Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1649
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1649. 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 The Chief Justice) DECISION DATE: 09-03-2026 TAGLINE: When Investigating Officer did not collect blood from the stated place of occurrence during his first visit at the spot, then it is fatal for proving exact place of occurrence; if the complainant says that he told to the other witnesses that he has given the specific roles to accused persons in the FIR, then it leaves a question mark on the testimony of said witnesses subsequently recorded. CASE DETAILS: Jail Appeal 40664/22 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No.250 of 2022 (The State versus Haroon, etc)
Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 (Kashif alias Kashi versus The State, etc.)
Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022 (Haroon versus The State, etc.) JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 09.03.2026. Appellants by: Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate for the appellants. State by: Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General. Complainant by: M/s Muhammad Abid Saqi and Rana Shujaa Farooq, Advocates. ---------------------- AALIA NEELUM, C.J:- Kashif alias Kashi son of Bashir Ahmad (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022), and Haroon son of Saif-ullah (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.4066 5-J of 2022) , both Churairah by Caste , residents of Khurram Churairah, police station, Saddar Pindi Bhatti, have assailed their convictions and sentence s recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (MCTC), Pindi Bhattian , vide judgment dated 16.06.2022 in case FIR No. 311 of 2019, dated 14. 07.2019, offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149 of P.P.C, registered at the police station, Saddar Pindi Bhattian, whereby the trial court convicted the appellant s under Section 302 ( b) PPC and sentenced them to Death each as Tazir f or committing Qatl -e-Amd of Mansab Ali and Shehram Zafar , with the direction to pay compensation of M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
2 Rs.5,00,000/- each as envisaged under section 544 -A of Cr.P.C , and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I each. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Kashif alias Kashi and Haroon, the appellants, have assailed their convictions and sentences by filing separate appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 40664-J of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.40665 -J of 2022 . The trial court also sent M.R. No. 250 of 2022 (The State vs. Haroon, etc. ) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellants, Haroon and Kashif alias Kashi . All the matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of thro ugh a single judgment. 3. The prosecution's story as alleged in the F.I.R (Ex. P X) lodged on the application (Ex.P A) of Mansab Ali (PW-1)-the complainant is that on 14.07.2019, at about 07:00 p.m, before sunset, the complainant (PW -1), along with Muhammad Younas (PW-2), Waris Ali (given up PW) , and Mansab Ali , son of Shameer (deceased) , were sitting at the dera of Muhammad Younas, where suddenly two 125 motorcycles came. One motorcycle was driven by Sikandar, son of Muhammad Nawaz (co -accused since acquitt ed), while Imtiaz Hussain (co-accused since acquitted), armed with a rifle, and Kashif alias Kashi (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.40664 -J of 2022), armed with a 30 -bore pistol, were sitting on the rear seat of said motorcycle. The other motorcycle was driven by Adnan (co-accused since acquitted) , while Umer Daraz (co-accused since acquitted), armed with a 12 -bore rifle, and Haroon (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022), armed with a 30 -bore pistol, were sitting on the rear seat of said motorcyc le. In the meanwhile, Imtiaz Hussain (co-accused) raised a lalkara, that the complainant party should have been murdered, whereupon the accused/appellant-Kashif alias Kashi made a fire shot, which hit Mansab Ali , son of Shameer (deceased) , on the left side of his shoulder, who fell down and succumbed to the injury at the spot. After that, Imtiaz Hussain (co-accused) fired at Muhammad Younas (PW-2), but he was fortunately saved . All the accused persons rushed towards the cattle shed, Dera of Zafar Ahmad , while making aerial firing. The complainant chased the accused. As soon as the accused M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
