Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Inayatullah VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Sardar Ahmad Haleemi Ahsan Rafique Rana , Ahsan Rafique Rana
CITATION: 2026 YLR 1694 CASE: 2026Q4010 TITLE: Inayatullah VS State Honorable Justice Sardar Ahmad Haleemi Ahsan Rafique Rana , Ahsan Rafique Rana COURT: QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: YLR ============================================================
2026 Y L R July 2026 Y L R 1694 [Balochistan (Sibi Bench)] Before Sardar Ahmed Haleemi and Gul Hasan Tareen, JJ Inayatullah and another---Appellants Versus The State ---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. (s)123 and Criminal Revision Petition No. (s)26 of 2023, decided on 19th December, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Injured/independent eye-witnesses establishing presence at the place of occurrence---Plea of alibi not established---Accused were charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant and a customer through firing, while the other brother of the complainant and another person sustained firearm injuries---Medical Officer examined the deceased persons and produced their death certificates---On the same day, Medical Officer also examined the injured persons and noted their injuries, which were incorporated in the medico-legal certificates, showing that both injured persons had sustained injuries---Defence cross-examined the witnesses but did not dent their veracity---Likewise, injured/independent eye-witness deposed that on the fateful day he had come to the bazaar to purchase clothes and grocery; he was on the road, going towards the shop, when seven accused persons, armed with weapons, started firing; due to such firing, two persons died at the spot while one sustained firearm injuries---On his return, the appellant, armed with a pistol, fired at him, which hit him on the right side of his back and lodged in his abdomen; his brother took him to Civil Hospital, from where he was referred to another hospital---After treatment, he came home and, on 19.05.2022, recorded his statement at the police station---As per record, said witness belonged to a different tribe and had no relation with the complainant party---Defence had not disputed the injuries of said witness or his presence at the place of occurrence---The ocular account of said witness corroborated the complainant's version as well as the medical evidence---Testimony of the eye-witness showed that the defence did not allege any enmity, ill will or malice against the independent witness, who strengthened the prosecution's version---Moreover, the other injured eye-witness reiterated the facts narrated by the complainant---Admittedly, the complainant and said injured witness were real brothers, but on account of such relationship alone the false implication or substitution of the appellants in the commission of the offence was hard to believe---Independent witness corroborated the statements of the complainant and the injured witness---Said witness remained firm on all material points---Defence pointed out minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which were immaterial in a case where two persons had lost their lives and two had sustained firearm injuries on vital parts of their bodies---If prosecution evidence did not suffer from any material infirmity, it was not rendered unworthy of credence---Prosecution evidence reflected that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account furnished by the witnesses---Prosecution witnesses deposed the true version of the occurrence---Admittedly, the incident took place in broad daylight and the appellants, along with their accomplices, had not covered their faces; as such, their false identity or substitution was a rare phenomenon---Prosecution witnesses remained consistent on each material point---Despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to shake the credibility of prosecution witnesses---Appellants claimed innocence and took the plea of alibi but failed to substantiate the same---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. 2020 SCMR 857; 2018 SCMR 772; 2017 SCMR 486; 2017 SCMR 596; 2011 SCMR 323; 2018 SCMR 506; 2025 SCMR 281; 2024 SCMR 1579; 2024 SCMR 1584; 2024 SCMR 1224 and 2024 SCMR 1507 ref. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties--- Positive report of Firearm Expert---Accused were charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant and a customer through firing, while the other brother of the complainant and another person sustained firearm injuries---Head Constable further strengthened the prosecution case ---His testimony revealed that on 25.04.2022 he, along with the SHO, was present at a check-post when a vehicle was signaled to stop; on query, the persons disclosed their names as the appellants; they were apprehended and, on personal search, a crime weapon i.e. 9mm pistol, magazine and six live rounds were recovered from the appellant---Investigating Officer sent the secured empty shells from the place of occurrence and the recovered crime weapon to the Firearm Expert for analysis, followed by an affirmative report---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ahsan Rafique Rana for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2023). Barkat Ali Kashkheli for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2023). Jameel Akhtar Gajani, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2023). Barkat Ali Kashkheli for the Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 2023). Ahsan Rafique Rana for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 2023). Jameel Akhtar Gajani, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 2023). Date of hearing: 27th November, 2025. Judgment Sardar Ahmad Haleemi, J .