Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3560
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Farooq Haider)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Farooq Haider), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3560. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, 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.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Farooq Haider) DECISION DATE: 02-06-2026 TAGLINE: When Court comes to the conclusion that "A" attacked with weapon to "B" while coming to his house, caused injuries to him including at the vital part of the body and "B" after snatching or getting hold of said weapon, caused injury to "A" at most vital part of the body with full force resulting into death of "A", then "B" has exceeded his right of self defence and his act would attract offence punishable under Section: 302 (c) PPC. CASE DETAILS: Murder Reference 147-23 ============================================================ Stereo HCJDA 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023
Muhammad Atif vs The State, etc.
Murder Reference No.147/2023
The State vs Muhammad Atif
J U D G M E N T Date of hearing: 02.06.2026 Appellant by:
Ms. Saiqa Javed, Advocate. State by:
Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Saghir Nazir, S.I.
Complainant by: In person.
FAROOQ HAIDER , J .:- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.44191/2023 filed by Muhammad Atif (appellant) against his “conviction & sentence” and Murder Reference No. 147/2023 sent by trial court, as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 24.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal/trial court.
2. Muhammad Atif (appellant) was tried in case arising out of F.I.R. No.465/2022 dated: 04.12.2022 registered under Section s: 302 , 109 PPC at Police Station: Bhalwal Saddar , District Sargodha and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 24.05.2023 has convicted and sentenced the appellant ; in this regard, relevant portion of paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment is hereby reproduced as under: -
“15……..So, accused Muhammad Atif is convicted u/s 302 (b) of the PPC and awarded sentence of death for committing Qatal-i-amd of Muhammad Sajjad as Tazir . He shall be hanged by neck till his death. He shall also pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A of Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Sajjad and in default thereof, he has to undergo 06 months S.I……..”
3. Primarily, Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant/PW-6) set the machinery of law into motion by recording oral statement ( Ex.PH) to Khizar Hayat, Sub-Inspector (PW-9) at THQ Hospital, Bhalwal regarding murder of his brother namely Sajjad by the accused/appellant while giving Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
2 him a knife blow hitting him on left side of his chest. It was also stated that Akbar Khan son of Muhammad Akram is also involved in the murder of brother of the complaina nt; for ready reference, relevant portion of aforementioned statement (Ex.PH) is hereby scanned below: -
On the basis of aforementioned statement (Ex.PH), case was registered vide F.I.R. No.465/2022 (Ex.PA) on 04.12.2022 under Section: 302, 109 PPC at Police Station: Bhalwal Saddar, District Sargodha. Akbar Khan (co-accused) was found innocent during investigation of the case and his name was placed in column No.2 of the report prepared under Section: 173 Cr.P.C.
After investigation, challan report was sent to Court against the appellant; charge was framed agai nst him, to which he pleaded not guilty; prosecution during trial examined nine witnesses, out of which, ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant/PW-6) and Danish Ali (eyewitness/PW-7), Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW-5) provided medical evidence whereas detail of investigation was deposed by Khizar Hayat, Inspector (PW-9). Prosecution after giving up PW s namely Mehboob Ahmad 1673/C, Nadeem Akhtar and Ayaz (being unnecessary) and tendering report of expert, closed its evidence. Thereafter statement of the appellant was recorded under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted the allegations Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
3 levelled against him; he neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section: 340(2) Cr.P.C. to disprove the allegations levelled against him nor opted to produce evidence in his defence; while answering to Question No.13 “Why was this case registered against you and why have the witnesses deposed against you?” he replied as under: -
"At the day of occurrence, I was present in my house. The deceased knocked the door of my house when I open the door, he began to abuse and quarreling with me. I tried to convince the deceased but he attacked me with the knife. He wielded the knife and hit on to my chest two times. I injured and blood began to ous [sic]. The deceased, even, did not stop, I defended attack by my hands but the deceased who was under influence of the drugs received the injury of knife in this altercation by falling on to me. I do not know further how he was injured by his own knife. I did not commit his murder.”
