Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 208328
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Mst. Qudsia Liaqat vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 208328. In this matter between Mst. Qudsia Liaqat and The 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: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Ms. Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Ms. Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz DECISION DATE: 25-MAR-2025 CASE NO: Jail Appeal-364-2024 CITATION: 2025 IHC 208328 PARTIES: Mst. Qudsia Liaqat VS The State etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Against Conviction (PPC), Life Imprisonment REMARKS: Jail Appeal in FIR No. 906/2023 dated 28.11.2023 U/s 302, 365 PPC P.S. Lohi Bhair, Islamabad ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JAIL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2024 QUDSIA LIAQUAT VS. THE STATE
Appellant by : M/s Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas, Aamir Zar Bhatti, Adeel Ahmed Kundi Advocates. Complainant by : Mr. Hassan Rashid Qamar Advocate. State by : Malik Sardar Khan Awan, State Counsel. Mr. Tariq Mahmood, SI/IO.
Date of hearing : 28-2-2025.
SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. 1. The Appellant [Qudsia Liaquat] has filed the instant Jail Appeal against the Judgment dated 30.09.2024 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East) ("Trial Court"), whereby the Appellant has been convicted the offences under FIR No.906/23 dated 28-11-2023 registered with Police Station, Lohi Bher, Islamabad (“FIR”) and sentenced under Section 365, P.P.C to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment (“R.I") with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine further Simple Imprisonment ("S.I") of six months and under Section 302(b), P.P.C., to life imprisonment. The Appellant has also been ordered to pay compensation amount of Rs.500,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., which shall be recovered from the Appellant as arrears of land revenue in case of nonpayment of compensation amount. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C has been extended to the Appellant. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.
2 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Contents of the FIR: 2. The relevant contents of the FIR (Ex-PD) registered at 2:55 pm on 28-11- 2023 on the Complaint (Ex-PF) of Ayesha Amjad (“Complainant”) are that at about 03:00 p.m. on 27.11.2023 her father [Amjad Mahmood] messaged on the family WhatsApp group, which aroused the Complainant’s suspicion that something is amiss. Thereafter, upon calling her father several times the Complainant sensed that some people are with her father especially a woman who answered the phone once but hung up without any conversation. The dubious manner in which the phone was disconnected caused the Complainant to suspect that her father is in some kind of trouble and that someone is not allowing him to talk freely by answering the phone in his presence. On repeated enquires it was learnt that four people are with father of the Complainant one of whom is a woman who was talking on the phone over and over again but the father of the Complainant kept on saying that he will explain upon reaching home. By this time it was 7:30 p.m. when for the last time the paternal aunt of the Complainant spoke with the father of the Complainant which proved to be the last contact. Thereafter, no one answered the continuous calls on the phone of the father of the Complainant till 3:00 a.m. His device was located by using the computer at home and it was found that location of father of the Complainant at 8:00 p.m. was near Siri Expressway (Khajot). At 3:00 a.m. the phone of the father of the Complainant was switched off which was still off. The Complainant sought help by calling Rescue 15 at 1:00 a.m. who informed the Police Station, Lohi Bher from where a representative called the Complainant upon which the Complainant narrated everything to him and sent a photograph of her father. The Complainant suspected that the woman is the same with whom marriage of the father of the Complainant was under consideration. The Complainant named the woman as Qudsia (“Petitioner”) and provided her mobile number as 0333-1572685. The father of the Complainant was stated to be a healthy man who left driving his blue coloured, Toyota Yaris Vitz bearing No. LE-11-8622 himself. His failure to contact anyone was worrying the Complainant hence initially the FIR was lodged under Section 365, PPC.
