Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4278
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: MUHAMMAD WASEEM ETC. vs STATE
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4278. In this matter between MUHAMMAD WASEEM ETC. and STATE, 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 Sadiq Mahmud Khurram) DECISION DATE: 11-03-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 243-25 ============================================================ Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal No. 243-J of 2025 (Muhammad Waseem and two others Vs. The State .) Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 . (Muhammad Fazil Vs. The State and three others.) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025.
(Muhammad Fazil Vs. Muhammad Altaf and another.)
Date of hearing: 11.03.2026. Appellants by: Mr. Asim Ali Bukhari, Advocate. State by: Mr. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General. Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Azam, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T
SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. – Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad (convicts) were tried alongwith Muhammad Altaf son of Allah Ditta (since acquitted), the co -accused of the convict s by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “Muhammad Fazil Vs. Muhammad Waseem and four others” lodged in respect of offences under sections 302 , 311,148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Fazil (deceased)(relating to F.I.R. No. 166 of 2024 dated 29.04.2026 registered at Police 2 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
Station Shehr Farid, District Bahawalnagar). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.05.2025 convicted Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad (convicts) and sentenced them as infra: Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris:- Imprisonment for life under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Fazil (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo two years of simple imprisonment. Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris (convict) was however acquitted of the charge under section 311 P.P.C. by the learned trial court .The benefit available under Section 382 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended to the convict by the learned trial court.
Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali:- Imprisonment for life under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Fazil (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo two years of simple imprisonment. Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali (convict) was however acquitted of the charge under section 311 P.P.C. by the learned trial court .The benefit available under Section 382 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended to the convict by the learned trial court.
Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad:- Imprisonment for life under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Fazil (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo two years of simple imprisonment. Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad (convict) was however acquitted of the charge under section 311 P.P.C. by the learned trial court.The benefit available under 3 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
Section 382 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended to the convict by the learned trial court.
Muhammad Altaf son of Allah Ditta, the co -accused of the convict, was acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad (convicts) lodged the Criminal appeal No.243-J of 2025, assailing their convictions and sentence s. Muhammad Fazil, the complainant of the case filed Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 seeking the enhancement of the sentence s awarded to the convicts namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad under section 302(b) P.P.C. The complainant of the case namely Muhammad Fazil filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025 seeking permission to file an appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Altaf son of Allah Ditta, the co -accused of the convicts, since acquitted . We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025, the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025 and the Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 through this single judgment.
3. Precisely, the necessa ry facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Muhammad Fazil (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:- “ Stated that I am a farmer. I have two sons and four daughters. In village Noran Balochan , I have taken 32 -Acre land on lease. Wheat crop was sowed by me at said land. On 29.04.2024, I was busy in threshing my wheat crop. Hafiz Imran deceased of this case and nephew Fiaz were present. At about 01:00 P.M through telephone I called to Fiaz. Fiaz who told to me that Imran had gone to house. Imran had not come to house. I waited for some time then. I took Qari Ikram my son and Hafiz Ahmad 4 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
Yaar alongwith me. Through motorcycle we reached at Noran Balochan Wala thresher work was in progress. Persons present thereon were asked by me about the Imran. Imran was not present there. Imran was also searched hither and thither. Then we moved back towards city. At a short distance towards city there is tube well of Jahangir Khan. When we reached near said tube well, we heard hue and cry. We slowed down our motorcycle and thereby stopped. After when we stopped motorcycle, by dismounting from motorcycle we rushed towards tubewell. I witnessed that four persons were beating to Imran. I recognized to them. Accused Muhammad Altaaf was armed with Sota. Waseem was armed with hatchet. Iqbal was armed with Sota. Munir was armed with Sabal (iron bar). Three unknown armed persons were also present at the place of occurrence. All accused persons, while seeing us, raising lal kara, fled away from the place of occurrence. I saw Imran lying on ground. He was severely injured. He had died at the spot due to injuries. By then it was 04:30 or 04:45 Α.Μ. Before one year of this occurrence, in the same area I had taken agricultural land on lease from Aslam Lakhwaira. Munir suspected that Muhammad Imran was having illicit relationship with her daughter namely Sadia Bibi. All accused persons while sharing common object had murdered to Imran. I moved application Exh -PA before concerned SHO for registration of case. Exh -PA/A bears my thumb impressions. (Exh -PA Removed from report U/S:173 Cr.P.C and annexed with private complaint). registration of case investigation was carried out. Accused Altaaf was declared innocent by police. This was done only in order to demolish my true story. Due to this act of police, I instituted private complaint Exh-PB which bears my thumb-impression Exh-PB/1.”