3 persons reached the southern Bazar of Chowk Khurram Churrerah, Shehram Zafar (since dead) was going there. On seeing Shehram Zafar (since dead), Umer Daraz (co-accused) raised a lalkara that he should have also been murdered, whereupon the accused, Ghulam Rasool , caught hold of Shehram Zafar (since dead) from his collar/Gariban, and the appellant, Haroon, fired with his pistol , 30-bore, which landed on his right cheek, who f ell down and succumbed to the injury. The complainant (PW -1), Riaz , and Imtiaz (PW-3) witnessed the occurrence. After that, the accused persons decamped from the place of occurrence while making aerial firing. After the occurrence, Munir (PW-7) and Sana Ul lah (PW-6) visited the complainant and told him that they heard and saw Nazir, Saif, Abdul Jabbar, and Tabassum (all co -accused since acquitted) in a mutual discussion that their revenge would be completed if they would murder two members of the Sipra fami ly. The motive behind the occurrence was the long-lasting enmity. 4. After the occurrence, the complainant (PW -1) reported the incident at the police station through a written complaint (Exh -PA) to Safdar Ali S.I (not produced), on the same day , i.e., 14.07.2019 at 09:00 p.m, based on which a formal FIR (Exh -PX) was chalked out at 09:00 p.m by Safdar Ali S.I . After registration of the case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Imdad- Ullah, S.I. (PW-13), who arrested the accused persons, and ha ving found them guilty, prepared a challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction while placing the names of all accused persons in Column No.3 of the challan. On 2 4.09.2020, the trial court formally charge - sheeted the appellant s, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant s were examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein neither they opted to appear as their own witnesses in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. , nor opted to produce any evidence in their defence. In response to a particular question that why this M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
4 case was against them and why the PWs had depo sed against them, the appellants made the following depositions: - Appellant-Kashif alias Kashi. “It was an unseen occurrence which is also reflected from the delayed postmortem. I was driver of Rana family since long. I have no rivalry with the complainant party. I used to visit police station with Rana family in their last case and I was also looking after the agricultural land of Rana family which is very much in the knowledge of complainant party. Complainant party was having grudge against me due to the above reason they booked me in this false and concocted story. Deceased Mansab Ali was a layman and a ricksha driver. I have no nexus with the crime and even I was not present at both the spots at the relevant time. I also have no grudge or enmity against deceased Mansab Ali. All the private PWs are closely related with each other and having grudge against me, therefore, they have deposed falsely against me. I am innocent.” Appellant-Haroon. “It was a blind occurrence. After knowing about the occurrence, the local police took dead bodies of both the deceased and shifted the same before the doctor at THQ hospital Pindi Bhattian where doctor after receiving the dead bodies place the same in the dead house at 8:30 p.m, on the alleged day of occurrence. Compl ainant party is inimical towards me due to previous enmity. The complainant party in connivance with the police got lodged this false case against me and my co -accused after concocting a fake story. I have no previous enmity with both the deceased as decea sed Mansab Ali was “Moin” of the village. All the private PWs are interse related with each other, therefore, they have deposed falsely against me due to previous enmity. I am innocent.”
6. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellants’ conviction in the afore-stated terms. M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
5 7. We have heard the argum ents advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 8. According to the prosecut ion, the incident occurred on 14.07. 2019 at 07:00 pm at the Dera of Muhammad Younas (PW -2) situated at Khurram Churrerah Teh sil Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad , within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Saddar Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad , which is at a distance of 08 miles from the place of the incident. Mansab Ali (PW-1), the complainant, reported the inc ident at the police station through a written complaint (Exh -PA) to Safdar Ali , S.I. (not produced, being paralyzed and unable to give evidence), and Muhammad Zakria, S.I. (PW -14), appeared on his behalf in secondary evidence . The incident was reported on the same day, i.e., 14.07.2019 at 09:00 p.m, based on which a formal FIR (Exh -PX) was chalked out at 09:00 p.m by Safdar Ali S.I. Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant took two hours to report the incident to the police. The F.I.R. (Exh. PX) was got lodged by Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, after a considerable delay of two hours without explaining the said delay. The evidential value of the First Information Report will be reduced if it is made after an unexplained delay, particularly when it raises suspicion that the informant had sufficient opportunity to concoct and fabricate a story and falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, an adequate explanation for the delay would depend on various circumstances. In the present case, the prosecution has not provided a reason for the delay in lodging the First Information Report (Exh. PX). It can be found from the FIR (Ex.PX) that it was not mentioned therein that he (PW -1) went to the police station to report the incident, nor was it mentioned that, on hearing ab out the incident, the police reached the spot and he (PW -1) reported the incident to the police. The complainant (PW -1) has not mentioned in the application for registration of the case that he has come to report the incident, leaving the witnesses to guar d the bodies . The relevant part of the written application (Ex.PA) is as follows:- و نیر احمد ولد فتح شیر اور ثنااللہ ولد محمد نواز اقوام سپرا ساکنائے دیہہ میرے پ اس آئے کے فورا بعد م اور بتاپیا کہ ہم نے مسمیان نننذییر ولد سہاوا 2- سیف ولد ماہلا اقوام چوریی رہ، عبدالجبار ولد محمد یونس قوم راجپوت، تبسم شیر ولد شیر محمد کمہار کو پ اہم مشورہ کر تے دیکھا اور سنا ہے کہ ہماری دشمنی کا بدلہ تبھی پورا M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
6 ہو گا اگر ہم سپرا قوم کے دو لوگوں کو جان سے نہ مار دیں وجہ عناد پرانی دشمنی ہے۔ ملزمان متذکرہ رار واقعی سزا دی جائے۔ عین نوازش ہو
خلاف مقدمہ درج کر کے ق گی. ۔ The above part of the written complaint (Ex.PA) became more significant when the complainant's testimony revealed that before the FIR was registered, he met with the police. The investigating officer inquired about the incident. He was asked to write an application, and he did so, indicating that a partial investigation was conducted before registering the FIR and that it was not registered immediately after the incident without any deliberation. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of Mansab Ali (PW-1), the complainant, is as under:- “Police station Saddar Pindi Bhattian is at a distance of 14 kilomet ers from the place of occurrence. At about 8:00 pm I made departure along with three persons namely Riaz, I mtiaz and Y ounas for registration of FIR. I reached in police station at about 8:30 /8:45 PM along with alleged eyewitnesses. The I.O lodged FIR after inquiring from me about the occurrence. He did not ask anything about occurrence from the alleged eye witnesses. I.O asked me to get reduced into writing application. I went for writing application and then I returned in police station after getting reduced into writing application for registration of FIR. When I.O asked me about the occurrence for registration of FIR at that time alleged witnesses were not with me, at that time they were outside the police station.” From the above deposition of Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, it appears that one hour after the incident, he proceeded to the police station to report it , and that, after the investigating officer's inquiry, he did so. Contrary to the above deposition of Mansab Ali (PW -1)-the complainant, Imdad Ullah S.I. (PW-13)-the investigating officer deposed during examination-in-chief that:- “That on 14.07.2019, I was posted at P.S. Saddar Pindi Bhattian. On the same day investigation of t his case was entrusted to me and I proceeded to the place of occurrence alongwith other police officials, then I went to the Havely of Muhammad Younas where dead body of deceased Mansab Ali was lying and cordoned off the place.” M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
7 Mansab Ali (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that the prosecution witnesses accompanied him to the police station before registration of FIR, and after registration of FIR, he informed them that he assigned specific roles to each accused in the FIR. It is relev ant to mention here that till then , the statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecution witnesses were not recorded. In this regard, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Mansab Ali (PW-1)-the complainant is reproduced as under:- “I brought the alleged witnesses alongwith me due to having my enmity with the rival party. The alleged eye witnesses were equipped with fire arms. When I came outside police station alleged eye witnesses met with me and I told them that I got lodged the FIR against the accused persons nominated in FIR. I told the alleged eye witnesses that I mentioned the specific roles of each accused in FIR.” Contrary to the deposition of Mansab Ali (PW -1)-the complainant, Muhammad Younas (PW -2), paternal uncle of Shehram Za far (the deceased), deposed during cross-examination that:- “Mansab complainant came to us at my dera at about 9:30 pm after registration of FIR. I asked complainant Mansab who replied that he had got lodged the FIR against accused persons nominated in FIR. I.O arrived at my dera alongwith complainant Mansab Ali at about 09:30 pm. Two/Three officials were also accompanied with the I.O at that time. I.O send the dead body of deceased Mansab Ali for autopsy at about 10:15 pm.” Whereas Imtiaz Hussain (PW-3) deposed during cross-examination that:- “Police reached the place of second occurrence at 10/10:15 pm. Then I went to police station for registration of FIR alongwith complainant. From the second place of occurrence I and Mansib straightly went to police sta tion for registration of FIR at 8:00 PM.” The deposition of Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, reveals that after a partial investigation, the FIR was registered. Mansab Ali (PW -1) also deposed during cross-examination that:- M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
