Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2236
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan)
Parties: THE STATE vs MUKHTIAR KHAN
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2236. In this matter between THE STATE and MUKHTIAR KHAN, 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 Sadaqat Ali Khan) DECISION DATE: 06-04-2026 CASE DETAILS: Murder Reference-Murder Reference (Session Cases) 9-26 ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No.09 of 2026 The State Versus Mukhtiar Khan
Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2026 Mukhtiar Khan Versus The State etc.
Date of hearing: 06.04.2026 Appellant by:- Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Talokar and Malik Jhanzaib, Advocates. Complainant by:- Malik Athar Yar Khan Awan, Advocate. State by:- Mr. Naveed Ahmad Warraich, DPG. SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. Mukhtiar Khan (appellant) alongwith Hamad Kh an and Ubaidullah Khan ( co- accused since acquitted ) has been tried by the trial Court in case FIR No. 147 dated 21.04.2023 offences under Section s 302/324/148/149 PPC, Police Station Kamar Mushani, District Mianwali and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 22.12.2025 as under:- Mukhtiar Khan (appellant) U/S 302(b) PPC
Sentenced to DEATH on two counts for committing murder of Muhammad Ishtiaq and Ghulam Mustafa (deceased) with compensation of Rs. 500,000/- (recoverable as arrears of land revenue) each payable to legal heirs of each deceased u/s 544-A Cr.P.C , and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. 2. Appellant ha s filed this criminal appeal against his conviction and the trial Court has sent Murder Reference for confirmation of his death sentence or otherwise which are being decided through this single judgment. 3. Heard. Record perused. 4. Muhammad Ishtiaq and Ghulam Mustafa were done to death on the road on 21.04.2023 at 02.15 p.m, whereafter FIR was lodged on the same day at 04.15 p.m, on the statement of Malik Muhammad Aftab/complainant PW14 (brother of Muhammad Ishtiaq deceased ) who while claiming himself 2 Murder Reference No.09 of 2026 Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2026
to be the eyewitness of the occurrence stated in his statement before the trial Court as under:- “Stated that I am resident of Manda Khel and student. On 21.04.2023 at about 02:15 p.m., I along with my brother Muhammad Ishtiaq, Amanullah s/o Amir Muhammad, my brother Muhammad Mushtaq s/o Muhammad Iqbal, caste Kallu, and Ghulam Mustafa s/o Faiz Muha mmad, caste Sangwal, resident of Manda Khel, after offering Juma prayer at Jamia Masjid Usama Lari Adda Manda Khel, were returning towards our house. When we reached in front of our market at Adda Manda Khel, the accused persons namely Mukhtiar s/o Noor As mat, Hammad s/o Moazzam, Saeed Khan (since deceased) s/o Abdullah Khan, Ubaidullah s/o Saeed Khan, Manzoor s/o Rustam Khan, caste Pathan, armed with firearm weapons, suddenly emerged there. At once, accused Muhammad Saeed raised a lalkara that they would avenge the previous enmity and teach us a lesson today. Immediately thereafter, accused Mukhtiar, with his firearm, fired four straight shots with the intention to kill upon my brother Muhammad Ishtiaq, which hit him on the front of his abdomen. After that , all the accused fired straight shots with their respective firearms upon my brother Ishtiaq and Ghulam Mustafa, which hit upon my brother Muhmmad Ishtiaq, Ghulam Mushtafa and passersby Aamir s/o Ghulam Mustafa, Inamullah s/o Noor Muhammad, and Ghulam Ras ool s/o Gul Muhammad on different parts of their bodies. My brother Muhammad Ishtiaq and Ghulam Mustafa, due to severe injuries, fell down on the spot. I along with Amanullah and Muhammad Mushtaq witnessed the entire occurrence with our own eyes. We immedi ately shifted the injured persons and my brother to RHC Kamar Mushani through a private vehicle. My brother Muhammad Ishtiaq succumbed to his injuries at RHC due to the firearm wounds. The motive behind the occurrence is the previous enmity between us and the accused persons regarding FIR No.69/2011, 80/2011 and 126/2011 P.S. Kamar Mushani, on account of which they, after mutual consultation and active connivance, committed the occurrence. Thereafter, Rana Zahid Iqbal S.I. reached at RHC Kamar -Mushani wher e he recorded my statement/Fard Bayan Exh -PQ which was read over to me and I put my signature as token of correctness of my statement. Injured Ghulam Mustafa was also succumbed to the above stated injuries afterwards. The injured passersby persons refused to give statement in this case due to fear of enmity. All a accused persons be punished accordingly. ”