Trial Court after conclusion of trial vide impugned judgment dated: 24.05.2023 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the ‘law and facts’ of the case; prosecution has been failed to prove its case against the appellant and finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant while accepting instant appeal. 5. Conversely, Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting the impugned judgment has opposed this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. Complainant (present before the Court in person) has opposed this appeal. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. Every case has its own facts and instant case has also its peculiar facts and circumstances. It has been noticed that as per statement of Muhammad Rizwan A slam (complainant/PW -6) i.e. Ex.P H, occurrence took place on 04.12.2022 at about 10:00 a.m. when he (complainant) along with Danish (PW-7) was going to Bhalwal, Sajjad (brother of the complainant) was going ahead of them at some distance and when they reached in front of the house of Atif (present appellant), Atif was standing in the street, who captured brother of the complainant and stated that why he has stolen his tool of cutting iron Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
4 bar and sold the same, due to which they grappled inter se, meanwhile Atif while taking out knife gave blow at Muhammad Sajjad, which hit him at left side of his chest, due to which he became injured and fell down; while witnessing the occurrence, Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant) and Danish ran and reached at the place of occurrence, Atif while seeing them fled away, Sajjad was being taken to THQ Hospital, Bhalwal in i njured condition for medical treatment, however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way, Akbar Khan is also involved in above mentioned murder; motive for the occurrence mentioned in the statement (Ex.PH) got recorded by the complainant (PW -6) is that At if had levelled allegation of theft against Muhammad Sajjad (brother of the complainant) and one day prior to instant occurrence, exchange of hot words took place between them for the same reason. Khizar Hayat, S.I. while reaching at THQ Hospital, Bhalwal recorded aforementioned statement of Muha mmad Rizwan Aslam (complainant) there on 04.12.2022 at 12:00 p.m. and then sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case where FIR (Ex.PA) was chalked out at 12:30 p.m. on the same day, postmortem over dead body of Muhammad Sajjad (decea sed of the case) was conducted at 02:45 p.m. on 04.12.2022 by Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW-5). Ocular account in this case was furnished by Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant/PW-6) and Danish Ali (PW -7) who both supported the case of prosecution while making their statements in the line of detail mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PA). Ocular account furnished by prosecution to the extent of receiving injury by the deceased below left nipple, by sharp edged weapon in font of door of house of appellant in the street has been establish ed rather even not denied by defence ; same has been also supported by the medical evidence. However, the defence version is that Sajjad (now deceased) armed with dagger came in front of house of accused (now appellant), called him out from the house in the street, after exchange of altercation, made two attacks with dagger upon ches t of accused and injured him severely. For the safe administration of justice as well as keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case consisting of two versions i.e. prosecution version and defence version, evidence/material available on the record is be ing thoroughly and minutely analyzed. Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
5 Medical evidence comprises of statement of Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW-5), who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased of the case), he observed an incised wound 1.5 x 1.5 cm going into left side of chest 3 cm below left nipple and on dissection found that said injury caused damage to skin superficial fascia underlying muscles and a hole 0.5 x 0.5 cm in size on anterior side of heart in middle of heart was also noted; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is hereby reproduced as under:- “DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES Injury No.1. An incised wound 1.5 CM x 1.5 CM going into own left side of chest 3 CM blow left nipple. On dissection After damage the injury No.1 skin superficial fascia underlying muscles were damaged. A hole 0.5 CM X 0.5 CM in size on anterior side of heart in middle of heart.” Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW -5) mentioned time elapsed between injury and death as immediate and relevant portion of his statement in this regard is hereby reproduced as follows:- “The time elapsed between the injury and death was immediately whereas the time elapsed between death and post -mortem examination was within 4 hours.” Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW -5) further stated that on 04.12.2022, Khizar Hayat, S.I. also produced Muhammad Atif (present appellant) for his medical examination with two injuries, injury statement (Ex.DA) was attested by him; Atif (present appellant) was brought before aforesaid Doctor at about 3:30 p.m. by Muhammad Farooq 616/C, two injuries were noted on his body by the Doctor during his medical examination, injury No.1 was found as an incised wound 1 x 1 cm in size, 2 cm below left clavicle whereas injury No.2 was an incised wound 3 x 1 cm in size 3 cm above left nipple, said both injuries were opined as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Badi’ah, probable duration of injuries was mentioned as 2 to 3 hours whereas kind of weapon used was “sharp”, MLC of the appellant was produced as Ex.DB and diagram as Ex.DB/1; he further mentioned that there was no possibility of fabrication regard ing injuries of Atif (present appellant); relevant portion of his statement in this regard is also hereby reproduced as follows:- Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