3 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Discovery of a dead body in District Abbottabad: 3. Meanwhile, according to the Inquest Report-Unnatural Death by Violence dated 28-11-2023 (Ex-PQ) prepared by P.S. Doonga Gali, a dead body was discovered under Toheedabad Lasyala Road at 10:00. The position of limbs, eyes and mouth stated in column 8 was that eyes were closed and the mouth was slightly open baring teeth. In column 10 the injuries or marks of violence on the discovered body were stated to be a mark on the forehead (resulting from) a strike and the nose was slightly compressed whereas both eyes were swollen and bruised. According to column 11 there was a blood clot from the nose. The Site Plan of the Recovery of the dead body (Ex-P4) shows that the body was discovered face down in a deep ditch on the side of Toheedabad Lasyala Road. 4. According to the Injury Statement dated 29-11-2023 (Ex-PF) prepared by SHO, P.S. Doonga Gali the dead body of an unknown, well-built person, aged 50 to 52 years was found under Toheedabad Lasyala Road in the southern direction but no documents for identification were found on the said body. Post-mortem report: 5. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex-PR) the body was examined at 2:30 p.m. on 28-11-2023. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death is given as 1 to 2 hours and between death and post mortem 12 to 14 hours approximately. Death is stated to have occurred due to damage to skull and brain matter sufficient to cause death. The external appearance of the body revealed inter alia bleeding from nose and right ear, depressed and fractured frontal bone and blackening and swelling of eye; abrasion on the back and knee (minor bruises); skull bone fractured; rigidity and lividity on dependent area. Complainant’s Supplementary Statement: 6. The Complainant recorded her supplementary statement on 28-11-2023 stating that she fully supports her previous statement in the FIR in which she had expressed suspicion against the Appellant/Accused for the disappearance/abduction of the Deceased. She further stated in the supplementary statement that now she has received information that her father's
4 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
dead body was found in the area of Doonga Gali, Police Station, District Abbottabad which she has identified by way of photographs and that since her father had gone with the Appellant/Accused to Nathiagali, Murree and his car No. 8622/LEII, Toyota Yarish Vitz has not yet been found therefore, the Complainant is convinced that the Appellant/Accused in collusion with her various unknown companion(s)/co-accused enticed the Deceased on the pretext of marriage and kidnapped and murdered him while misappropriating her father’s mobile phone, purse, cash, and the aforementioned vehicle. Contents of Challan: 7. The report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted. Initially the investigation was carried out by Umer Hayat, SI who appeared as PW-3. According to the challan information was received regarding a dead body from Doonga Gali, Police Station, District Abbottabad and pictures of the abductee/Deceased were received through WhatsApp which were shown to the Complainant for identification. The Complainant identified the pictures of her father/Deceased whereupon supplementary Statement of the Complainant was recorded. Thus offences under Sections 302/34 PPC were added in this case. 8. Further investigation was carried out by Tariq Mahmood, SI who appeared as PW-11 and who went to the Police Station Doonga Gali, District Abbottabad and obtained all the documents of the case vide Recovery Memo dated 29-11-2023 (Ex-PS) including Memo of Position, Injury Statement (Ex- PF), Post Mortem Report (Ex-PR) and the clothes last worn by the Deceased (P2-P4). He inspected the place of recovery of the dead body and prepared the un-scaled site plan (Ex-PU). The case property was handed over to the Moharrir of the Police Station. On 30-11-2023 the Call Data Record (“CDR”) record of the Appellant/Accused and of the Deceased was obtained and taken into police custody vide Recovery Memo dated 30-11-2023 (Ex-PB). On 1-12- 2023 the Complainant submitted photocopies of the documents of the vehicle No. LE-8622 which was in the use of the Deceased and the box of POCO Mobile of her Deceased, which were taken into custody of the police vide Recovery Memo dated 1-12-2023 (Ex-PG). The statements of the nephew of
5 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
