Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1689
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: The State, Sajid Ali vs Sajid Ali, The State & another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1689. In this matter between The State, Sajid Ali and Sajid Ali, The State & 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 2025LHC1689
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, Sultan Tanvir Ahmad Title: The State, Sajid Ali vs Sajid Ali, The State & another Case No.:Capital Sentence Reference No. 02 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 583 of
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 LHC 1689 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative Judgment
JUDGMENT. SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.- Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan (convict) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hasanabdal in the case F.I.R. No. 143 of 2020 dated 14.04.2020 registered in respect of offences under sections 295-C and 298-A P.P.C. at the Police Station Saddar Hassanabdal, District Attock. The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 07.07.2023, convicted Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan : i) Death under section 295-C P.P.C. and directed to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- and in case of default thereof, the convict was directed to undergo a further six months of simple imprisonment. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of three years under section 298-A P.P.C. 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2023 assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Capital Sentence Reference No. 02 of 2023 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2023 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 02 of 2023 through this single judgment.
---
## Page 2
3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses are that on 10.04.2020, the appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan ,spoke words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the sacred names of the wives (Ummul-Mumineen), and members of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Raashideen) and companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the presence of the prosecution witnesses . 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 accused was sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 09.11.2020, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got statements of as many as twelve witnesses recorded. The prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW- 11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) all stated that on 10.04.2020, the appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan ,spoke words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the sacred names of the wives (Ummul-Mumineen), and members of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e- Raashideen) and companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the presence of the prosecution witnesses. Mahmood Ahmad, ASI (PW-1) stated that on 14.04.2020, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/PW-1). Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) stated that on 10.04.2020, Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) submitted the application (Exh.PB) for the registration of the F.I.R. upon which he entered Rapt No.18 (Exh.PD/PW -4) and sent the said application to the police station for the registration of the F.I.R. Maulana Mahmood ul Hassan Toheedi (PW-9) and Maulana Ghulam Siddiquei (PW-10) rendered the opinion (Exh.PF). Azhar Shabbir, DSP (PW-5) investigated the case from 14.04.2020 till 28.05.2020, arrested the appellant on 16.04.2020 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. On 23.06.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Syed Khadim Hussain Shah and Nawaz Malik as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence. 7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, he replied that he had been involved in the case falsely and was innocent. The appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 8. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hasanabdal convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant precisely was that the whole case was fabricated and false and the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence due to suspicion alone. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt. 10. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of a doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to
---
## Page 3
falsely involve the appellant. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General prayed for the rejection of the appeal. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their able assistance, perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 12. The Holy Qur'an has unequivocally described the glorification and exaltation of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and has ordered Muslims to strictly observe maximum respect and be extremely careful in this regard, to the extent of using the most appropriate words and even lowering their voices, failing to do will render all their good deeds in vain, as mentioned in the following Verses. "Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear but be not heard" and "Ra'ina" (I )twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], "We hear and obey" and "Wait for us [to understand]," it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. [An-Nisa (4:46)] "O ye who believe! raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet , nor shout when speaking to him as you shout one to another, lest your deeds be rendered vain while you perceive not." [Al- Hujurat (49:2)] Allah Almighty declared the enemy of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the enemy of Allah and ordained that, in this temporary world and also in the eternal life hereinafter, there is a punishment of the highest degree for those who disbelieve or disrespects him. For reference, some of the Verses of the Holy Quran are mentioned herein below: "Ask forgiveness for them, [O Muhammad], or do not ask forgiveness for them. If you should ask forgiveness for them seventy times - never will Allah forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people". [At-Tawbah (9:80)] "And thus, have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the criminals. But sufficient is your Lord as a guide and a helper". [Al-Furqan (25:31)] "Have you not considered those who were forbidden from private conversation, then they return to that which they were forbidden and converse among themselves about sin and aggression and disobedience to the Messenger? And when they come to you, they greet you with that [word] by which Allah does not greet you and say among themselves, "Why does Allah not punish us for what we say?" Sufficient for them is Hell, which they will [enter to] burn, and wretched is the destination." [Al-Mujadila (58:8)] "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. And his wife [as well] - the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber." [Al-Masad (111:1-5)] "How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So, they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment." [Al-Baqarah (2:90)] "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment." [An-Nisa (4:150-151)] "Lo! Those who malign Allah and his Messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained". [Al-Ahzab (33:57)] Thus, all of these Verses of the Holy Qur'an, mention in clear terms, that these abusers and contemners of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are actually the opponents of
---
## Page 4
Allah and His Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). These Verses clearly prescribe the severe punishment of death for the opponents of Allah and his Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) , who include contemners of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Thus, no one, by words, either spoken or written, directly or indirectly, is allowed to disobey, disregard and rebel against the Holy name of Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and if found guilty of disrespecting the name, they are liable to be punished. History has remained a witness to the incidents pertaining to any attempts of defiance made regarding the name of our Beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Muslim communities that exist around the globe have always acted against any such act of contempt and have openly reacted to such, followed by serious repercussions. That is why Section 295-C P.P.C. had to be enacted to bring such contemners before the Court of Law. In this backdrop, we shall now consider the facts of the instant case. 13. A perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) all stated that on 10.04.2020 at about 06.45 a.m., the appellant namely Sajid Ali son of Mohsin Khan ,spoke words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the sacred names of the wives (Ummul-Mumineen), and members of the family (Ahle-bait) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Raashideen) and companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the presence of the said prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12), however, they never reported the matter to the police till 9.30 p.m. on 10.04.2020, rather even let the appellant,who had allegedly spoken such appalling, abysmal, awful, damning, hateful and outrightly sacrilegious words in the presence of the witnesses ,leave the place of the incident without even making any effort to take action against him. The prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12), who all claimed that the appellant had spoken unmentionable words in their presence and hearing were so nave that they let the appellant leave their sights without making any effort to apprehend him. The prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) did not react at all to the alleged statement of the appellant and calmly saw him leaving, without even moving an inch to restrain the appellant and handing him over to the police. The prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) have not mentioned in their statements that the appellant had some weapon with him which could have precluded the said witnesses from apprehending the appellant. The prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) did not even state that they attempted to arrest the appellant though it should have been the natural reaction and instinct of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) if the appellant had actually spoken the words which the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW- 11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) stated that he had, in their presence. This conduct of the