4. The accused were summoned to face trial in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “Muhammad Fazil Vs. Muhammad Waseem and four others” lodged in respect of offences under sections 302 , 311,148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Fazil (deceased)(relating to F.I.R. No. 166 of 2024 dated 29.04.2026 registered at Police Station Shehr Farid , District Bahawalnagar). The learned trial court framed the 5 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
charge against the accused on 03.12.2024, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The complainant of the case in order to prove his case got recorded statements of as many as six witnesses. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Muhammad Fazil (PW -1) and Muhammad Ikram (PW -2). Ahmad Yar (PW-3) stated that on 29.04.2024, the Inv estigating Officer of the case took into possession the motorcycle (P -1) present near dead body of the deceased. Khuda Bakhsh (PW -4) stated that on 29.04.2024, Crime Scene Investigation Unit visited the place of the incident and collected evidence from the same and he also identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the post mortem examination and on 15.06.2024, the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession the Call Data Record (CDR) of the mobile phone device under the use of the d eceased, the accused and one Sadia Bibi through the recovery memo (Exh.PG). Hafiz Muhammad Aslam (PW -5) stated that on 29.04.2024, the Investigating Officer of the case collected evidence from the place of incident and on 21.05.2024, the appellant namely M uhammad Munir got recovered the iron subble (P -5). Muhammad Shafique (PW -6) stated that on 08.05.2024, the complainant of the case handed over the torch (P -6) to the Investigating Officer of the case and on 15.05.2024, the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession the mobile phone device of Sadia Bibi (P -8) and on 21.05.2024, the appellant namely Muhammad Waseem got recovered the hatchet (P -9) and on the same day the appellant namely Muhammad Iqbal got recovered a wooden stump (P-10).
6 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
6. The learned trial court recorded the statements of as many as seven court witnesses. Muhammad Shafique SI (CW -2) stated that on 29.04.2024, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (CW -2/A). Muhammad Sajid 690/HC (CW -3) stated that on 29.04.2024, the Investigat ing Officer of the case handed over to him a sealed parcels and on 06.05.2024, he handed over the said sealed parcels to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 21.05.2024, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him three sealed parcels which on 31.05.2024 he gave to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore . M uhammad Ashraf 60/C (CW-4) stated that on 29.04.2024 he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Muhammad Javed Iqbal Patwari (CW -7) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (CW -7/B). Nasir Mahmood SI (CW -6) investigated the case from 29.04.2024 till 12.01.2025 , arrested the appellant s namely Muhammad Waseem, Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Iqbal and on 12.05.2024 and detailed the facts of the investigation conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court.
6. The learned trial court also recorded the statement of Dr. Muhammad Mamoon Azhar (CW-1) who stated that on 29.04.2024, he was posted as Medical Officer at THQ hospital Chishtian and on the same day he conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Imran (deceased). On 7 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
conducting the pos t mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Imran (deceased), Dr. Muhammad Mamoon Azhar (CW-1) observed as under:- “ Description of Injuries:
Injury No.1.
8 lacerated wounds on his head largest one measuring 6cm x 1.5 cm x all bone deep.
Injury No.2.
Lacerated wound on his forehead measuring 5 cm x 1.5cmx bone deep.
Injury No.3.
