, were exonerated by the complainant and the appellant was implicated in this case at later stage without any credible evidence as no one had witnessed him while committing the crime and he had been falsely roped in this case by the police; that the only witness of last seen had also failed to depose in clear terms against the appellant, who was declared hostile and even otherwise, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions and flaws, hence, cannot be believed to maintain conviction of the appellant that too, in an offence carrying capital punishment; that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures as material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been mis-read by the prosecution; that nothing was recovered from possession of the appellant and lastly prays that since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant up to hilt, hence, by accepting the instant appeal, he be acquitted of the charge. 4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has faithfully defended the impugned judgment by controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and has contended that the prosecution has ably proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt ; that although no direct evidence was available in this case but the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution fully connects the appellant with the commission of crime, which was duly supported through scientific evidence based on DNA reports tendered by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) and he was found fully involved in commission of a heinous and gruesome act of committing rape and murdering a minor girl having the age of 8/9 years, during the course of investigation and before the learned trial Court; that the other pieces of evidence i.e recoveries and medical evidence also fully implicated him in the crime, hence, he does not deserve any leniency and should be dealt with iron hands, so, in presence of voluminous evidence, conviction and sentence of the appellant should be maintained as he has rightly been adjudged guilty by the learned trial Court and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, learned Law Officer and have gone through the record with their assistance. 6. The crux of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant has been that since no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged crime was available in this case and the prosecutions case basically hinges upon the circumstantial evidence in the shape of DNA reports (Ex-PS, Ex-PT and Ex-PU, showing the DNA of the appellant was found matched with certain items/samples sent for forensic analysis by the prosecution), so, this sole evidence relied upon by the prosecution may not be sufficient to connect and hold the appellant, guilty in this case. Record manifests that Mst. Shaheen Noor Akhtar (PW-16), mother of minor, Sadaf Shaheen, aged about 8/9 years, while reporting the incident of missing of her minor daughter to police, through complaint (Ex-PX), on the basis of which formal FIR was drafted later on, showed her suspicion on two persons, Makhoor Elahi, son-in-law of her previous husband Atta Ullah and one Shafi Ullah, however, their arrest was held in abeyance by the police. During the course of investigation, on 07.12.2019, dead body of minor, Sadaf Shaheen, was recovered, where after, lists of suspects were prepared by the police as no direct evidence viz-a-viz the murder of Sadaf Shaheen, was available and eventually DNA profile of the appellant was got matched with the seminal material obtained from the shirt of Sadaf Shaheen, on which the appellant was formally arrested and on culmination of the investigation, was held guilty and challaned accordingly. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the medical evidence comprising the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Rabia Shaheen (PW-9), DNA reports (Ex-PS, Ex-PT and Ex-PU), last seen evidence comprising the statement of one Abdul Jabbar (PW-15), recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Churri (P3) and recovery of one pair of Softy Chappal belonging to the deceased (P4/1-2), through recovery memo. (Ex-PK) and recovery of gold ear rings (P5/1-2), belonging to the deceased through recovery memo. (Ex-PL) and these articles were duly recognized by Mst. Shaheen Noor Akhtar (PW-16), mother of the deceased and her brother, Akhtar Badshah (PW-17) through identification memo- (Ex-PAA). There is no denial of the fact that the main reliance of the prosecution has been on the medical evidence, coupled with the positive DNA reports conclusively, connecting the appellant with the crime. Record goes on to evince that minor Sadaf Shaheen, after being lost from her house, her dead body was firstly seen by one Rafique Ahmad (PW-11) on 07.12.2019 at about 02:00 p.m., which was lying near Eucalyptus trees in Adhi Kot jungle, a deserted place, far away from the populated area, when the said witness was available there for collecting woods. He communicated this information to Muhammad Khan (PW-12), who informed the police through telephone, where after, Muhammad Fayyaz Inspector (PW-18) along with other personnel reached at the place of occurrence, secured the dead body of the minor and prepared identification memo. (Ex-PZ) and also got collected the samples from the crime scene with the help of Crime Scene Unit. The District Police Officer, Khushab, constituted three teams i.e. (i) Investigation Team, (ii) Survey Team and (iii) Verification Team for searching the accused in this case. Lists, Ex-P7/1-4, Ex-P8/1-11, Ex-P11/1-7, Ex-P12/1-7 and Ex-P13, of suspects were prepared and eighteen persons (suspects) including appellant, Muhammad Mujahid, were short listed. Samples taken from dead body of minor Sadaf Shaheen, were found matched with the DNA profile of the appellant, where after, certain other incriminating evidence like last seen and some other incriminating material as stated above, were also collected by the investigating team. 7. Dr. Rabia Shaheen (PW-9) conducted autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased on 07.12.2019, who noted the following injuries;- 1. An ante-mortem incised wound 4 x 1cm, on the left side of neck, 4cm below left ear. Under lined muscle cut and clotted blood around wound. 