Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: (1) Farhat Shaheen etc (2) Ghulam Abbas VS Respondent: (1) The State etc (2) Farhat Shaheen etc
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Aalia Neelum Title:(1) Farhat Shaheen etc (2) Ghulam Abbas vs (1) The State etc (2) Farhat
Shaheen etc Case No.: (1) Crl. Appeal No. 815 of 2016 (2) Crl. Revision No.610 of 2016 Date of Judgment:2016-11-16 Reported As: 2016 LHC 3290 Result: Criminal revision dismissed Judgment AALIA NEELUM, J.- Farhat Shaheen son of Jafar Ali, Caste Baloch, resident of Mauza Shahoo Baloch, Tehsil & District, Pakpattan Shareef along with Mumtaz Ahmad son of Muhammad Ameer, Caste Kharal, resident of near water works No.1, Pakpattan Shareef, appellants were involved in a private complaint, registered under Sections 302, 201, 34, P.P.C., Police Station, Bhera, District Sargodha as well as State case F.I.R. No.451-2010 dated 08.12.2010, offence under Sections 302, 34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Bhera, District Sargodha and were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha. The learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 11.04.2016 and convicted the appellants-Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad under Section 302 (b)/34 P.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef and in case of default thereof, each of them would suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants were also convicted under Section 201/34 P.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to five years Rigorous Imprisonment , along with fine of Rs.20,000/-each and in case of default thereof, each of them would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently . The benefit of Section 382 (B) of Cr.P.C., was also extended in favour of the appellants. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellants-Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad have assailed their conviction and sentence by way of filing instant criminal appeal whereas the petitioner- complainant, Ghulam Abbas being dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 11.04.2016, preferred a Criminal Revision No.610 of 2016 for enhancement of sentence of the appellants from life imprisonment to death sentence as well as compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-each. As both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment, therefore, they are being disposed of through a single judgment.
---
## Page 2
3. The prosecution story as contained in the private complaint (Ex.PB) filed by Ghulam Abbas (PW-1) is that on 07.12.2010, at about 06:50 p.m., Muhammad Shareef, Advocate (since dead) along with accused-Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad after taking meal from his (PW-1) house situated at Chak Shahzad, Islamabad proceeded to Pakpattan Shareef while riding on a car bearing registration No.9844/LHR, silver colour, Model 1987, who had come at Islamabad in order to collect a cheque having value of Rs.11,00,000/- for the District Bar, Pakpattan Shareef from the Federal Minister Dr. Babar Awan and at the time of their departure, Muhammad Shareef (since dead) was sitting on the front seat whereas the accused-Farhat Shaheen was driving the car while the accused-Mumtaz was sitting on the rear seat of the above stated car. At the time of departure of the appellants and the deceased, Muhammad Shareef, the complainant (PW-1) along with Muhammad Afzal (PW-2), Mian Muhammad Ashraf (given up PW) and Muhammad Akram Shad (given up PW) were already present there, as the complainant (PW-1) had come to see his (PW-1) ailing bhabhi namely Dr. Samina. After the departure of the accused persons and Muhammad Shareef (since dead), when he (PW-1) remained unable to contact Muhammad Shareef (since dead), he (PW-1) telephonically contacted the accused persons at 09:30 p.m., and the accused persons informed him (PW-1) that after reaching at the bridge of river Jhelum on the motorway, they (accused persons) were not in contact with Muhammad Shareef (since dead). The accused persons on their way from Islamabad to Lahore have murdered his (PW-1) brother-in-law, Muhammad Shareef (since dead) by way of strangulation and throwing his dead body in the river Jhelum from the bridge of Motorway whereupon he (PW-1) got registered a criminal case No.451-2010 dated 08.12.2010 (Ex.PA); that on 27.02.2011, at about 11:00 a.m., the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad along with Ihsanullah Shakir (PW-5) came to the office of Naveed Akhter (PW-6) situated at Ghala Mandi, Pakpattan and at that time, Muhammad Ashfaq (given up PW) was also present there whereas the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad told to Naveed Akhter etc that on 07.12.2010, he along with co-accused, Farhat Shaheen and Muhammad Shareef (since dead) were coming back from Islamabad Motorway to Pakpattan on a car bearing registration No.9844/LH R, at 09:30 p.m., they (accused persons) restrained Muhammad Shareef (since dead) from contesting the election of