6 “It is correct that on 04.12.2022 Khizar Hayat SI also produced Muhammad Atif (present in the court as accused) for his medica l examination with two injury descriptions. The injury statement Ex.D.A attested by me. Atif son of Gulzar (present in the court as accused) aged about 32 years r/o Chak No.2/NB Bhalwal was brought before me at about 3:30 pm by Muhammad Farooq 616/C with identification burn mark on left forearm. Description of injuries. Injury No.1 an incised wound 1 X 1 CM in size, 2 CM below left clavicle. Skin deep wound. Injury No.2 an incised wound 3 X 1 CM in size skin deep 3CM above left nipple. No investigation was advised. No sample was sent for laboratory examination. I opined that injury No.1 & 2 Jurrah Ghair Jaffiah Badiah and declared as 337F(ii) each. Probable duration of injuries 2 to 3 hours. Ki nd of weapon used "SHARP". This MLC is Ex.D.B and diagram Ex.D.B/1. It is correct that in post-mortem of deceased Muhammad Sajjad, I mentioned only one injury caused to him. It is correct that I had mentioned two injuries in MLC No. 497/2022 of the accused Atif. I also mentioned in the MLC of accused Atif that there is no possibility of fabrication regarding injuries.” It goes without saying that though Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW -5) medically examined Muhammad Atif (present appellant) on 04.12.2022 at 03:30 p.m. and opined probable duration of injuries as 2 to 3 hours yet it is very much relevant to mention here that opinion of Doctor regarding time elapsed between injury and medical examination of the injured is largely based on approximation and not an exact fact rather 2 to 3 hours window is a very standard and acceptable margin of stretching the same i.e. 2 to 3 hours variance is entirely plausible and scientifically justifiable ; therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that Muhammad Atif (present appellant) received injuries at about 10:00 a.m. on 04.12.2022 which is the time given by the complainant party as time of occurrence. In this regard, reference can be made to Page 755 of “ A T extbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P. Modi (27th Edition, Chapter 27); relevant portion of the same is hereby reproduced as follows:- “It is not easy to give the exact time of infliction of any injury, but an approximate time can be given from charged with criminal wounding or with robbery, burglary, or dacoity may be proved from the injury found on the body of his victim or on his own body, for its appearance may or may not correspond to the time when it is alleged to have been inflicted according the data given below. Hence, it is always necessary to mention “about” when giving the period of an injury.” Perusal of Medicolegal Examination Certificate (Ex.DB) of Muhammad Atif (present appellant) and statement of Dr. Muhammad Javed Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
7 (PW-5) reveals that he was got medically examined on the very day of occurrence i.e. 04.12.2022 by the police, two incised wounds caused by sharp edged weapon were found on his body i .e. one below left clavicle whereas other above left nipple which is of course vital and sensitive part of the body whereas perusal of postmortem examination report of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased of the case, Ex.PF/Ex.PF/1) as well as statement of Dr. Muhammad Javed (PW-5) in said regard reveals that only one incised wound was found on his body, it was 3cm below left nipple which resulted damage to underlying muscles and a hole 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on anterior side of heart in the middle of the heart was also found. So it was also on the most vital part of the body caused by sharp edged weapon with full force, which caused damage to heart, lead to massive hemorrhage, hypovolemi c shock , further leading to cardiopulmonary arrest and also caused immediate death. Hence, it can be safely concluded that after receipt of said injury by the deceased on the most vital part of his body, which caused damage to his heart and resulted his death immediately, it was not possible for him to cause injury to anyone else. Therefore, if injuries were caused by Muhammad Sajjad (now deceased of the case) to Muhammad Atif (present appellant), those were caused by him before sustaining his own injury. As per case of prosecution, Atif (present appellant) got recovered knife (P-5) on 08.12.2022 from his house and same was taken into possession by Khizar Hayat, Inspector (PW -9) in the presence of Mahboob Ahmad 1673/C and Muhammad Sufyan 950/C vide recovery memo Ex.PD, which was sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency and as per report of said Agency (Ex.PN, it is relevant to mention here that though word Ex.PN has not been mentioned at the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency yet it has been mentioned in the statement of learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor recorded on 16.05.2023, which is available at Page No.34 of this Paper -Book) human blood was found on the swabs taken from blade of the knife as well as on the cotton through which blood was secured from the place of occurrence vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. However, it is not discernible from said report that either said human blood was of Muhammad Sajjad (now deceased) or At if (appellant) or both. Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
