Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3668
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan)
Parties: Jaffar alias Zafar vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3668. In this matter between Jaffar alias Zafar 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: Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan) DECISION DATE: 11-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 63502/25 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025 (Jaffar alias Zafar v. The State etc.) and Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025 (Ghulam Rasool v. The State etc.) and Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 (Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Jaffar alias Zafar etc.) and Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 (Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Jaffar alias Zafar etc.)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 11.06.2026 Appellants by: Mr. Javed Bashir, Advocate (for appellant -Jaffar alias Zafar in Crl.Appeal No.63502 of 2025), M/S Rafiq Ahmad Bhatti & Mahr Hassan Mahmood, Advocates (for appellant -Ghulam Rasool in Crl.Appeal No.66013 of 2025). Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Zubair Khalid Chaudhry, Advocate. State by: Rana Muhammad Asif Iqbal, Assistant District Public Prosecutor. ----------------------------------- ABHER GUL KHAN, J. The appellants Jafar alias Zafar & Ghulam Rasool along with co-accused, namely Khadim Hussain, Bashir Ahmed, Wajid Ali, Mujtaba, Murad, Ajmal, Rashid, Tayyab, Sarfraz, Muhammad Asghar, Abid, Latif, Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Shafi, Munir and Khizar Hayat were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan in private complaint titled Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Jaffar alias Zafar & 18 others for the offences under Sections 506-B, 412, 395, 334, 364 -A, 355, 363, 148 & 149 PPC with regard to an occurrence which took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Chakbedi, Pakpattan . The afore-said private complaint emanated from FIR No.208/2014 dated 20.06.2014 registered under Sections 334, 355, 363, 365, 395, 412, 506, 148 & 149 PPC at Pol ice Station Chakbedi, Pakpattan. The trial 2 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 court upon culmination of trial in the complaint cas e vide judgment dated 16.10.2025 acquitted the afore-said co-accused, while convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following terms:- Under Sections 336/34 PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10-years on two counts for chopping the noses of Ata Ullah and Abdullah. They were also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/ - each on two counts as Arsh to the aforesaid victims. Both the appellants, however were given the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
Challenging their convictions and sentences, the appellants Jafar alias Zafar & Ghulam Rasool filed Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025 & Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025 respectively, while the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW. 1) filed Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to t he convicts/appellants and besides that he also filed Criminal PSLA No. 7010 of 2026 against the acquittal of respondents, Jaffar alias Zafar, Khadim Hussain, Muhammad Shafi, Munir, Khizar Hayat, Abdul Rasheed, Bashir Ahmed, Ghulam Rasool, Wajid Ali, Mujtaba, Murad, Ajmal, Rashid, Nasir, Tayyab, Sarfraz, Muhammad Asghar, Abid, Latif and Muhammad Ashraf, from the charges under Sections 364 -A, 363, 355, 395, 412, 506, 148 & 149 PPC. All these matters are being decided through this single judgment. 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case as set forth by the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW .1) in FIR No.208 /2014 (CW-1/D) is that on the intervening night of 19/20.06.2020, at about 12:30 a.m., while he and his family members were asleep at their Dhari, accused Mujtaba, Muhammad Bashir, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Zafar, Ajma l, Iqbal, Asghar Ali and 5/6 unknown accused, all armed with firearms and daggers arrived at the spot. The accused Muhammad Zafar raised a Lalkara exhorting that the noses of the sons of the complainant be severed. Thereupon, the accused overpowered Abdullah (PW.2) by holding his hands and legs, whereafter accused Muhammad Zafar inflicted a dagger blow and cut off his nose. Subsequently, the accused similarly caught another son of the complainant, namely Ata Ullah (PW.3), and accused Muhammad Zafar also severed his nose with a dagger. The remaining accused subjecte d Ubaidullah (PW.4) to physical violence, however upon his protest that he was not their brother they desisted from 3 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 further assault upon him. On hearing the hue and cries of the complainant and others , Haroon and Muhammad Naeem reached the place of occurrence but the accused threatened them if anybody came near he would be done to death. The accused tied the complainan t and the remaining witnesses, and thereafter took Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3) towards the other side of the canal. However, owing to the intervention of the witnesses and other persons who had gathered at the spot the accused abandoned their desi gn, released the victims and fled away from the crime scene. 