District Bar Association, Pakpattan for the year 2011 but on the refusal of Muhammad Shareef (since dead), hot words and abusive language were exchanged among the accused persons and Muhammad Shareef (since dead) whereupon the accused-Farhat Shaheen stopped the car at Lilla Interchange in the lay of parking and they (accused persons) committed murde r of Muhammad Shareef (since dead) by way of strangulation and throwing the dead body of Muhammad Shareef (since dead) in the river Jhelum from the bridge of Motorway and in order to conceal their crime, the accused persons made a concocted story regarding disappearance of Muhammad Shareef (since dead) and after having result of medical board qua death of Muhammad Shareef (since dead), local police of police station, Bhera was going to arrest them. The accused persons also confessed their guilt and requested that they (accused persons) should have been forgiven, as they (accused persons) had brought his (PW-1) relative with them and on the same day, at about 12 noon, Naveed Akhter and Ashfaq (given up PW) informed him (PW-1) about the confession of the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad. On 27.02.201 1 at about 4:00 p.m., when he (PW-1) was present at his residence, the accused-Farhat Shaheen along with Bashir Ahmad (PW-3), Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4) and Muhammad Riaz (given up PW) came there and told him (PW-1) that on 07.12.2010 at about 09:30 p.m., he (accused-Farhat Shaheen) and the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad while riding on a car bearing registration No.9844/LHR were proceeding on the Motorway from Islamabad to Pakpattan along with Muhammad Shareef (since dead), restrained Muhammad Shareef (since dead) from contesting the election of District Bar Pakpattan and on the refusal of Muhammad Shareef (since dead), hot words were exchanged among them, whereupon the accused-Farhat Shaheen stopped the vehicle at lay by parking at Motorway Lilla Interchange and they (accused persons) murdered Muhammad Shareef (since dead) by strangulation and also throwing the dead body of Muhammad Shareef in the river Jhelum from Motorway bridge and concocted a fictitious story in order to conceal their guilt. The accused-Farhat Shaheen also stated that the local police of police station, Bhera was going to arrest them (accused persons), so he (accused-Farhat Shaheen) had brought his (PW 1) close friends, as he was complainant as well as brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Muhammad Shareef (since dead), therefore, he (accused-Farhat Shaheen) should have been pardoned from the legal heirs of Muhammad Shareef (since dead) whereupon the complainant (PW-1) stated that he (PW-1) would reply him
---
## Page 3
(accused-Farhat Shaheen) after making contact with the legal heirs of Muhammad Shareef (since dead). The local police neither investigated the matter on merits nor collected important piece of evidence in order to favour the accused, even the statements of the PWs qua extra judicial confession were not recorded, as Ghulam Rasool- Investigating Of ficer and Sajjad Ahmad, S.H.O., are in league with the accused persons. 4. The motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Shareef (since dead) remained President of the District Bar Association, Pakpattan and was very popular in the local as well as in the politics of the Bar and upon the insistence of the lawyers of Bar Association, Pakpattan, Muhammad Shareef (since dead) was a candidate for the seat of President District Bar Association, Pakpattan for the year 2011 whereas the accused persons were rival candidates and right hands of Liaqat Ali Baloch, the other rival candidate against Muhammad Shareef (since dead). The accused-Farhat Shaheen is relative of Liaqat Ali Baloch and both accused persons are also close friends, therefore, the accused persons with their pre-planned common intention, committed murder of Muhammad Shareef (since dead). 5. The F.I.R., (Ex.P A) was chalked out by Muhammad Jehangir , A.S.I. (CW-5) on the complaint (Ex.DA) of the complainant (PW-1). After registration of F.I.R. (Ex.P A), investigation was entrusted to Ghulam Rasool/Investigating Officer (CW-7), who reached at the spot and took into possession a car bearing registration No.9844/LHR (C-1) along with its registration book (C-2) and driving license (C-3) of the accused-Farhat Shaheen vide recovery memo (Ex.PJ). The Investigating Officer (CW-7) also took into possession a pistol 30-bore (P-4), two loaded magazines having eleven bullets (P 5/1-1 1) along with its arm license No.1517 in the name of the accused-Farhat Shaheen from the dash board of car No.9844/LHR through recovery memo (Ex.PK), a bag from the diggi of car from which, a white colour shirt (P-6), shalwar (P 7), a cotton suit, Shalwar (P-8), Qameez (P-9), two pairs of socks (P-10/1-2) along with a white colour bunyan (P-11), which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PL) by him (CW-7). The cheque bearing No.2904629 having value of