8 It is noteworthy here that above detailed injuries received by the present appellant were not mentioned by Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant/PW-6) in his statement Ex.PH got recorded by him to Khizar Hayat, S.I. for registration of the case. Similarly, when Muhammad Rizwan Aslam (complainant) appeared as PW -6 during trial of the case, he did not mention receipt of aforementioned injuries by the appellant in his examination-in-chief, however , during cross-examination, he stated that Muhammad Atif (present appellant) is his paternal cousin, occurrence of the case took place in front of house of accused Atif, he has no knowledge whether Atif was got injured or not and accused was arrested by police at about 02:00/02:30 p.m.; relevant portions of his statements in this regard are hereby reproduced as under for ready reference:- “Accused Atif is my paternal cousin (پھوپھی زاد”)
“The occurrence took place in front of the house of accused Atif. I have no knowledge whether accused Atif was got injured or not. Accused was arrested by police at about 2:00/2:30 pm, at that time, I was in hospital.”
Similarly, Danish Ali (PW -7) also did not state in his examination -in-chief about receiving of aforementioned injuries by present appellant during occurrence of this case ; during cross -examination stated that Atif is his maternal uncle and Sajjad (deceased) was his brother -in-law (بہنوئیin this regard, relevant portions of his statement are hereby reproduced as under: - “Accused Atif is my maternal uncle.” “Sajjad was my brother-in-law/(Behnoi),” He (PW-7) further stated before the Court that he had not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. or anywhere before the police that accused was also injured and then volunteered that he himself injured; he further stated that he came to know through local person that accused was injured; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement reads as under: - “It is correct that I have not mentioned in my statement u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. or anywhere before police that accused was also injured. Volunteers that he himself injured. When I reached in the village, I know through local person, that accused was injured.
But astonishingly, he did not mention in his statement before the police that accused himself injured or he (PW-7) came to know through local person that Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
9 accused was injured rather completely suppressed receiving of injuries by the accused/appellant even in his examination-in-chief before the Court.
It is also relevant to mention here that Khizar Hayat, Inspector (Investigating Officer/PW -9) during trial of the case though stated in his examination-in-chief that on 06.12.2022, he alongwith other p olice officials reached at the house of Atif (present appellant), formally arrested him, produced him before the Area Magistrate on 07.12.2022, obtained his physical remand; on 08.12.2022, on his disclosure and pointing out, got recovered knife from his ho use yet he did not explain in his examination -in-chief about getting conducted medical examination of Atif (present appellant) through police on the day of occurrence as well as receipt of injuries by him; however, during cross -examination accepted that oc currence took place in front of house of the accused; he also stated that when he visited the place of occurrence, he knocked door of house of the accused, who appeared in injured condition, he took the accused to Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Bhalwal, prepared his injury statement (Ex.DA) and sent through Muhammad Farooq 616/C for his medical examination, mentioned in the injury statement (Ex.DA) that Atif received two injuries on his chest ; accused neither tried to escape nor offered resistance to prevent apprehension and on the day of occurrence, Muhammad Atif (injured accused) stated before him that he was sleeping in his house, Sajjad (deceased) armed with dagger called him out from the house in the street, after exchanging altercation, gave two dagger blows upon chest of Atif (accused/present appellant) and injured him severely; he (PW-9) further admitted that it is correct that he kept arrest of the accused in abeyance due to serious injuries and arrested him from the house on 06.12.2022; he further sta ted that he verified statement of the accused/appellant from independent witnesses on 04.12.2022 ; he also stated that Muhammad Sajjad (now deceased of the case) received only single injury; in this regard, relevant portions of his statement are reproduced as under: - Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
10 “The occurrence took place in front of house of accused Muhammad Atif.”