3. On 20.06.2014 Asfhaq Ahmad, 349/HC (CW.1) on the basis of rapat (Exh.CW.1/A) got entered on the statement made by the complainant, Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) formally recorded the FIR (Exh.CW.1/D). The investigation of the case was subsequently entrusted to Zaman Rasheed, SI (CW.2) who on the same day visited the place of occurrence, secured blood -stained earth vide recovery memo (Exh.CW.2/A) and prepar ed a rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.CW.2/B). On 20.06.2014 the complainant submitted an application (Exh.CW.2/C) wherein four persons were nominated as accused. During the course of investigation, the appellant, Jaffar alias Zafar, was arr ested on 27.06.2014. On 07.07.2014, while in police custody, he made a disclosure and in consequence thereof led to the recovery of a Nokia mobile phone (P.5) which was taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.CW.2/E). On 10.07.2014 the appellant Jaffar alias Zafar again made a disclosure and got recovered a C hhurri (P.6), which was secured vide recovery memo (Exh.CW.2/H). The Investigating Officer further conducted investigation regarding the involvement of the remaining nominated accused and ultim ately found that only accused Jaffar alias Zafar, Iqbal son of Nawaz, Iqbal son of Sajwar and Niaz were involved in the occurrence. The investigation was later conducted by Arshad Ali Inspector/DIB (CW.5) who on 16.12.2014 summoned both sides, recorded their respective versions, inspected the place of occurrence, 4 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 interrogated the appellant s, and verified the investigation conducted by the local police. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the manner in which the matter was investigated by the police, the complainant Mu hammad Ishaq (PW.1) instituted the private complaint (Exh.PB), whereupon the trial was held. In order to substantiate the accusations levelled therein, the prosecution produced four witnesses , namely, Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) appeared as the complainant, wher eas Abdullah (PW.2), Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Ubaidullah (PW.4) furnished ocular account of the occurrence. The learned trial Court also examined six Court Witnesses. Amongst them, Zaman Rasheed, SI (CW.2) and Arshad Ali, Inspector (CW.5), had conducted the in vestigation of the case. Dr. Ajmal Shahzad (CW.6) appeared and produced the medico -legal certificates (Exh.CW.6/A and Exh.CW.6/B), which revealed that the medico-legal examinations of Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Abdullah (PW.2) had earlier been conducted by Dr.Ahmad Hassan, who had suffered a heart attack and thus was not produced before the Court. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants, namely Jaffar alias Zafar and Ghulam Rasool, along with their co-accused, were recor ded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein every incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence was put to them. They denied the allegations, professed innocence and asserted false implication. The appellants did not avail the opportunity of making statements on oath in term s of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, however appellant Jaffar alias Zafar tendered certain documents in his defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of the charges, convicted and sentenced them accordingly , h ence the instant criminal appeals, criminal revision petition and criminal petition seeking leave to appeal. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 6. The c areful perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution case stems from an occurrence which allegedly took place in the intervening night of 19/20.06.2014 at about 12:30 a.m. in Chak No.46/SP, situated at a distance of approximately 8.5 kilometres from Police Station Chakbedi, District Pakpattan Sharif. According to the prosecution version as reflected in the FIR (Exh.CW.1/D), the appellants, accompanied by their co -accused namely Mujtaba, Muhammad Bashir, Ajmal, Iqbal, Asghar Ali and five/six accused all allegedly armed with firearms and daggers, forcibly entered the Dhari of the complainant, Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1), where he, along with Abdullah (PW.2), Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Ubaidullah (PW.4), was asleep. According to prosecution case, the co -accused overpowered Abdullah and Ata Ullah by holding their hands and legs, whereafter appellant Jaffar alias Zafar inflicted injuries with a dagger and severed their noses. The record further discloses that information regarding the occurrence was conveyed to the police on 20.06.2014 at about 6:20 a.m. when Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) got entered a R apt and on its basis Ashfaq Ahmad, 349/HC (CW.1) registered formal FIR (Exh.CW.1/D). The investigation was thereafter undertaken by Zaman Rasheed, SI (C W.2) who upon completion of the probe, concluded that only appellant Jaffar alias Zafar, Iqbal son of Nawaz, Iqbal son of Sajwar and Niaz were involved in the occurrence, while the remaining nominated accused were found innocent. The said conclusion was subsequently verified by Arshad Ali, Inspector/DIB (CW.5). Not being satisfied with the outcome of the police investigation, the complainant instituted a private complaint (Exh.PB) against the appellants and eighteen other persons. Consequently, nineteen accused were sent to face trial. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, sixteen accused were acquitted, however only the appellants are in receipt of guilty verdict from trial Court. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be observed that the alle gations levelled against the appellants are undoubtedly grave in nature, inasmuch as they are alleged to have severed the 6 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 noses of Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3). Nevertheless, it is by now a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal liability is to be determined on the basis of legally admissible and trustworthy evidence and not on the basis of sentiments or the heinousness of the allegation. Keeping this cardinal principle in view, I have made a careful scrutiny of the entire re cord. The complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) along with Abdullah (PW.2), Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Ubaidullah (PW.4) appeared before the learned trial Court as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Their stance was that the appellants, namely Jaffar alias Zafar and Ghulam Rasool, inflicted dagger blows and severed the noses of Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3). At the very outset, it would be advantageous to examine the testimony of the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1). A perusal of the FIR, the private complaint, and the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court gives an impression that he was an eyewitness of the occurrence and tha t the entire incident occurred in his presence. However, a careful and circumspect scrutiny of the record re veals otherwise and t he complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) does not appear to be an eyewitness of the occurrence. This conclusion finds ample support from the cross - examination of the purported eyewitness Ubaidullah (PW.4) who candidly admitted that after the appellants had severed the noses of both injured he raised hue and cry whereupon his father and some other persons arrived at the spot and he narrated the entire occurrence to them. This admission unambiguously suggests that the complainant reached the place of occurrence only after the incident had already taken place and was informed thereof by Ubaidullah (PW.4). Since this aspect is of significant importance , the relevant portion of the cross-examination of Ubaidullah (PW.4) is reproduced hereunder:- “I raised hue and cry upon which my father and some other people came there and I narrated all the story afore-mentioned to them.”
Similarly, injured witness Abdullah (PW.2) admitted during cross - examination that in his written police statement (Exh.DA) he had not 7 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 mentioned the presence of the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) at the time of occurrence. The exact words pronounced by Abdullah (PW.2) read as under:- “I submitted my written statement Ex.DA befo re the police. In Ex.DA I have not mentioned the presence of my father i.e. complainant at the time of occurrence.”
Another circumstance lending support to the conclusion that the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) was not present at the place of occ urrence is that in the private complaint itself he categorically averred that the details of the incident had been narrated to him by his injured sons, namely Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3). This assertion unequivocally indicates that his knowledge o f the occurrence was derived from what was conveyed to him by the injured witnesses and not from his own direct observation of the event. In the circumstances discussed above, the testimony of the complainant, Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) is rendered unworthy of reliance and, therefore, stands excluded from consideration. When the complainant is found not to be an eyewitness of the occurrence, the prosecution narrative as set out in the FIR, in the private complaint and subsequently projected during the trial becomes seriously doubtful and loses much of its evidentiary force. It is, however, evident from the medico -legal certificates of the injured namely Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3), that both had sustained partial avulsion of their noses. However, the mere presence of injuries on the person of a witness is not by itself sufficient to establish the veracity of the prosecution case. The testimony of an injured witness, though carrying its own significance, is not immune from j udicial scrutiny and must be evaluated in the light of the settled principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. It is by now well-settled that conviction cannot be founded merely on the statement o f an injured witness, r ather his te stimony must inspire confidence, remain free from material discrepancies, and successfully withstand the test of careful and cautious scrutiny. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be 8 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 highly unsafe to maintain th e conviction solely on the basis of the statements of the injured witnesses unless the same are found to be wholly trustworthy and receive corroboration from the surrounding circumstances appearing on the record. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Amin Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- “Certainly, the presence of injured witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident, but the question is as to whether they are truthful witnesses or oth erwise, because merely the injuries on the person of P.Ws. would not stamp them truthful witnesses.”
In another case reported as Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527) , the Supreme Court of Pakistan while examining the case of an injured witness held as under:- “It is settled law that injuries of PWs are only indication of his presence at the spot but are not affirmative proof of his credibility and truth. See Said Ahmed’s case (1981 SCMR 795) and Muhammad Pervez’s case (2007 SCMR 670).”