--- This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No(s).123 of 2023, and Criminal Revision Petition No(s).26 of 2023. The Criminal Appeal No(s).123 of 2023 is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2023 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment" ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, at Dera Murad Jamali (hereinafter the "trial Court" ), whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the following manner: "Accused Jan Muhammad and Inayatullah are hereby convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment (R.I.) as Ta'zir on two counts each, and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) each to the legal heirs of each deceased, as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., or in default whereof to further undergo six months S.I. each. For attempting at the life of Mureed Ali and Shafqat, the accused persons are further convicted on two counts under section 324, P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment each, and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each, or in default to suffer six months S.I. each. In addition, for the hurt caused to the injured persons, the accused persons are convicted as under: (i) The injuries sustained by Shafqat fall under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(iii), P.P.C., and both the accused persons are directed to pay Daman in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the injured. (ii) The injuries sustained by Mureed Ali fall under section 337-D, P.P.C., and both the accused persons are directed to pay individually one-third Diyat each, as determined by the Federal Government for the year 2023-24, to the injured. (iii) The accused persons are further convicted under section 148, P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer three (03) years rigorous imprisonment each, and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each, or in default to suffer four (04) months S.I. each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to the accused persons, and all the above sentences shall run concurrently. Whereas, Qadir Bakhsh, son of Muhammad Hashim (complainant), filed Criminal Revision Petition No(s).26 of 2023 seeking enhancement of sentences of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 (appellants). 2. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that the complainant, Qadir Bakhsh, son of Muhammad Hashim lodged an FIR No.69/2022 with the Police, City Dera Murad Jamali, stating that he was running a cloth shop under the name and style of Al-Yousaf Cloth House, situated in the main bazar near Al-Noor Shopping Center, Dera Murad Jamali. On the day of the occurrence, at about 12:30 p.m., he, along with his brothers, Khair Muhammad alias Kher Jan and Shafqat Ali, was present at the shop. At that time, Shahal Khan, son of Muhammad Murad, along with his nephew Ali Dost Khiazai, a resident of Balan Shakh who was stated to be a regular customer, also arrived there to purchase clothes. It was alleged that meanwhile the accused persons, namely Inayatullah son of Saeed Bakhsh, Muhammad Sharif son of Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Gull and Barfi Khan (both sons of Elahi Bakhsh), Sanwal Khan son of Dilmurad, Ahmed Din son of Khuda Dost, all by caste Lehri, residents of Barig Kaboola, and Jan Muhammad son of Yar Muhammad, caste Lehri, resident of Sariab Mill, Quetta, armed with deadly weapons, arrived at the shop of the complainant and raised lalkara to the effect that no one would be spared. It was further alleged that the accused persons resorted to indiscriminate firing, as a result of which Khair Muhammad alias Khair Jan, Shafqat Ali, and customer Ali Dost Khiazai sustained firearm injuries and fell to the ground. The complainant and Shahal Khan Khiazai reportedly remained unhurt. It was further alleged that while fleeing from the place of occurrence, the accused persons again opened fire and caused injuries to Murid Ali, son of Muhammad Qasim, whereas his brother Abdul Rasheed escaped unhurt. Due to the injuries sustained, Khair Muhammad, alias Khair Jan and Ali Dost Khiazai succumbed to their injuries; the accused persons, Jan Muhammad, Inayatullah, and Sanwal Khan, fled the scene in a vehicle bearing registration No.AXT-128, while Muhammad Sharif, Barfi Khan, and Muhammad Gull escaped on two motorcycles. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be an old blood feud and enmity between the parties, leading to this report. 3. In pursuance of the above FIR, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-7 SI Mughal Khan, who initially rushed to the Civil Hospital, where the SHO had already recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, secured blood-stained cotton from the spot, sealed the same into parcels, and prepared the necessary recovery memos. During the course of investigation, the I.O. also took into possession ten (10) empties of 7.62 bore, empties of 30 bore, and four (04) empties of 9mm pistol from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memos in respect thereof. The I.O. recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 25.04.2022, the accused persons facing trial were arrested, and a .9mm pistol, along with two magazines and live rounds, was recovered from their possession. After completion of the initial investigation, the accused persons were sent to judicial custody. During his testimony, PW-7 brought on record the FIR bearing the signatures of SI Khamisa Khan. He further produced the merger reports and site plan, which were exhibited as Exh-P/7-A to Exh-P/7-D, bearing his signature, and also tendered the incomplete challan as Exh-P/7-E, bearing the signatures of SI/SHO Haider Shah. The second Investigating Officer, PW-8 SI Ghulam Qadir Rind, deposed that he brought on record the incomplete challans, analysis report, and legal heir certificate, which were exhibited as Exh-P/8-A to Exh-P/8-E. It is pertinent to note that while the accused persons facing trial were arrested, the other nominated accused persons could not be apprehended; consequently, proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against them, and they were declared proclaimed offenders. 4. After completion of the investigation, a formal charge was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution produced and examined eight (08) witnesses. The statements of PW-7 SI Mughal Khan and PW-8 SI Ghulam Qadir Rind have already been discussed hereinabove. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., during which they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. However, the appellants did not examine themselves on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor did they produce any witness in their defence. The brief resume of the remaining prosecution witnesses shall be discussed at the appropriate stage. 5. The trial Court heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment, hence these Criminal Appeals against convictions, whereas the Criminal Revision Petition for enhancement of the sentences. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contended that the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2023, passed by the trial court, is contrary to the facts, settled principles of law, and natural justice; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as no specific role has been assigned to any of the appellants, and despite invoking section 149, P.P.C., the trial court failed to record any positive and concrete findings regarding the common object or vicarious liability as required by law; that the trial court erred in treating PW-2 as an eye-witness, as his own statement shows that he was outside the complainant s shop when the firing started, rendering his presence at the scene doubtful; that the shop was jointly maintained by the complainant and his brothers, which further raises doubts regarding the precise identification of the appellants; that PW-2 exaggerated his version, his conduct is unnatural, and his testimony was liable to be discarded, yet the trial court relied upon it as strong evidence; that PW-2 sustained only one injury, whereas more than one appellant was convicted for causing the same injury, making the conviction under section 324, P.P.C. legally untenable; that there is an unexplained delay of about twenty-five days in recording the statements of injured witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, despite their fitness to make statements soon after the incident, which remains fatal to the prosecution case; that material and independent witnesses, including Abdul Rasheed, were withheld by the prosecution, attracting adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that there are material contradictions regarding transportation of injured persons to the hospital, identity of drivers, preparation of inquest reports, and presence of alleged eye-witnesses, creating serious doubt about the prosecution story; that the investigation is tainted and partisan, as crucial proceedings at the place of occurrence were not conducted on the pointation of any witness, nor were statements recorded at the spot; that recoveries and forensic evidence are unreliable due to unexplained delay in sending case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory, absence of proof of safe custody, selective forensic examination, and non-recovery of crime empties from inside the shop despite alleged firing therein; that no identification parade was conducted, although PW-2 admitted he did not know the appellants prior to the incident; that the alleged motive of previous enmity was not proved in evidence; that serious contradictions exist between ocular and medical evidence, absence of blood-stained clothes or articles from the spot, and improbability of the prosecution version in light of the manner of occurrence; that the statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. are defective, as all incriminating material was not properly put to them, and the impugned judgment is non-speaking, based on conjectures and surmises, in violation of sections 342 and 367, Cr.P.C.; that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 also raises serious doubt about identification; and that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. In support, reliance was placed on judgments reported in 2020 SCMR 857, 2018 SCMR 772, 2017 SCMR 486, 2017 SCMR 596, 2011 SCMR 323, 2018 SCMR 506, 2025 SCMR 281, 2024 SCMR 1579, 2024 SCMR 1584, 2024 SCMR 1224, and 2024 SCMR 1507. Lastly, prayed for the setting aside of the impugned judgment and to acquit the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the convict appellants/respondents were members of an unlawful assembly and, while armed with deadly weapons, indiscriminately fired upon the complainant party, causing the death of two persons and injuries to two others; that offences under sections 302, 324 read with section 148, P.P.C. are fully made out, and in view of the heinous nature of the crime, the convict respondents deserved capital punishment instead of life imprisonment; that the ocular evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant and other eye-witnesses, including PW-2 and PW-3, is confidence-inspiring, truthful, unmotivated, and corroborated by the FIR, medical evidence, and ballistic reports; that cross-examination did not shake the witnesses on material aspects of the case; that the complainant and his family were well-acquainted with the appellants, the occurrence took place in broad-daylight, and the assailants openly carried out indiscriminate firing, leaving no doubt as to their identity; that PW-2 and PW-3, who sustained bullet injuries, are independent witnesses with no enmity or relation to the complainant, fully corroborating the ocular account; that PW-4 Shahal Khan also confirmed indiscriminate firing by the appellants along with absconding accused, providing independent and confidence-inspiring evidence; that no extenuating or mitigating circumstances exist to justify awarding lesser punishment; that the principle of proportionality requires that punishment must fit the crime, and in the present case, the life sentences awarded are grossly inadequate; that the trial court, despite being satisfied of the heinousness of the offence, failed to award the legally warranted sentence of capital punishment, thereby mis-exercising its discretion; that crime weapons were recovered from the possession of the convict respondents, properly sealed and sent for ballistic examination, which confirmed their use, corroborating the ocular account; that the medical evidence fully supports the ocular account; that other irregularities and illegalities exist in determining the quantum of sentence; that the petitioner reserves the right to raise further points at the hearing; and in the interest of justice, it is prayed that the quantum of sentence awarded be enhanced from life imprisonment to capital punishment. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, while supporting the impugned judgment and adopting the reasoning recorded therein, contended that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through confidence-inspiring ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, FIR, and forensic reports; that the presence of the complainant and injured witnesses at the place of occurrence stands firmly established, and their testimony cannot be discarded merely on account of relationship or alleged interest; that minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case; that any delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses has been satisfactorily explained and is not fatal to the prosecution; that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and acted in furtherance of a common object; that their conviction under sections 302, 324 read with section 149, P.P.C. is fully justified; that once the common object is established, specific role of each accused is not required to be assigned, and the principle of vicarious liability has rightly been applied; that non-production of some witnesses or minor lapses in investigation do not demolish the prosecution case when substantive evidence is on record; that recoveries of weapons, positive ballistic reports, and medical evidence fully corroborate the ocular account; that the motive, though established, is secondary where direct ocular evidence is available; that minor contradictions between ocular and medical evidence are not material; that statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. were properly recorded and no prejudice was caused; that there were no mitigating circumstances entitling the convict respondents to lesser punishment, and the principle of proportionality requires punishment to fit the crime; that the trial court rightly observed the heinousness of the offence and, accordingly, the impugned judgment is well-reasoned, speaking, and based upon proper appreciation of evidence; that the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to capital punishment due to the gravity of the crime; and that the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we have minutely perused the available record with their able assistance. 10. Perusal of record reveals that PW-1 Qadir Bakhsh ( complainant ) reported the incident through a written application, Ex.P/1-A. The complainant is an eye-witness of the occurrence, deposed that on 24.04.2022 at about 12 Noon, as usual, he along with his brother Khair Muhammad and Shafqat Ali were present in his cloths shop namely Al-Yousaf Cloth House, situated in main bazaar near Al-Noor Shopping centre, Dera Murad Jamali; his an old customer Shahal Khan along with his nephew arrived there and were being shown different colour cloths; in the meantime, the accused Inayatullah, Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Gul, Barfi Khan, Muhammad Sharif, Ahmed Din and Sawan Khan arrived at the shop and challenged them (lalkara) that you will not be spared today; the accused took out their weapons and started indiscriminate firing, due to which, his brother Khair Jan alias Khair Muhammad, Shafqat Ali and the customer Ali Dost sustained severe injuries and felt down; the accused persons while fleeing, made firing, which caused injury to a passerby Mureed Ali outside the shop. However, the complainant, Shalal and Abdul Rasheed remained safe miraculously; the complainant's brother Khair Jan alias Khair Muhammad and the customer Ali Dost succumbed at the spot; the accused Inayatullah, Jan Muhammad and Sawan fled away in a car Exio No.128 towards south, while Muhammad Gul, Barfi Khan, Ahmed Din and Muhammad Sharif escaped towards north on separate motorbikes; thereafter, the complainant arranged a vehicle, took the injured and the deceased to the hospital. The testimony of the complainant reveals that he had nominated the appellants in the FIR with a specific role of firing. 11. Before dilating upon the ocular and circumstantial evidence, it would be appropriate to discuss the medical evidence in the first place. In this context, PW-5 Doctor Naseer Muhammad, Medical Officer, Divisional Headquarter Hospital, Dera Murad Jamali, examined the deceased Ali Dost and Khair Muhammad; he produced the death certificates as Ex.P/1-A and Ex.P/1-B. On the same day, he also examined the injured Shafqat and Mureed Ali, and noted the injuries, which were incorporated in the MLC Ex.P/5-C and Ex.P/5-D, respectively; both the injured persons sustained the following injuries: Injuries of Shafqat Ali. 1. An entry wound semicircular shape, inverted margins on right side of face. 2. An exit wound irregular in shape, inverted margin on right side of neck, which penetrate about 3 cm with fresh bleeding. 3. An entry wound semicircular in shape, inverted margin on right side of neck. 4. An exit wound irregular in shape, inverted margin on back of neck with fresh bleeding. 5. An entry wound, semicircular in shape inverted margin on right arm with fresh bleeding. 6. An exit wound irregular in shape, inveted margins on same side of right arm. 7. An entry wound on right upper thigh an anterior side with inverted margin and fresh bleeding. 1st aid given, then referred to LNH Karachi, According to feedback there were fracture of right femora and right scapular back, neck wound exploration, right side back wound exploration right be polar hemi arthoplsty. Duration of injures: Fresh Weapon used: Firearm Injuries of Mureed Ali. 1. An entry wound about one cm with inverted margins semicircular in…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.