the Deceased [Abdullah] (PW-6) was recorded. On 5-12-2023 the Draftsman (PW-7) was taken to the place of recovery of the dead body in the area of Police Station Doonga Gali by Tariq Mehmood SI. On 8-12-2023 record of the phone No. 0333-1572685 used by the Appellant/Accused was obtained which was found in the name of Mr. Noor-ur-Rehman. The report regarding criminal record of Mr. Noor-ur-Rehman was obtained from the Office of Criminal Record Office (“CRO”) and an application was submitted for recovery of statement of bank account of the Deceased before the Area Magistrate. On 11-12-2023 the bank statement of the Deceased was obtained and taken into custody of the police vide Recovery Memo dated 10-12-2023 (Ex-PC). On 17-12-2023, a site map without scale was obtained from the draftsman. On 21-12-2023, the Appellant/Accused was formally and legally arrested. As per legal procedure, a thorough search of the Appellant/Accused was conducted by a head constable and the items recovered were taken into police custody vide Recovery Memo dated 21-12-2023 (Ex-PA). The Appellant/Accused was detained at the Women’s Police Station and the case property was handed over to the Moharrir of the Police Station. On 22-12-2023, the Appellant/Accused was presented before the competent court and three days’ physical remand was obtained. The Complainant submitted hard copies of the family group chat which were seized by the police vide Recovery Memo dated 23-12-2023 (Ex-PH). On 24-12-2023, based on the disclosure and identification by the Appellant/Accused, the Mobile phone of the Deceased (Poco Model M3), the Vehicle (LE-11-8622), and the Deceased's Identity Card were recovered. The recovered vehicle, mobile phone, and Identity Card were seized by the police vide Recovery Memo dated 24-12-2023(Ex-PM). The Vehicle was parked at the Police Station, and the case property was handed over to the Moharrir of the Police Station. The Appellant/Accused was locked in the Women’s Police Station’s Lockup. On 25-12-2023, the Appellant/Accused was sent on judicial remand. On 28-12-2023 two parcels (i) parcel containing an iPhone 6S Plus and (ii) parcel containing a Poco Mobile, Model M3 were delivered to PFSA, Rawalpindi via road Certificate No. 1021/23. During the investigation, it was found that besides the Appellant/Accused no other person was involved in the crime. Therefore, the case under Section 34 PPC was dropped. During the investigation, it was revealed that the Appellant/Accused wanted to marry the
6 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Deceased but believed it was impossible due to the behavior of the Deceased’s daughters. Consequently, the Appellant/Accused deceived the Deceased and took him to Doonga Gali and in order to grab the Vehicle of the Deceased she pushed him into a deep pit, where he fell on a stone face down. After killing him, the Appellant/Accused took the Deceased's Vehicle, Mobile Phone, Identity Card, Purse etc. and fled away. On 16-2-2024 reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency were received and complete Challan was submitted before the Court. Charge: 9. The Appellant/Accused was formally charge sheeted on 29-4-2024 as follows: “Charge Sheet” I, Shahrukh Arujumand, Sessions Judge, Islamabad-East, do hereby charge you above named accused as under:- Firstly, on 27.11.2023 at about 03:00 p.m., you accused abducted Amjad Mehmood from his House No.491-D, Street No.28, Pak PWD Housing Society, Islamabad and took him to Donga Galli, Abbottabad and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 365 P.P.C. Secondly, on 28.11.2023 at about 02:30 a.m. you accused after abducting Amjad Mehmood took him Donga Galli, Abbottabad and committed his murder by pushing him into a deep ditch and thereby you committed qatl-i-amd punishable under Section 302 P.P.C. which is within my cognizance. I, Shahrukh Arjumand, Sessions Judge, Islamabad-East, do hereby direct you that accused to be tried by this court on the above said charge. R R.O & A.C. (Shahrukh Arjumand) 29.04.2024 Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East)
Charge has been read and explained to the accused in her own language, which she understand. Let her plea be recorded separately. R.O & A.C. (Shahrukh Arjumand) 29.04.2024 Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East)
Statement of Qudsia Liaquat daughter of Liaquat Hayat Bhatti, resident of Flat No.319, Crown Business Plaza, E-11/2, Islamabad, permanently resident of Rajput House, Iftikhar Janjua Road, Habib Ullah Colony, House No. CB-95, Abbottabad Cant, Tehsil & District, Abbottabad, CNIC No.13101-8629410-0 (Without Oath) Q No.1. Have you understand the charge? Ans. Yes. Q No.2. Do you plead guilty? And. No. I do not plead guilty?
7 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Q No.3. Do you claim trial? Ans. Yes.
R.O & A.C. (Shahrukh Arjumand) 29.04.2024 Sessions Judge, Islamabad (East) ” Trial: 10. The prosecution produced 12 witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-12. The Scaled Plan produced by PW-7 as Ex-PO shows that where the body was recovered from was a 12 feet deep ditch in the form of a slope. The statement of the Appellant/Accused was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. 11. Aggrieved of the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant filed the instant Jail Appeal. Arguments: 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant emphasized that there is no eye witness in the instant case nor is it a case of ‘last seen’ evidence as there was no allegation that the Deceased was seen leaving with the Appellant/Accused. He argued that the whole case is based on mere suspicion, conjectures, and surmises. He submitted that the SIM of which the CDR was obtained and exhibited as Ex- P1 was registered in the name of one, Noor-ur-Rehman son of Shams-ur-Rehman and not in the name of the Appellant/Accused. Even otherwise, he submitted that CDR was not produced through the author and instead was produced by the Investigating Officer and as such constitutes inadmissible evidence, which cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel pointed out that a great deal of stress has been laid upon the testimony of PW-12 but her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was not recorded and as such the testimony stands vitiated under Section 265, Cr.P.C. He also highlighted that no motive has been ascribed to the Appellant/Accused. 13. The learned counsel for the Complainant started off by submitting that there is no bar in convicting a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence and that this is a case where the circumstantial evidence connects the dead body of the Deceased with the neck of the Appellant/Accused. He argued that the evidence establishes that the Deceased was last known to be in the company of the Appellant/Accused which according to the learned counsel for the
8 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Appellant/Accused is akin to ‘last seen’ evidence. In this regard, while referring to the contents of the FIR and the Complainant’s evidence he explained that the Complainant is the daughter of the Deceased who was well aware of the Deceased’s habits and usual conduct therefore the sudden WhatsApp message sent by the Deceased that the Deceased is going away on a trip with friends aroused the Complainant’s suspicion as it did not conform with the Deceased’s general conduct and behavior particularly considering that the Deceased did not even take with him any necessary items of general use required on a trip. The Complainant also mentioned that when she called the Deceased on his mobile number the Deceased either did not answer or would immediately hang up which too was highly suspicious. Finally when he attended the call the Complainant could hear a female voice in the background who she suspected was of the Appellant/Accused. The learned counsel also contended that the Complainant’s suspicion was confirmed by the PW-12’s testimony who is the paternal aunt of the Complainant and the sister of the Deceased that the Deceased told her that he was with the Petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the PW-12’s testimony is admissible as she was examined under Section 540, Cr.P.C. as she was present in Court for which statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. is not necessary. He pointed out that PW-12 has been mentioned in the FIR as well as the list of witnesses therefore her evidence caused no prejudice to the Appellant/Accused. Thus he referred to PW-12’s testimony according to which the Deceased spoke to her and told her that he was with the Appellant/Accused at Nathyagalli Murree as such he argued that the evidence establishes that the Deceased was last known to be in the company of the Appellant/Accused. 14. Next he argued that the recoveries made from or on the identification of the Appellant/Accused connects her with the alleged offences. The learned counsel emphasized that the FIR not only mentions that the Deceased went in his own car but also provides the vehicle number as well as the phone number of the Appellant/Accused and that according to the Injury Statement (Ex-PF) a dead body was found on 28-11-2023 under Toheedabad Lasyala Road without any identification documents. Thereafter the Petitioner was arrested on 21-12-2023 and her personal search led to the recovery of inter alia mobile phone having the same SIM as mentioned by the Complainant in the FIR as belonging to the
9 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
Appellant/Accused and on 24-12-2023 the Deceased’s ID card and Mobile Phone with IMEI number that matched the IMEI number mentioned on the box of the Deceased Mobile Phone produced by the Complainant was recovered from the Appellant/Accused’s flat located in Crown Business Center, Sector E-11/2. On 24-12-2023 the Appellant/Accused also caused recovery of such vehicle which was parked below the Appellant/Accused’s Flat and disclosed that she had taken it into her possession after the occurrence. The Complainant provided the documents of the vehicle of the Deceased. The learned counsel submitted that the Recovery Memos were witnessed by independent witness who was produced as PW-6 and who is the nephew of the Deceased. The learned counsel for the Complainant relied upon the illustration given in clause (i) of Article 21 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to argue that possession of the Deceased’s property with the Petitioner is relevant. The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that while the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the Appellant/Accused contains admissions as far as recovery is concerned the same was denied in her statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. However, he pointed out that while cross-examination is conducted under oath statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. is not. He argued that even otherwise evasive replies under Section 342, Cr.P.C. cannot negate admissions made through cross-examination. The learned counsel submitted that no motive has been alleged and it is not necessary to do so. 15. The learned State Counsel submitted that the entire cross-examination conducted on behalf of the Appellant/Accused constitutes admissions. He particularly highlighted the cross-examination of the Complainant according to which it stands establishes that the Deceased and the Appellant/Accused were interested in marrying each other and also that the Complainant had no objection to such match and therefore bore no ill will towards the Appellant/Accused. He also highlighted that there is no suggestion in the entire cross-examination that the recoveries from the Appellant/Accused were planted on her. He contended that the CDR establishes that the Deceased and the Appellant/Accused were travelling together on 27-11-2023. He also referred to the Scaled Site Plan produced as Ex-PO to highlight that it depicts that the body was found face down
10 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
in a 12 feet ditch and that the post-mortem report as well as PW-9’s evidence shows abrasion on back and knee (minor bruises) and that death occurred due to damage to skull and brain matter, sufficient to cause death. He relied upon Khurshid Vs. The State, PLD 1996 SC 305. 16. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused emphasized that benefit of doubt is the cardinal principle of criminal law. He submitted that the prosecution case is entirely dependent on deficiencies in cross-examination. Despite any such deficiency it is the prosecution that has to connect the accused with the alleged offence. He pointed out that Inquest Report was prepared before FIR was registered and as such is illegal. In answer to a query of the Court he submitted that no FIR was registered in Nathiagali when the body was found. 17. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Conviction for the offence under Section 365, P.P.C: 18. ‘Abduction’ has been defined in Section 362, PPC according to which whoever compels by force or induces by any deceitful means any person to go from any place abducts that person. Section 365, PPC provides that whoever abducts any person with the intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus in order to constitute the offence of ‘abduction’ it must be established that the accused either compelled by force or induced any person by deceitful means to go from any place and such abduction is punishable when it is with the intent to cause the person to be secretly and wrongfully confined. 19. However, in the instant case, the Complainant alleged in the FIR and categorically admitted in her cross-examination that the Deceased drove his own car from home. The contents of the FIR make no mention nor does the record contain any evidence that the Appellant/Accused compelled the Deceased by force or induced him by any deceitful means to leave or that the Appellant/Accused intended to cause the Deceased to be secretly or wrongfully
11 Jail Appeal No. 364/2024.
confined. The allegation made by the Complainant vide her supplementary statement that the Appellant/Accused has abducted the Deceased is therefore contrary to the FIR and even otherwise unsubstantiated by evidence. 20. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring home the charge of abduction under Section 365, PPC. Conviction for the offence under Section 302, P.P.C: ‘Last known to be in the company of’: 21. In order to establish that the Deceased was last known to be in the company of the Appellant/Accused the learned counsel relied upon the evidence of the Complainant and of PW-12; recoveries from the Appellant/Accused; admissions in cross-examination conducted on behalf of the Appellant/Accused; CDR of the Deceased’s mobile number and that which was allegedly in the use of the Appellant/Accused; and evasive statements of the Appellant/Accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Evidence of the Complainant and of PW-12: 22. The Complainant testified that she got worried upon receiving the Deceased’s message on the family WhatsApp group because of the sudden trip and the unusual style of typing. The Deceased did not answer the first few calls but when he did she heard the voice of a lady who disconnected the call. The Complainant called again and this time the Deceased answered and told the Complainant that he will tell her about his trip upon his return but disconnected the phone without saying Allah Hafiz which too was unusual. The Complainant kept calling and at last the Deceased told her that there are four persons with him including a lady whose voice the Complainant heard during the call. 23. The Complainant further stated that at about 7:30 p.m. on 27-11-2023 her paternal aunt received a call from the Deceased who told her that he is coming from Nathiagali with the Appellant/Accused. Such statement of the Complainant is based on information given to her by PW-12 and as such
12 Jail Appeal…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.