5. Muhammad Mushtaq PW15 (brother of Malik Muhammad Aftab, complainant and Muhammad Ishtiaq, deceased ) being eyewitness while appearing before the trial Court has reiterated the same story. 6. It is a matter of record that Amir, Inam Ullah and Ghulam Rasool also sustained firearm injuries during the same occurrence wh ose names have been mentioned in the FIR but they being independent and material injured eyewitnesses have not been produced by the prosecution before the trial Court in support of its story , rather their evidence ha s been withheld by the prosecution with the 3 Murder Reference No.09 of 2026 Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2026
reasons best known to it. So, presumption under illustration (g) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can fairly be drawn that had they been produced, they would have been deposed against the prosecution. 7. It is a lso matter of record that Sa eed Khan , Manzoor Khan (accused since acquitted/mentioned in the FIR) and one Sabir also sustained firearm injuries during the same occurrence who have been got medically examined on the request of police but their injuries have been supress ed in the FIR creating doubt in the prosecution story. 8. Co-accused with effective role of firin g on the person of Ghulam Mustafa ( deceased) has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment by disbelieving the evidence of prosecution. 9. Another intriguing aspect of the matter is that motive of the occurrence is previous enmity between the parties. With this motive b oth the eyewitnesses ( Malik Muhammad Aftab/complainantPW3 and Muhammad Mushtaq15) who are real brothers of Muhammad Ishtiaq ( deceased) despite their claimed presence at the spot did not receive even a single scratch o n their bodies during the occurrence, had they been present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence, they would have also been prime target of the accused, blessing them with unbelievable courtesy and mercy shown to them by the accused knowing well that they would depose against them by leaving them unhurt, is absolutely unbelievable story. 10. The argument of learned counsel for the complainant that appellant has admitted his presence at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence in h is defence plea which is sufficient p roof of his guilt has no substance. Appellant has not admitted the occurrence narrated by the prosecution. The law is also settled by now that if the 4 Murder Reference No.09 of 2026 Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2026
prosecution fails to prove its case against an accused person then th e accused person is to be acquitted even if he had taken a plea and had thereby admitted killing the deceased. The law is equally settled that statement of an accused person recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. is to be accepted or rejected in toto. In present case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. 11. Motive of the occurrence was previous enmity between the parties which is double edged weapon in criminal cases as it can cut both the ways. 12. Recovery of pistol on pointing out of the appellant in presence of negative report of PFSA is not only inconsequential rather draws adverse inference. 13. We are mindful that murder of two persons is a crime of heinous nature, Saeed Khan, Manzoor Khan (accused since acquitted/mentioned in the FIR ) and one Sabir also sustained firearm injuries during the same occurrence which were suppressed by the complainant in the FIR discussed above . Injured eyewitnesses have not appeared in support of prosecution. Cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence and evidence alone and not on the basis of sentiments and emotions. Gruesome, heinous and brutal nature of the offence may be relevant at the stage of awarding suitable punishment for conviction but it is totally irrelevant at the stage of appraising or reappraising the evidence available on record to determine guilt of the accused persons as possibility of an innocent person having been wrongly involved in cases of such nature cannot be ruled out. An accused person is presumed to be innocent till the time he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and this presumption of his innocence continues until the prosecution succeeds in proving the charge against an accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legally 5 Murder Reference No.09 of 2026 Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2026
admissible, confidence inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence which is missing in the present case. 14. In view of the above discussion, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding participation of the appellant. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal of the appellant is allowed, his conviction and sentence s awarded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment are hereby set-aside. Appellant (Mukhtiar Khan) is acquitted of the charges and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Murder Reference is answered in NEGATIVE and death sentence of appellant (Mukhtiar Khan) is NOT CONFIRMED.
(TARIQ MAHMOOD BAJWA) JUDGE (SADAQAT ALI KHAN) JUDGE
Approved for Reporting
Judge Judge Sabir*