In the light of the foregoing observations, this Court has minutely examined the record and is of the considered view that the statement s of the alleged injured witness es, namely Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Abdullah (PW.2) do not inspire confidence and are not worthy of reliance for the purpose of sustaining the conviction s of the appellants. For arriving at a just conclusion, I have carefully examined the medico -legal certificates of Ata Ullah (PW.3) and Abdullah (PW.2), exhibited as Exh.CW.6/A and Exh.CW.6/B. A perusal thereof reveals that both injured were brought to RHC, Bunga Hayat, on 20.06.2014 at about 3:00 a.m. by Husnain Muhammad 907/C. This circumstance indicates that the injured reac hed the hospital approximately two and a half hours after the alleged occurrence. However, the record is completely silent regarding the mode of conveyance through which they were transported to the hospital. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the mention of Husnain Muhammad 907/C in the medico -legal certificates suggests that the matter had already come to the notice of the police by the time the injured were brought for medical examination. Despite such knowledge, no prompt FIR was chalked out. The occurrence is alleged 9 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 to have taken place at about 12:30 a.m., whereas the injured were medically examined at 3:00 a.m., yet the prosecution has offered no explanation regarding the whereabouts of the injured during this period of more than two and half hours. A further noteworthy circumstance emerges from the histories recorded in the medico -legal certificates. According to Exh.CW.6/A, injured Ata Ullah described the occurrence as an attack at field, whereas Abdullah, in Exh.CW.6/B, narrated it as a fight in the outfall crops/fields. However, none of the injured disclosed the identity of any assailant or named the persons allegedly responsible for causing the injuries. Dr.Ajmal Shahzad (CW.6), during cross -examination, candidly admitted that the names of the accused do not find mention in the column relating to the brief history of the occurrence. I have also noticed another significant omission, according to which t he medico- legal certificates reveal that Dr.Ahmad Hassan who conducted the initial examination of the injured referred them to DHQ Hospital, Pakpattan. However, neither any medical officer from the said hospital was produced during trial nor any document from the hospital record was brought on the record to establish that the injured w ere in fact referred thereto or subsequently examined there. The withholding of such material evidence which was readily available to the prosecution, assumes considerable significance and adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution case. I have also observed that the occurrence admittedly took place during the night intervening between 19/20.06.2014. The medico - legal certificates (Exh.CW.6/A and Exh.CW.6/B) reveal that both the injured witnesses, namely Abdullah (PW .2) and Ata Ullah (PW .3), were brought to the hospital at about 3:00 a.m. on 20.06.2014 by Husnain Muhammad 907/C. Despite the fact that both injured witnesses were medically examined immediately after the occurrence, their statements before the police (Exh.DA and Exh.DE) were recorded with considerable delay. Although Abdullah (PW. 2) during cross-examination expressed his inability to recall the exact date on 10 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 which he submitted his written statement to the police, yet Ata Ullah (PW.3) categorically stated that he and his brother remaine d admitted in a hospital at Lahore for about ten days after the occurrence and that their father subsequently made a statement to the police on their behalf. It is pertinent to note that Dr.Ahmad Hassan who prepared the medico-legal certificates was not pr oduced before the trial Court. However, Dr. Ajmal Shahzad (CW. 6) who appeared on his behalf conceded during cross-examination that the brief history recorded in a medico-legal certificate is ordinarily based upon the narration furnished by the injured person. Since the medico -legal reports in the instant case contain the brief history of the occurrence attributed to the injured witnesses themselves, a legitimate inferenc e arises that both Abdullah (PW.2) and Ata Ullah (PW. 3) were conscious and capable of making statements at the relevant time. Similarly, no serious effort on part of the investigating officers was made to record the statements of both the injured promptly. In these circumstances, the unexplained delay in recording their statements by the police lends credence to the defence plea that the prosecution version was subsequently deliberated and improved through consultation. A nother factor which merits consideration is that both Abdullah (PW .2) and Ata Ullah (PW.3) in examination-in-chief alleged that co -accused Abid, Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Shafi and Khizar had subjected them to fist and kick blows, forcibly abducted them, dragged them to the fields of accused Bashir Wattoo, removed their clothes and humiliated them. Had such allegations been t rue, it would reasonably be expected that the injured witnesses would have sustained multiple injuries on various parts of their bodies. