Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2821
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice)
Parties: MUSHARAF HABIB vs STATE ETC
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2821. In this matter between MUSHARAF HABIB and STATE ETC, 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 The Chief Justice) DECISION DATE: 30-03-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 2540772.821-17 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 (Musharaf Habib versus The State, etc)
Crl. Rev No.104726 of 2017 (Muhammad Arshad Javed versus Musharaf Habib, etc)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 30.03.2026. Appellant by: M/s Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Nasir Mehboob Tiwana, Ms. Rida Noor, Malik Sahib Khan, Barrister Mirza Aurangzaib, and Ch. Qamar Zia Sindhu, Advocates Appellant in person. State by: Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General. Complainant by: Rai Bashir Ahmad, Advocate.
AALIA NEELUM, C.J:- The appellant-Musharaf Habib, son of Habib Nawaz, Caste Awan, resident of Naushera, Tehsil &, District Khushab, has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Khushab vide judgment dated 28.01.2016 in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 109, 34 PPC Police Station Naushera, District Khushab, titled “Muhammad Arshad Javed vs. Muhammad Habib, etc.,” whereby the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 (b) PPC read with section 34 PPC and sentenced him to Imprisonment for life as Tazir for the charge of murder of Ibrar Javed, with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as envisaged under section 544 -A of Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Ibrar Javed (the deceased) and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06 -months S.I further . The appellant was also convicted under Section 302 (b) PPC read with section 34 PPC and sentenced to Imprisonment for life as Ta zir for the charge of murder of Muhammad Asghar Ameer, with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- as envisaged under section 544 -A of Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Muhammad Asghar Ameer (the deceased) and in case of default thereof, to further Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
2 undergo 06 -months S.I. The court further held that aforesaid sentences awarded to the a ppellant would run concurrently, while t he benefit of section 382-B PPC was also extended in favour of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgm ent, Musharaf Habib, the appellant, has assailed his conviction by filing the instant appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2017, whereas the complainant filed Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017 for enhancement of sentence and compensation awarded to respondent No. 1, Musharaf Habib. Both matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged in the private complaint (Ex.PU) filed by Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10)-the complainant is that on 17.09.2012, hearing of Muhammad Asghar Ameer (brother in law of the complainant) in case FIR No.72/09, registered under sections 406/420 PPC, Police Station Naushehra was fixed in the Court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate; that the co mplainant (PW -10) alongwith his brother Ibrar Javed (the deceased) and Muhammad Asghar Ameer (the deceased), in order to proceed to Jauharabad, reached Mardwal Chowk, Naushehra at 06:15 a.m. and were waiting for a bus where all of a sudden, Musharaf Habib (the appellant ), Gulraiz (co-accused since convicted in a subsequent trial ) armed with pistols and Muhammad Afzal ( co-accused since convicted in a subsequent trial ) armed with 12-bore double barrel gun, came and raised lalkara to teach them a lesson for li tigation and insult and they would not spare them . Meanwhile Musharaf Habib (the appellant ) made fire with his pistol, which hit Ibrar Javed on his right hand; after that, Muhammad Afzal ( co-accused since convicted in a subsequent trial ) made two successiv e fire shots with his 12 - bore gun , which hit on chest and armpit of Ibrar Javed; then Gulraiz ( co- accused since convicted in a subsequent trial ) made two fires with his pistol, which also hit Ibrar Javed on right side of his chest, who fell down . Muhammad Asghar Ameer stepped forward, then Muhammad Afzal ( co- accused since convicted ) made fire with his 12 -bore gun, which hit Muhammad Asghar Ameer on chest near his right shoulder, who also fell down; the occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Ijaz (PW -11) and Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
3 Muhammad Ilyas (given up PW), besides the complainant, who were present near Naushehra Chowk and on seeing the occurrence, reached the spot; after the occurrence, the accused persons decamped from the place of occurrence alongwith their weapons; the co mplainant alongwith PWs attended Ibrar Javed and Muhammad Asghar Ameer; that Ibrar Javed succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Muhammad Asghar Ameer was shifted to Naushehra hospital for treatment, who later on, also succumbed to the injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was that Habib Nawaz, father of Musharaf Habib (the appellant ) got registered a case FIR No.14/2008 under sections 506/354/109 PPC against the deceased Ibrar Javed and case FIR No.72/09 under sections 420/406 PPC against th e deceased Muhammad Asghar Ameer , so there was previous litigation and enmity and while nourishing that grudge, accused persons committed murder of Ibrar Javed and Muhammad Asghar Ameer. 4. Upon receiving information of the occurrence, Khalid Mehmood, Inspector, (CW-1)-the investigating officer reached Mardwal Chowk, Naushehra, where the complainant Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10), got recorded his statement (Ex.PE) to him (CW-1), who after incorporating police proceedings over it, sent the same to the polic e station through Amjad Iqbal 102/C for registration of FIR, whereupon Muhammad Saleem A.S.I (PW -7), chalked out formal FIR ( Ex.PE/1). After registration of the case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW-1), who fou nd the accused/appellant guilty, prepared a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., while placing the name of the accused in column No.3 of the Challan, and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction. Being dissatisfied with the result of the investig ation, as the investigating officer was in league with the accused and did not properly investigate the matter, the complainant was constrained to file a private complaint (Ex.P U). After recording the complainant's cursory evidence and having perused the r ecord, all the accused persons were found to be connected with the commission of the offence, and they were summoned to face the charge. After that, the Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
4 learned trial court formally charged the appellant on 28.09.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty and cl aimed trial. In support of his version, the complainant produced as many as eleven (11) witnesses, whereas Khalid Mehmood (Inspector Retired) was summoned as court witness, i.e., CW-1. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was also examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he did not opt to appear as his own witness in terms of S ection 340(2) Cr. P.C.; however, he tendered Ex.DA, Ex.DA/1, Ex.DB & Ex.DC in his defence. In response to a particular question as to why this case wa s against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition: - “The PWs are highly interested witnesses. They were not present at the place of occurrence. The occurrence in this case took place before sun rise by some enemies of the deceased persons. I have been falsely involved in this case.” 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the available evidence on record, considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found that the prosecution's version was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction, as well as the awarding of a sentence in the terms above. 7. We have carefully considered both sides’ rival submissions and minutely reviewed the evidence on record. 8. The occurrence took place on 17.09.2012 at 06.15 a.m. at the Mardwal Chowk, within the area of Naushera, District Khushab, situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Naushera, District Khushab, which is only 3 kilometers from the place of occurrenc e. The incident was reported to the police by Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, through his oral statement (Ex.PE) on 17.09.2012 at 07.45 a. m. at the place of occurrence to Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW -1), the Investigating Officer. Thereupon, FIR (Ex.P E/1) was chalked out by Muhammad Saleem, ASI (PW-7), on the same day at 8:00 a.m. The First Information Report, in this case, was lodged after a delay of one hour and forty -five minutes after the Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
5 time of occurrence, which took place at 06:15 a.m., without any explanation. It is clear from the Fard Bayan (Exh.PE) that the statement of Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, was recorded by Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW- 1), the Investigating Officer, at 7:45 a.m. We have perused the inquest reports (Ex. PH and Ex. PM) and found that in the brief facts of the case, which were made to Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW -1), the Investigating Officer, by Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, the detailed particulars of the FIR are menti oned; the time and date of receiving information regarding the death were recorded as 17.09.2012 at 6:15 a.m. in the inqu est report (Ex.PH). I n the inquest report (Ex.PM), the time and date of receiving information regarding the death were mentioned as 17. 09.2012, and after writing “Bawaqat,” space is left blank. Whereas Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW -1), the Investigating Officer, deposed during his examination -in-chief that after recording the statement of Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, at Mardwal Chowk, he sent it to the police station through Amjad Iqbal FC ( 102/C) for the formal recording of the FIR . The police proceedings are incorporated at the bottom of the Fard Bayan (Exh.PE), as follows: - "اتت میں معہ عبدالجبار س وق SI،محمد ری اض ASI،نصر عباس HC222 ، سلیم ا 82/C، سجاد794/Cتت حیات ، لیاق96/Cے ض ،غلام مرتت 35/C ، جنید ا757/C بشیر محمد91/C، امجد اقبال 102/C سٹ ن ٹ لان کن بسواری سرکاری گاڑی 0606KBA/ ڈرائیورتنوی ر حسین 658/C اطلاع وقوعہ ی اکر موقعہ مردوال وک وشہرہ ہنچا محمد ارد اوود ستغیث ندررہ ی اا ے یانن ی اا قریی ری دی ا و بط حریی ر میں ا ی ا او کر مذکور کو پڑھ کر سنای ا گیا جس ے صحت یانن خود کو درست تسلیم کر کے زی ر یانن خود اپنے دستخط بحروف اردو کر دی ے جن کی میں تصدیق کریتا ہوں یانن سائل اور حاا ت و واقعات سے سردست صورت ج رم 961/03/023/062ت پ ی ائی او کر حریی ر ہذا ی رائے اندراج مہ بدست امجد اقبال 102/C ارسال نہ ہے بعد اندراج مقدمہ نمبر مقدمہ سے اطلاع دی اووے اور سپیشل رپورٹ ہائے بخدمت مجاز افسران فوری مرسل کی اوئیں میں موقعہ پرمصروف تفتیش ہوں۔
(دستخط انگری ری ) I/SHO ہرہوش نہ تھا از مردوال 17-09-2012تت ، بوق7/45 بجے دن۔
Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
6 جناب126/12مور92-1-92 ج رم 03/961/023/062 ت پ درج رجسٹر ہوا۔
( دستخط اردو ) محمد سلیم ASI ہرہوش نہ تھا"17-09-2012 The po lice proceedings show that Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, reported the incident at the place of the occurrence , i.e., “Mardwal Chowk.” However, during examination -in-chief, Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW-1), the Investigating Officer, deposed that: “Stated that on 17.09.2012 I was posted at PS Naushehra. On the same day, I recorded statement of Muhammad Arshad Javed Ex.PE at Mardwal Chowk and sent the same to Police Station through Amjad Iqbal FC for recording the formal FIR. I came to know that Muhammad Asghar Ameer injured is in THQ Hospital, Naushehra and I prepared injury statement of Muhammad Asghar Ameer Ex.PJ. I also inquired from the doctor through my application Ex.CW1/A whether he is in fit condition to make the statement or not. Th e doctor opined that he is in shock and is unable to make the statement. Thereafter, I came to the place of occurrence where the dead body of Ibrar Javed was lying at the spot. I prepared injury statement Ex.PG and inquest report Ex.PH and dispatched the d ead body through Liaqat Hayyat 96/C for its postmortem examination.” Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, deposed during examination-in-chief that: “After the occurrence, the police arrived at the spot and recorded my statement Exh.PE, which wa s read over to me and I signed over it as token of its correctness.” The prosecution's witness Muhammad Ijaz (PW -11) did not state during examination-in-chief where Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, reported the incident, nor did he state who took the injured to the hospital. Muhammad Ijaz (PW -11) deposed during examination -in-chief that:- “After departure of the accused we attended Ibrar Javed but he died at the spot whereas Muhammad Asghar Ameer was shifted to THQ Hospital Naushehra.” Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
7 9. Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW -1), the Investigating Officer, deposed that he went to the place of occurrence, where Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10), the complainant, asked him to record the statement, which he wrote and then sent to the police station through Amjad Iqbal FC 102/C) so that a formal FIR could be registered. After that, he (CW -1) learned that Muhammad Asghar Ameer was injured and was in THQ Hospital, Naushera. He (CW-1) then went to the hospital, prepared the injury statement (Ex.PJ), and, through application (Ex.CW1/A), inquired from the doctor whether the injured Muhammad Asghar Ameer was fit to make the statement. After that, he came to the spot where the dead body of Ibrar Javed was lying, prepared an injury statement (Ex.PG) , an inquest report (Ex.PH), and handed over the dead body to Liaqat Hayyat 96/C (PW-2) so that its post -mortem could be done. Liaqat Hayyat 96/C (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: - “I had accompanied the I.O. from the police station. We reached at the spot at ab out 6:15am. Arshad Javed complainant was present at the spot. The I.O. had asked the complainant the names of the accused and other facts of the case. Statement of Arshad Javed was recorded and the same was signed by the complainant. I reached in the mortuary with the dead body within 9/10 minutes . The PM was conducted at about 7:00 am.” Dr. Faiz Muhammad Farooqi (PW -8) deposed during examination -in-chief that:- “On 17.09.2012, at 07:00 am, I conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Ibrar Javed s/o Mohammad Sher caste Awan r/o Nausher aged 64 years. The dead body was brought by Liaqat Hayat 96-C and was identified by Nadeem Ahmad Khan and Fahim Ahmad Khan. If was a dead body of middle aged, eyes closed, mouth semi open, colour of hairs and moustaches were black, rigor mortas was yet not developed postmortem staining was yet not started, it was wearing white colour qameez and shalwar which were blood stained. I found the following injuries on dead body.” Nadeem Ahmad (PW -4), who identified the dea d body of the deceased Ibrar Javed, deposed during examination -in-chief that he identified the dead body of Abrar before the doctor at the time of the postmortem examination in Civil Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
8 Hospital Nowshera. The post -mortem examination was conducted before the Fard Bayan (Exh.PE) was recorded. Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW -1), the Investigating Officer, deposed during the cross-examination conducted by the complainant as follows:- “The occurrence took place at 06:15 AM whereas I sent the statement Exh.PE of the complainant at 07:45 AM and the formal FIR was recorded at 08:00 AM.” 10. According to the MLC (Ex.PI) of Muhammad Asghar Ameer, in the column for the time of arrival and examination, the injured was brought to the hospital at 6:30 a.m. on 17.09.2012 by M uhammad Bashir, 91/Constable (PW-3), and his examination was conducted at that time. The MLC (Ex.PI) also records the date of the police Docket/Court Order FIR 126, dated 17.09.2012. Soon after the medical examination, the injured Muhammad Asghar Ameer was immediately referred to DHQ Hospital Jauharabad. The postmortem examination report (Ex.PK) of Muhammad Asghar Ameer does not mention the date and time of death. However, the death report (Ex.PJ) reveals that Muhammad Asghar Ameer died on 17.09.2012 at 09: 05 a.m. In column No. 1 of the inquest report (Ex.PM) of Muhammad Asghar Ameer, it is stated that death took place in DHQ Hospital Jauharabad, and the dead body is available in THQ Hospital Nowshera. The time of receipt of information of death is not menti oned in column No. 1 of the inquest report (Ex. PM). On the face of the inquest report (Ex.PM), the particulars of the FIR are not mentioned, although they are given in the body of the column, "brief history of the case". The recovery memo for the last wor n clothes (Ex.PB) produced by Muhammad Bashir, 91/Constable (PW-3), reveals that after writing “بنامthe place was left blank. While the inquest report (Ex.PM) and the post -mortem report (Ex.PK) do not mention the time and date of death of Muhammad Asgha r Ameer, the corresponding columns were left blank. However, the time and date of the postmortem were recorded as 11:00 a.m. on 17.09.2012 in the post -mortem report (Ex.PK) and were deposed by Dr. Faiz Muhammad Farooqi (PW -8). This suggests that until the receipt of the last worn clothes on 17.09.2012, and the preparation of the memo of the last worn clothes of Muhammad Asghar Ameer, the accused, were not known to the prosecution. In the above circumstances, it appears that the FIR was not Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
9 registered as cla imed, and the prosecution's story is doubtful. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital piece of evidence for assessing the evidence led at trial. The purpose of insisting on prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circum stances in which the crime was committed, including the time of occurrence, the names of the actual culprits and the parts they played, the weapons, if any, used, and the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. A delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. The time of death of Muhammad Asghar Ameer was 9:05 a .m., according to the death report (Ex.PJ). Muhammad Bashir , 91/Constable (PW -3), deposed during examination-in-chief that on 17 .09.2012, the dead body of Mu hammad Asghar Ameer was handed over to him for the postmortem examination. He escorted the dead body to the mortuary. After the postmortem examination, the doctor handed him the shirt P -4 and Shalwar P-5 that he had brought, and the IO prepared the memo Ex.PB. The contents of the memo of possession of the worn clothes of Muhammad Asghar Ameer reveal that the investigating officer took possession of the worn clothes of the injured Muhammad Asghar Ameer, and this recovery memo does not indicate that it was pr epared after the death of Muhammad Asghar Ameer. On the other hand, on the last page of the post-mortem report (Ex.PK), Muhammad Bashir, 91/Constable (PW-3), signed the statement that he received the dead body, the post -mortem report, clothes, and one seal ed bottle containing two pallets. Given these facts, we believe the prosecution has concealed the true origin of the incident. It casts serious doubt on the veracity and authenticity of the F.I.R. itself. Therefore, the possibility of the appellant's false implication in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out. 11. Another fact that demolishes the entire edifice and fabric of the prosecution's case is that neither the eyewitness nor the complainant signed the inquest report (Exh. PH) o f Ibrar Javed . However , Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW-1), the Investigating Officer, has categorically asserted that he recorded statements of Muhammad Ijaz (PW-11), Muhammad IIyas (given up PW), and Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10) under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which shows th at witnesses were present at the place of occurrence. Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