Rs.11,00,000/- was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer (CW-7) vide recovery memo (Ex.PM). The Investigating Officer (CW-7) made hectic efforts to search the dead body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef but in vain. On 20.12 .2010, he (CW-7) after receiving information qua presence of dead body of the deceased in the bed of river Jhelum near Chak Mubarik, reached at the spot and found the dead body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef lying in the river bed, near flowing of water at wet place and on personal search of the body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef, from right lower pocket of the shirt, the Investigating Officer (CW-7) took into possession Rs.38,000/- (P-13/1-76) each note consists of Rs.500/-(P-1-76) along with identity card (P-14), national identity card (P-15) vide recovery memo (Ex.PN). Thereafter the Investigating Officer (CW-7) prepared injury statement (Ex.PD), inquest report (Ex.PE) and entrusted the dead body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef to R.H.C Bhera for autopsy under the escort of Altaf 1771/C (PW-8). Thereafter , the Investigating Officer (CW-7) prepared un-scaled site plan of the place of recovery of dead body (Ex.CW -7/A), site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.CW -7/B) and submitted an application (Ex.CW -7/C) before the learned duty Magistrate for constitution of medical board for the postmortem of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef whereupon learned duty Magistrate passed an order (Ex.CW -7/C-1) and accordingly the medical board was constituted and as a result whereof, the dead body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef was shifted to the District Headquarter Hospital, Sargodha under the escort of Altaf 1771/C (PW-8). After postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Shareef, Altaf 1771/C (PW-8) produced last worn clothes of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef i.e. Qameez (P-1), Shalwar (P-2) and Jacket (P-3) before (CW-7), who took the same into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PF). Thereafter , Altaf 1771/C (PW-8) produced two sealed envelops along with eight sealed jars sent by the medical board, before the Investigating Officer (CW-) and the same were taken into possession by him (CW-7) vide recovery memo (Ex.PG). Thereafter , on 13.01.201 1, the Investigating Officer (CW-7) took into possession water of river Jhelum in a bottle vide recovery memo (Ex.PH) for chemical analysis. After receiving the report of the Standing Medical Board regarding cause of death, (CW 7) added offence under Section 302 P.P.C., and on 28.02.201 1, the Investigating Officer (CW-7) formally arrested the accused persons and on 14.03.201 1 the accused persons were sent to judicial lockup. On 18.01.201 1, Naseer Ahmad, Patwari (CW-6) took rough notes on the direction of the Investigating Officer (CW-7) prepared scaled site plans (Ex.CW -6/A and Ex.CW 6/B) of the place of
---
## Page 4
recovery of dead body whereas on 14.03.201 1, Sarfraz Ahmad, Patwari (CW-3) on the pointing of the Investigating Officer (CW-7), prepared site plans (Ex.C W 3/A and Ex.CW -3/B) of the place of occurrence. On 30.03.201 1, the Investigating Officer (CW-7) prepared challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., through S.H.O by placing names of the accused persons in column No.2 and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction. The complainant (PW-1) being dissatisfied with the investigation, filed a private complaint on 07.10.201 1 against the accused persons before the learned Judicial/Illaqa Magistrate, Police Station, Bhera, Tehsil, Bhalwal District Sargodha. The learned Illaqa Magistrate sent the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha for its entrustment to the court of competent jurisdiction. The learned trial court after hearing preliminary arguments, summoned the accused persons to face their trial. After appearance of the accused persons, they were formally charge sheeted by the learned trial court in terms of order dated 10.03.2012, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as ten (10) prosecution witnesses during the course of trial in the State case whereas after filing of private complaint (Ex.PB), the proceedings in the State case were stopped and rest of the witnesses cited in the calendar of the witnesses were examined as Court witnesses i.e. (CW-1 to CW 7). The evidence of last seen in this case consists of the statements of Ghulam Abbas (PW-1) and Muhammad Afzal (PW-2), whereas the evidence of extra judicial confession consists upon the statements of Bashir Ahmad (PW-3), Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4), Ihsanullah Shakir (PW-5) and Naveed Akhter (PW-6). 7. Dr. Mumtaz Fateh ullah Khan Niazi appeared as (PW-7) and deposed that we the Standing Medical Board comprising of Dr. Captain Ahmad Naeem Sheikh, Dr. Irfan Farid, Dr. Iqbal Sami, Dr. Abdur Rehman along with him (PW-7) on 20.12.2010 at 03:30 a.m., conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, Muhammad Shareef and found the following injury on his person. 