---
## Page 5
prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) in letting the appellant leave their sights after making the alleged utterances was not natural in the circumstances. This utter failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW- 12) in making any effort to apprehend the appellant proves that the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) had not heard the appellant speak the alleged words and invented a story regarding the same subsequently, for the simple fact that if the appellant had indeed uttered the alleged words, no person, besides the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12), who would have heard the said words, would have let the appellant leave after the said utterances. This failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) in not reacting at all to the alleged statement of the appellant and not proceeding against the appellant proves that the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW- 11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) had not heard the appellant speak the words on the said date and time.We are of the considerate view that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) in the circumstances reveals that no such words were uttered by the appellant in the presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12), otherwise the appellant would have been apprehended there and then. Moreover, it is a fact that no person professing Muslim faith would even continue to hear such words as allegedly spoken by the appellant and not make any effort to stop the said person. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be believed that the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) would have allowed the appellant to complete his statement and then would have also allowed themselves to continue to hear such words and remember them too. Why the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) let the appellant complete his statement in their presence has not been explained. Why the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) did not stop the appellant immediately has not been explained. Why the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) continued to not only hear the alleged words of the appellant but also to remember them, though differently, has not been explained. 14. We have also noted that all the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) made entirely different
---
## Page 6
statements with regard to the words allegedly used by the appellant and heard by the said prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) . Not even two of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW- 2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) repeated the utterances of the appellant while using the same words or even the same utterances, denuding the failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) to give a consistent account of what was uttered by the appellant. It proves that it is a case of Chinese Whispers ,with the information being passed on from one prosecution witness to another, than the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) having themselves hearing the appellant. 15. Another aspect of the case raising doubt over the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) ,Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW- 12), is the fact the matter was reported to the police on 10.04.2020 at 09.30 p.m., when the prosecution witness namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) submitted the written application (Exh.PB) to Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) for the registration of the F.I.R. upon which Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) entered Rapt No.18 (Exh.PD/PW -4) and sent the said application to the police station for the registration of the F.I.R. whereas the incident had taken place on 10.04.2020 at 06.45 a.m. Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) during cross-examination explained as under:- "I received the application for registration of case on 10.04.2020 at 09:30 PM. I visited the spot after 10:00 PM but I cannot tell the exact time. I do not remember the inter-se distance of Police Post Jharikass and the place of occurrence. " In this manner, the delay in reporting the matter to the police was of about nine hours, for which delay no reason, much less plausible, was offered. No justification, much less credible, has been given by the prosecution at any stage for such deferral in reporting the matter to the police and the delay in submitting the written application (Exh. P.B.) by Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) to Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4), at the police post Jhari Kas. The police post Jhari Kas was at a short distance from the place where the incident took place and still none of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW- 7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) reported the matter to the police for such a long period. In this case, the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) suffer from legal and factual infirmities and do not appeal to a prudent mind, much less a legal one, because the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3) , Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW-11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) never reported the matter to the police for as many as nine hours. This inordinate delay in reporting the matter conclusively proves that the written application (Exh.PB) submitted by Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) to Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) , at the police post Jhari Kas was prepared after probe, consultation, planning, investigation and discussion . The scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the written application (Exh.PB) submitted by Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) was neither prompt nor spontaneous nor natural, rather was a contrived, manufactured and a compromised document.
---
## Page 7
Sufficient doubts have arisen and inference against the prosecution has to be drawn in this regard. Reliance is placed on the cases of "Ghulam Abbas and another v. The State and another" (2021 SCMR 23), "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF JAVEED and another vs. MUHAMMAD UMAR and others" (2017 SCMR 199) , "Zafar vs. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326) , "G. M. NIAZ Vs. The State" (2018 SCMR 506), "Abdul Jabbar and another Vs. The State" (2019 SCMR 129) and "Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo Vs. The State and others" (2019 SCM R 1045). 16. We have also noticed that not only the matter was reported to the police with delay but the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Bilal Mahmood (PW-2), Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), Munawar Hayat (PW-6), Mazhar Mahmood (PW-7), Muhammad Zeeshan (PW-8), Sadaqat Ali (PW11) and Shahid Mahmood (PW-12) were also recorded with substantial delay, without any explanation for the said delay. As mentioned above, initially even after receiving the application (Exh.PB) from Bilal Mahmood, the prosecution witness namely Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) admitted that he did not record the statement of any witness on 10.04.2020 even after his arrival at the place of incident and his stay there for as much as more than an hour. Atif Sattar, SI (PW-4) during cross- examination explained as under: - "A number of persons more than 20 in number were present at the spot when I visited there. I did not record statement of any person at the spot as they all were flared up. I remained present at the spot for about 1 1/2 /2 hours. " Furthermore, Azhar Shabbir, DSP (PW-5), the Investigating Officer of the case also admitted that he visited the place of the incident for the first time on 15.04.2020 and even on that day he only recorded the statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 of Bilal Mahmood (PW-2) and Muhammad Dawood (PW-3), whereas the statements of the other witnesses were recorded on 28.05.2020. Azhar Shabbir, DSP (PW-5) during cross-examination, stated as under:- "I visited the spot for the first time on 15.04.2020…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.