Lacerated wound on lateral aspect of right eye brow measuring 3cm x 1 cm x bone exposed.
Injury No.4.
C shaped lacerated wound just later to left eye me asuring 10 Cm x 2 CM bone exposed plus fracture (zygomatic bone). Left eye congested.
Injury No.5.
Star shape (3 pointed) lacerated wound just below his nose, extending into right nasal cavity measuring 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep.
Injury No.6.
Multiple bruises plus abrasions on his whole back largest one measuring 10cm x 3 cm.
Injury No.7.
Three bruises on lateral and posterior side of his right arm, largest one measuring 6cm x 3 cm.
Injury No.8.
There are three bruises on his right buttock largest one measuring 10cm x 2.5 cm on lateral side of right buttock.
Injury No.9.
8 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
There are multiple abrasions on lateral side of left buttock largest one measuring 10 cm x 2.5 cm.
Injury No.10.
There is a bruise on his left scrotum measuring 5cm x 5 cm. left testy seems crushed taken and sent to PFSA Lahore for histopathology.
Injury No.11.
Multiple abrasions on both thighs largest one measuring 10 cm x 2 cm. ………….. Final Opinion:
After thorough internal and external examination of dead body and after receiving reports of histopathology and toxicology from PFSA Lahore, I am of the opinion that physical trauma is the cause of death. Injury No.01 -h, 1- e & 1-F are the specific injuries leading to his death. Presence of skull fractures underneath and presence of subdural haematomas in right parital and inter parital area and Histopathological report from PFSA, Lahore indicates that brain injury due to physical trauma is cause of death.”
7. On 11.04.2025, the learned counsel for the complainant gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Hafiz Muhammad Nadeem, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Akram, as being unnecessary and on the same day, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence.
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad and under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you , they replied that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muh ammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad opted not to get themselves examined under section 9 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
340(2) Cr.P. C however , the appellant namely Muhammad Munir produced the document (Exh.DA) as evidence in his defence.
9. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad precisely was that the whole case was fabricated and false and the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant s further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant s further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the recoveries of the weapons made from the appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad, were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and were the result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant s finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the cas e against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt.
10 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
11. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant s. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the recoveries of the weapons made from the appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur M uhammad also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substit ute the real offender s with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellants namely Muhammad Waseem son of Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Munir son of Mang Ali and Muhammad Iqbal son of Dur Muhammad. The learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025 , assailing the acquittal of Muhammad Altaf son of Allah Ditta by the learned trial court from the charges also merited acceptance. 11 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance , carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial.
13. The most vital point in the case attracting our attention as well as grave concern is the fact that the written application (Exh.PA) of Muhammad Fazil (PW-1) was received by Nasir Mahmood SI (CW -6), the Investigating Officer of the case, at the place of the occurrence at 03.45 p.m on 29.04.2024 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 29.04.2024 at about 4.00-5.00 a.m in the morning . In this manner, it is admitted that the written application (E xh.PA) was submitted by Muhammad Fazil (PW -1) to Nasir Mahmood, SI (CW -6), the Investigating Officer of the case, at the place of the incident, after about eleven hours of the occurrence. This fact alone that the written application (Exh.PA) was submitted by Muhammad Fazil (PW -1) after about eleven hours of the occurrence, in itself is sufficient to prove that the incident was not witnessed by anyone and the delay in the submission of the written application (Exh.PA) and the delay in the subsequent registration of the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW -2/A) happened only for the fact that the killing of the deceased had not been witnessed by anyone and therefore such huge stretch of time was required before the submission of the written application (Exh.PA) and the registration of the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW-2/A). More worrying is the fact that accordin g to the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Fazil (PW -1) and Muhammad Ikram (PW -2), after the incident had taken place at about 04.30 a.m in the morning of 29.04.2024, the police arrived at the place of incident within an hour of the h appening of the same, however, 12 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
despite the arrival of the police at the place of incident within an hour, the written application (Exh.PA) was submitted at 03.45 p.m. In his statement recorded by the learned trial court , the prosecution witness namely Muh ammad Fazil (PW -1) stated as under:- “ I saw Imran lying on ground. He was severely injured. He had died at the spot due to injuries. By then it was 04:30 or 04:45 Α.Μ. ………….. Through motorcycle, from place of occurrence to Police Station, Shahar Fareed, it takes about 25 minutes. ………….. I call to police through 15 at about sun rise. It was half hour of death of Muhammad Imran when I called. Police reached at place of occurrence after one hour” (emphasis supplied) Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ikram (PW-2) also admitted during cross-examination as under:- “Police reached at the place of occurrence after half an hour or in 45-minutes. Police of Police Station, Shahar Fared reached at the place of occurrence ” (emphasis supplied) Khuda Bakhsh (PW-4) also admitted during cross-examination, as under:- “ On the day of occurrence, I had reached at place of occurrence at a bout 06/07:00 A.M. When I reached at place of occurrence, police of Police Station Shahar Fareed, Chishtian was present at the place of occurrence. FIR of case was registered at about 04 or 04:30 P.M.” (emphasis supplied) 13 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
Muhammad Shafique SI (CW -2) who got recorded the formal F.I.R. (CW -2/A) was questioned by the learned counsel for the complainant and replied as under:- “It is correct that on complaint Exh -PA bears time as 03:45 P.M . It is correct that FIR was lodged at 06:25 P.M. ” (emphasis supplied) Sami Ullah 1485/C (CW-5) who had taken the written application (Exh.PA) to the police station from the place of incident also admitted that the written application (Exh.PA) was handed over to him at 03.45 p.m after he had arrived at the place of the incident with the Investigating Officer of the case at 05.00 a.m. During cross - examination, Sami Ullah 1485/C (CW-5) explained as under:- “ Written complaint for registration of case was handed over to me at about 03:45 P.M of 29.04.2024. From 05:00 A.M to 03:45 P.M I remained at place of occurrence. Investigating Officer also remained at place of occurrence from 05:00 A.M to 03:45 P.M. It is in my knowledge that formal case was got registered at 06:25 P.M on 29.04.2024” (emphasis supplied) Nasir Mahmood, SI (CW -6) , the Investigating Officer of the case, also claimed that he had arrived at the place of the incident on 29.04.2024 at 05.15 a.m , however, the written application (Exh.PA) was submitted to him on 29.04.2024 at 03.45 p.m . During cross -examination, Nasir Mahmood, SI (CW -6) , the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted as under:- “ I reached at place of occurrence on 29.04.2024 at 05:15 A.M. …………… First application about this occurrence was submitted to me at 03:45 P.M on 29.04.2024. It is correct that before 03:45 P.M neither complainant nor any eye 14 Criminal Appeal No.243-J of 2025 Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2025 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.25 of 2025
witness had recorded his statement before me with regard to respective occurrence.” (emphasis supplied) The prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Fazil (PW -1) and Muhammad Ikram (PW -2) not only admit ted to the delayed submission of the written application (Exh.PA) regarding the incident, despite the arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case at the place of the incident as early as at 05.15 a.m, but they also admitted that their statements were not recorded for many hours after the arrival of the police. During cross-examination, Muhammad Fazil (PW-1) stated as under:- “I recorded my statement after evening of day of occurrence . My statement was recorded after when dead body was present in T.H.Q Hospital, Chishtian for post mortem. I was present in Hospital with dead body. My statement was recorded in Hospital. Nasir SI had also come in Hospital. I did not record any other statement to police on the day of occurrence ” (emphasis supplied) Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ikram (PW -2) also stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case after about 4 to 5 hours of the arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case at the place of the incident. During cross-examination, Muhammad Ikram (PW-2) stated as under:- “Police recorded my statement after 4/5 hours of their arrival . My statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. ” (emphasis supplied) No reason, much less…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.