10 If he (CW -1) visited and prepared an inquest report (Exh.PH) and had met with Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, there is no reason why the details we have found missing from the inquest re port (Exh.PH) should not have been entered there. The absence of those details indicates that the prosecution's story was still in its embryonic stage and had not yet taken shape. Apparently , the FIR was recorded later, after due deliberations and consultations, and was then antedated to give it the color of a promptly lodged FIR. The absence of these details in the inquest report may indicate that the FIR was not registered immediately but was recorded later, after due deliberation and consultation. 12. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Ijaz (PW -11), Muhammad Ilyas (given up as a witness ), and Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10) are related and interested witnesses. Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10), the complainant, admitted to having had a relationshi p with the prosecution witnesses and deposed during cross-examination that: - “Muhammad Ijaz PW is my mamoo -zad brother. Iftikhar Ahmad is brother of Muhammad Ijaz PW, who is my Behnoai. My two daughters namely Mst. Asma and Mst. Anis Fatima are married wi th Nadeem Ahmad and Faheem Ahmad who are Chacha-zad brothers of Muhammad Ijaz PW. Muhammad Ilyas PW is my cousin as well as SALA . Ibrar Javed deceased is my brother whereas Asghar Ameer is my Behnoai. My father is paternal cousin of Asghar Ameer deceased.” Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, mentioned in the FIR and private complaint, and deposed that they were going to attend the case when the incident took place. Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, deposed during examination-in-chief that: - “On 17.09.2012 Asghar Ameer, my Behnoi w as going to attend the case FIR No.72/09 under sections 406/420 PPC in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, Jauharabad when I alongwith Ibrar Javfed deceased and Muhammad Asghar Ameer deceased reached at Mardwal Chowk at 06:15 AM. We were waiting for a bus.” Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
11 During cross-examination, Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, admitted that on 17.09.2012, case FIR No. 72 of 2009 was not fixed, the relevant portion is as follows:- “It is correct that the cas e Fir No.72/2009 was not fixed on 17.09.2012. Volunteered that the civil suit was pending on that day and I can produce its copy.” Muhammad Ijaz (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination that: - “I did not mention any reason of my presence near the place of occurrence.” 13. On the other hand, Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW -10), the complainant, deliberately concealed t he facts from the court and during the cross-examination deposed that: “I do not remember if on 18.03.2010 Habib Nawaz father of Musharaf Habib accused gave a statement in the court of Rana Zahid Iqbal, the then Judicial Magistrate about the compromise reached between the parties in the case FIR No.14/2008 which I have mentioned as a motive. I do not know if Habibi Nawaz also gave statement of comp romise with the accused persons in FIR No.72/2009 on 04.09.2012 and that the accused persons were acquitted. I have mentioned the above two cases as a motive. Volunteer there was also a civil suit between the parties.” The defence tendered attested copies of the order dated 18.03.2010 (Ex.DA/1), under which the compromise statement was recorded in FIR No. 14 dated 03.02.2008. Similarly, the report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C (Ex.DB) and the compromise deed (Ex.DC) dated 18.03.2010 were tendered. The documentary evidence suggests that Muhammad Arshad Javed (PW-10), the complainant, deliberately withheld real facts. We do not find any special reasons for the witnesses to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. The eyewitnesses were not only related to the deceased but were also chance witnesses . Their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful in the circumstances mentioned above. It is, therefore, clear that the F.I.R. itself was a belated document and came into existence la ter. If this was so, then there was sufficient time for the complainant party, who is undoubtedly inimical to the accused, to deliberate and prepare a false case not only against the appellant but also against the other accused persons . Even Crl. Appeal No.821 of 2017 & Crl. Rev. No.104726 of 2017
12 Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (CW-1), the Investigating Officer, admitted that the accused was neither armed with the pistol at the time of the occurrence nor had he fired at Ibrar Javed, the deceased. 14. The learned counsel for the complainant emphasized that after the occurrence, the appellant absconded. However, in the light of the deposition of Nasir Iqbal…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.