1. Contusion mark on the right side of neck extended from angle of mandible right side and from front of right ear to lower part of left neck. 2. Contusion mark on the left side of face extended from left ear to left cheek. 3. Contusion mark on outer side of upper middle and lower parts of right arm. 4. There was insect and animal bite on left arm and forearm along with tendons exposed and bones of left elbow joint lying apart. Remarks of Standing Medical Board. Samples of viscera in eight jars were taken and sent to Bacteriologist and chemical examiner , Lahore. Opinion about the death would be given after the receipt of reports from both corner . After conducting the postmortem examination, the Standing Medical Board rendered the following opinion:- Final opinion. After going through the findings in initial postmortem report and report of Bacteriologist and Chemical Examiner, Lahore, the joint opinion of board was that findings are consistent with the death due to sustain pressure on the carotid sinusus on both side of the neck by injuries No.1 & 2 which resulted to vasovagal stimulation leading to neurogenic shock, cardiopulmonary arrest and death. These injuries No.1 & 2 were ante-mortem and sufficient enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was sudden. Postmortem report is Ex.PC and sketch of injuries Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PC/2. After receipt of report of histopathologist Ex.PC/3, final opinion of Standing Medical Board is Ex.PC/4, which bear signatures of all the members of Standing Medical Board. Report of Chemical Examiner is Ex.PC/5. 8. The PWs, Muhammad Ashra f Madni, Photographer , Dr.Hafiz Abdur Rehman, Dr. Iqbal Sami, Dr. Irfan Fareed, Mian Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Riaz, Farzand Ali 1168/C, Rajab Ali and Dr. Ahmad Naeem Sheikh were given up by the learned consel for the complainant being un- necessary on different dates i.e. 25.04.2015, 04.11.2015, 06.01.2016 and on 02.03.2016 respectively and closed the prosecution evidence on 02.03.2016.
---
## Page 5
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C, wherein they opted not to appear as their own witness in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. in disproof of allegations leveled against them in the prosecution evidence but also refused to adduce evidence in their defence. While replying to the question that why this case is against them and why the PWs deposed against them, the appellants- Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad made following depositions:- "The PWs deposed falsely and instant false case has been registered against them due to personal grudge and ulterior motive." 10. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record found version of the prosecution proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellants, resulting into their conviction in the afore- stated terms. 11. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record available on the file. 12. The entire edifice of the prosecution is rested on circumstantial pieces of evidence and two sets of extra judicial confession. What the prosecution is obliged to prove in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and there must be a chain of evidence to complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability , the act must have done by the accused. In the case in hand, on 07-12 2010 the accused-appellants Farhat Shaheen (General Secretary , Bar Association District, Pakpattan) and Mumtaz Ahmad (Vice President, Bar Association District, Pakpattan) along with Muhammad Shareef (President Bar Association District Pakpattan) leave for Pakpattan at 06:50 p.m. in a car having registration No.LHR-9844 after receiving a cheque amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- (P-12) on 07-12-2010 and allegedly the accused-appellants Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad in the area of Bhera in furtherance of common intention strangulated Muhammad Shareef (since deceased), President Bar Association District Pakpattan, around 9:30 p.m. In such cases the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the circumstances which alone can justify a conviction that there is a clear motive for the accused- appellants to strangulate to the deceased, and, that the deceased died due to strangulation said to have been committed by the accused. 13. This Court have to consider as to whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt against the accused appellants that they strangulated Muhammad Shareef, thereby causing murder . The prosecution, to prove its case, has relied upon five circumstances, namely , (i) the accused persons were last seen in the company of the deceased (ii) extra judicial confession made by the accused-Farhat Shaheen before Ghulam Abbas (PW-1), Bashir Ahmad (PW-3) and Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4) and the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad made alleged confession before Ehsan Ullah (PW-5) and Naveed Akhtar (PW-6), (iii) medical evidence, (iv) the accused persons had motive to get rid of Muhammad Shareef and (v) the conduct of the accused-appellants after the incident. 