2. An ante-mortem incised wound 6 x 2cm, on the left side of neck, 1cm below from injury No.1. Under lined muscle and main neck vessels of left side or cut and maggets were crawling from the wound. Maggets were crawling on the right side of the ear with bluish clotted blood were present. 3. There were vaginal orifice tear 2 x 1cm clotted blood seen around orifice and swabs were taken, secured into sealed parcel and sent for DNA and semen analysis. After procuring reports of DNA, final opinion of the Medical Officer (PW-9) was as under;- On 27.12.2019 I.O. moved application Ex-PR for the clarification of injury No.3, on which I made my report Ex.PR/1. That the said injury was on vaginal orifice, tear measuring 2 x 1 cm, clotted blood seen around the orifice from where I took swabs. Now PFSA report consisting of two pages bearing serial No.0000640739 and 0000640740 Ex.PS, PFSA consisting of two pages bearing serial No.0000645447 and 0000645448 Ex.PT and PFSA report consisting of four pages bearing serial No.0000642055 to 0000642058 Ex.PU are before me and as per reports of PFSA Lahore seminal material was found on stain section of shalwar and qameez and on piece of skin which was obtained from right thigh of deceased and the same was matched with the DNA profile of Muhammad Mujahid. In my final opinion regarding the sexual assault in the light of this report it is confirmed that Mst. Sadaf Shaheen was subjected to rape by Muhammad Mujahid. In this way, it was proved that minor Sadaf Shaheen, was not only subjected to carnal intercourse, by the appellant but was also murdered with sharp edged weapon. As per testimony of Medical Officer (PW-9), injuries Nos.2 and 3, were found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature due to massive rapid bleeding and shock. 8. To analyze the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that although DNA reports, conclusively connect the appellant, with the crime but the same evidence (DNA evidence) per se is not sufficient to award and maintain conviction of the appellant under the afore referred provision of law (offence under section 302 P.P.C ). I have gone through the different provisions of law i.e. Articles 59 and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ( QSO ), Sections 164-B/510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Cr.P.C. ) and Section 9 of Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007 and various case laws developed upon the subject including cases of Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab (1977(2) SCC 2010), Murarilal v. State of M.P (1980 (1) SCC 704), Shah Nawaz v. The State (1989 P Cr. L J 621), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (509 U.S. 579 (1993)), Muhammad Hanif v. The State (PLD 1993 Supreme Court 895), Abdur Rehman and another v. The State (2001 YLR 749), Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) (2003 (1) SCC 21), Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and others (2005 PCr.LJ 1352), Noor Muhammad v. The State and another (2005 SCMR 1958), Abdul Ahad v. The State and another (PLD 2007 Peshawar 83), Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and others (2010 AIR (SC) 806), Mir Fayaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 1832), Bahader Khan v. The State and another (2012 P Cr. L J 24), Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and another (2019) 14 SC 220), Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others [2022] 13 S.C.R. 34), Muhammad Hanif v. The State (2023 SCMR 2016), Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain and others (PLD 2021 SC 362), Lucy Letby and Rex [2024] EWCA Crim 748), Muhammad Nauman Qureshi and others v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau and another (2025 YLR 2565), C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai [2025] 3 S.C.R. 629 : 2025 INSC 309) and MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another v. The State (2025 SCMR 1742). 9. There is no denial of the fact that the evidence which has become available because of modern devices being made admissible and later on, through insertion of proviso with Article 164 of QSO, through enactment IV of 2017 dated 16.02.2017, it was enacted that conviction on the basis of modern devices or techniques may be lawful. For ready reference, Article 164 of QSO, is reproduced as under;- 164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc.:
In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques. [Provided that conviction on the basis of modern devices or techniques may be lawful] Then there could be another objection qua the per se admissibility of the DNA report as under section 510 Cr.P.C., there is no mention regarding the DNA report. The said provision of law is reproduced as under;- Section 510. Report of Chemical Examiner, Serologist, etc. Any document purporting to be a report, under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or of the Chief Chemist of the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Limited or any Serologist, fingerprint expert or fire-arm expert appointed by Government upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysts and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may, without calling him as a witness, be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code: Provided that the Court may, if it considers necessary…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.