8 “At the place of occurrence some other official investigating Agency also visited the place of occurrence.” The deposition of Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, casts doubt on the timing of the reporting of the incident. A delay in registering the FIR often leads to embellishment and exaggeration, which are the result of afterthought. A delayed report increases the risk of a fabricated story due to the time for deliberations and consultations, thereby casting serious doubt on its accuracy. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly, and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same, for the reason that in case the foundation of the evidence provided by the complainant or the informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution's case has to b e rejected in its entirety. Mansab Ali (PW-1), the complainant, deposed that the incident took place in two parts. In the first part of the incident, which took place at the “Dera of Younas,” where Mansab Ali, son of Shameer, was murdered, and the second part of the incident took place at the Southern Bazar of Chowk Khurram Churrerah, where Shehram Zafar, aged about 10 years, was murdered. After the murder of Shehram Zafer , Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant reported the incident to the police at the police station. But Imdad Ullah S.I. (PW -13), the investigating officer, deposed that he went to Muhammad Younas's Haveli and cordoned off the crime scene. The dead body was lying there on the cot. The inquest reports (Exh.PO/4 and Exh. PR/4) reveal that dead bodies were lying on cots. According to the prosecution's version, the dead bodies were at the scenes when Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, went to report the incident. The deposition of Imdad Ullah S.I. (PW -13), the investigating officer, reveals that after being entrusted with the investigation, he proceeded to the place of the incident with police officials. He went to Muhammad Younas's haveli and cordoned off the crime scene. Whereas Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, deposed during examination -in-chief that he, along with Muhammad Younas (PW-2), Waris Ali (who has given up), and Mansab Ali s/o Shameer (deceased), were sitting at Muhammad Younas's dera when the incident took place. During cross-examination, Mansab Ali (PW -1) admitted that the Dera is M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
9 separate from the residence. In this regard, Mansab Ali (PW -1), the complainant, admitted during cross-examination that:- “Dera of Younas is double story but his residence is separate. ------------ It is correct that in Exh. P.A. I did mention any reason ab out my presence at that place of occurrence. ------------- I did not tell to I.O that I placed the dead body on cot. I also did not mention this fact in my application. ” Muhammad Younas (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that:- “My dera is situated a t main road. My dera is double story. It is incorrect to suggest that my residence is at my dera. -------- At the time of occurrence we were sitting at my dera behind us there were doors and walls of the dera.” Imtiaz Hussain (PW -3) deposed during cross -examination that he was not a witness to the first part of the incident. Similarly, Muhammad Younas (PW -2) deposed during cross-examination that:- “I did not witness the occurrence of deceased Shehram Zafar. ------- I did not get recorded my statement regard ing the occurrence of Shehram Zafar. Confronted with Ex.DA where the story of occurrence of Shehram Zafar is recorded.” Imdad Ullah S.I. (PW -13)-the investigating officer deposed during cross - examination that:- “On my first visit to the place of deceased Mansab, his dead body was lying on a cot in the courtyard of the dera of Younas. It is correct that according to my investigation the courtyard was not the place where the deceased received firearm injuries. No person appeared before me during investigation who had verified that he has lifted the dead body of deceased Mansab and placed it in the courtyard. On my first visit I did not collect any blood etc. from veranda to verify that the place of occurrence is veranda. When I reached the place of occurrence blood was oozing from the dead body of deceased Mansab. I did not mention in my investigation about any blood trail leading from veranda to courtyard. I did not collect any blood beneath the cot to verify that the dead body was lying over there. I did not take into possession said cot. It is not mentioned in the inquest report M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
10 Ex.P.O of deceased Mansab that the place of lying of dead body is different and place of receiving firearm injury is different. It is correct that inquest report Ex.P.O does not bear any number. I did not make any inquiry about shifting of dead body from veranda (place of receiving firearm injury) and veranda (place of lying of dead body).” It remains unexplained who shifted the dead body of Mansab Ali, s/o Shameer, from the Dera of Muhammad Younas to his Haveli. 9. Even otherwise, the documentary evidence in the shape of postmortem reports of Mansab Ali s/o Shameer and Shehram Zafar (Exh.PO and Exh. PR respectively) reveals that the dead bodies of both the deceased were received in t he dead house at 08:30 p.m. on 14.07.2019. It is the case of the prosecution that FIR (Ex.PX) was registered at 09:00 p.m. on 14.07.2019. After that, Imdad Ullah (PW-13), the investigating officer, reached the place of occurrence at 09:30 p.m. Firstly, he (PW-13)-the investigating officer , conducted proceedings on the dead body of Mansab Ali s/o Shameer (the deceased) and after sending the dead body of Mansab Ali s/o Shameer alongwith witnesses Khan Muhammad (PW -4) and Ahmad Ali (given up PW) to THQ Hospita l, Pindi Bhattian, he proceeded to the second place, where the dead body of Shehram Zafar was lying on the cot . It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the depositions of prosecution witnesses , i.e., Mansab Ali (PW-1)-the complainant, Muhammad Younas (PW-2), and Imtiaz Hussain (PW-3). Mansab Ali (PW -1)-the complainant deposed during cross - examination that:- “Police Station Saddar Pindi Bhattian is at a distance of 14 kilometers from the place of occurrence. At about 8:00 pm I made departure alo ngwith three persons namely Riaz, Imtiaz and Younas for registration of FIR. I reached in police station at about 08:30/8:45 pm alongwith alleged eye witnesses. - ------------ I remained in police station for about 30/45 minutes and we reached to our village at about 8:45 pm. Again said we reached our village at about 9:45 pm. From police station we came straight to the dead body of deceased Mansab Ali. I.O came alongwith us M.R. No.250 of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40664-J of 2022 Crl. Appeal No.40665-J of 2022
11 at the place of dead body of Mansab Ali. Almost 50/60 male female gathered alongwith the dead body of Mansab Ali and I.O took the dead body of Mansab Ali into possession by dispersing them. It took about 20/25 for recording statements of Younas and Waris and then I.O sent the dead body of Mansab for autopsy on Tractor Trolley at 10:00 pm. It usually took one hour to reach THQ Hospital Pindi Bhattian from our village. I.O after sending the dead body of Mansab immediately went to the place where dead body of Shahram Zafar was lying and he took into possession dead body of Shahram after disper sing the males and females who were gathered there. I.O sent the dead body of deceased Shahram Zafar to THQ Hospital Pindi Bhattian at about 10:15 pm after recording the statements of pws u/s 161 Cr.P.C. -------- ------- I reached the place of occurrence alo ngwith police at 09:30 pm after submitting the application Exh.PA. When I reached the place of occurrence dead body was placed on cot. I myself placed the dead body on cot. I placed the dead body on cot after commission of second occurrence. --------------- I did not tell the I.O that I placed the dead body on cot. I also did not mention this fact in my application Exh.PA.” Muhammad Younas (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that:- “Mansab complainant came to us at my dera at about 9:30 pm after registr ation of FIR. I asked complainant Mansab who replied that he had got lodged the FIR against accused persons nominated in FIR. I.O arrived at my dera alongwith complainant Mansab Ali at about 9:30 pm. Two/three officials were also accompanied with the I.O a t that time. I.O send the dead body of deceased Mansab Ali for autopsy at about 10:15 pm.” Imtiaz Hussain (PW-3) deposed during cross-examination that:- “I mentioned in my statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Mansib was present and he also witnessed the occurrence alongwith me, where it is not so recorded. ------------- I did not get recorded my statement to the I.O about first occurrence.” Contrary to the above, Mazhar Hussain 43/C (PW -9), who escorted the dead body of deceased Shahram Zafar to THQ Hosp ital Pindi Bhattian, deposed during his examination-in-chief that:- M.R. No.250 of 2022…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.