14. Thus, on scanning the evidence available on the record, This court finds that all these witnesses i.e. the complainant-Ghulam Abbas (PW-1),Muhammad Afzal (PW-2) Ghulam Rasool, S.I. (presently retired) (CW-7) as well as the accused-appellants are consistent on the point that on 07-12 2010 Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad along with Muhammad Shareef-the deceased started their journey from Islamaba d to Pakpattan in vehicle LHR- 9844, after taking meal from the house of Ghulam Abbas (PW-1) and at 8:15 pm they entered Motorway from Islamabad Toll plaza and on reaching bridge Jhelum river at Motorway Farhat Shaheen and Mumtaz Ahmad lost their contact with Muhammad Shareef, advocate-the deceased. The first circumstance that accused were in the company of deceased during relevant time till the later died of alleged strangulation is admitted one. But, this circumstance being proved against the accused alone is not sufficient to conclude that these are the accused- appellants who are the perpetrator of the crime in question. All circumstances must be so complete that they should point only towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 15. For establishing charge against the accused-appellants, the prosecution produced two sets of witnesses before whom extra judicial confession was made by the accused-Farhat Shaheen are Ghulam Abbas (PW-1), Bashir
---
## Page 6
Ahmad (PW-3) and Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4) and the accused-Mumtaz Ahmad made alleged confession before Ehsan Ullah (PW-5) and Naveed Akhtar (PW-6). To examine the guilt of the accused-appellants, this Court deems it proper to re-appreciate the evidence of these two set of witnesses before whom the accused-appellants are alleged to have confessed. Admittedly , there is no direct evidence available on record so as to attribute the commission of crime to the appellants except extra judicial confession. It was an un-witnessed occurrence. Having dealt with the basic of the legal issue as regard evidentiary value of extra judicial confession and adverting to the factual matrix of the matter at this junctu re, the prosecution case as made is to the following effect that sister of Muhammad Shareef-the deceased is wife of the complainant-Ghulam Abbas (PW-1); Muhammad Afzal (PW-2) is real brother of Muhammad Shareef-the deceased; Bashir Ahmad (PW-3) had his land adjacent to the land of Muhammad Shareef-the deceased and he had friendly relations with Muhammad Shareef-the deceased; Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4) has stated that as a sister of Ch.Shareef was married with Ghulam Abbas complainant so being her co-villagers he had friendly relation with Ghulam Abbas complainant, Whereas Naveed Akhtar (PW-6) is brother-in- law (Behnoi) of Muhammad Shareef-the deceased. The evidence disclosed that on 27-02-201 1 at about 4:00 p.m. Farhat Shaheen accused along with Bashir Ahmad (PW-3), Maqbool Ahmad (PW-4) and Muhammad Riaz (given up being unnecessary) went to Islamaba d in the house of the complainant-Ghulam Abbas (PW-1) in order to get pardon and Farhat Shaheen accused confessed his guilt. The complainant Ghulam Abbas (PW-1) deposed during his examination-in-chief regarding the extra judicial confession allegedly made by Farhat Shaheen accused that, "---Then on 27.02.2011 at 4:00 p.m., when I alone was present in my house, when Farhat Shaheen accused present in the court along with Bashir Ahmad son of Abdul Nabi, Maqbool Hussain son of Nazar Hussain and Muhamamd Riaz son of Nazir Hussain came there and told me that on 07.12.2010 at about 9:30 p.m., he and Mumtaz his co-accused when into vehicle No.LHR-9844 were proceedings on motorway from Islamabad to Pakpattan along with Muhammad Shareef deceased, advocate, he and Mumtaz accused asked Muhammad Shareef deceased not to contest election of District Bar Association, Pakpattan as President of year 2011 who refused to adhere to their demand upon which they insisted as a result of which, Muhammad Shareef, deceased advocate insulted them and there was an exchange of abuses upon which Farhat Shaheen-accused told that he stopped vehicle at lay by parking at motorway Lilla Interchange and he along with Mumtaz his co-accused killed Ch. Muhammad Shareef by pressing his throat and threw the dead body of Muhammad Shareef deceased in river Jhelum from bridge at Jhelum river situated at motorway and concocted a fictitious story of Muhammad Shareef deceased for concealing their crime. Farhat Shaheen accused further told that great cruelty had been committed by them and as the police of police station, Bhera was out to arrest him and his co- accused, hence he had brought my close friends to me and as I was the complainant and brother in law (Behnoi) of…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.