“When I visited the place of occurrence I knocked door of gate of house belonging to the accused, who appeared in injured condition. We took accused to THQ hospital, Bhalwal. I prepared injury statement Ex.D.A and sent the same through Muhammad Farooq 616/C for medical examination. I mentioned in the injury statement Ex.D.A of accused Muhammad Atif, two injuries on his chest. Accused neither try to escape nor resistance to prevent apprehension. On the same day of occurrence, the injured accused Muhammad Atif stated before me that he was sleeping in his house and Sajjad deceased armed with dagger and called me out from the house, in the street, after exchange of alteration [sic] and made two attacks with dagger upon chest of accused Atif and he injured seriously. It is correct I kept in abeyance t he arrest of accused due to seriously injuries. I arrested accused from his house on 06.12.2022. I verified the statement of accused from independent witnesses on 04.12.2022.”
“It is correct that the deceased Sajjad received only single injury.”
(emphasis added)
Though in his statement (Ex.PH) got recorded by the complainant for registration of the case, he mentioned that Atif (present appellant) captured and asked Sajjad (deceased of the case) that why he has stolen his tool of cutting iron bar and sold the same (as detailed above) and he also mentioned same fact in his examination-in-chief; relevant portion in this regard from his examination-in-chief is hereby reproduced as follows:-
“He caught -hold my brother from collar and asked him that w hy he had stolen his steal-cutter.” But during cross -examination, he (PW -6) categorically stated that said iron cutter belonged to Safdar; relevant portion of his statement in this regard reads as follows:- “the bone of contention on which the occurrence taken place “iron cutter” ( یپرہ ٹ)belonged to Safder, my brother-in-law (behnoi).”
Danish Ali (PW-7) also stated that Sajjad (deceased) was living in his house and two days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel took place between the accused and deceased; he further stated that he was at Sargodha City at that time; relevant portion of his statement in this regard reads as under: - “The deceased Sajjad was living in my house. Two days ago of the occurrence, quarrel was taken place in between accused and deceased. At that time, I was at Sargodha City.” (emphasis added) Criminal Appeal No.44191/2023 & Murder Reference No.147/2023
11
It is necessary to add here that in the statement (Ex.PH) got recorded by the complainant (PW-6) for registration of case, it was categorically mentioned that one day prior to the occurrence, quarrel took place between the accused and deceased; so, Danish Ali (PW-7) on the one hand negated the claim of complainant that one day prior to the occurrence, quarrel took place between appellant and deceased whereas on the other hand he did not state that he was present at the time of that quarrel or witnessed the same rather stated that he was at Sargodha City at that time. He further stated that stolen cutter belongs to Safdar and in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below: - “Cutter was stolen, belong to Safdar uncle/Mamoo.”
So, motive alleged by the prosecution that Atif blamed Muhammad Sajjad (now deceased of the case) that he has stolen his cutter and sold the same stood negated by the statements of complainant (PW -6) and Danish Ali (PW-7) because they both stated befor e the Court that said cutter was of Safdar and even none of them claimed that they were present and saw the motive occurrence which took place prior to the occurrence. So, motive could not be proved in this case. Similarly immediate cause of occurrence als o remained shrouded in mystery. Outcome of aforementioned discussion is that admittedly occurrence took place in front of house of present appellant in the street as per case of the prosecution as well as…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.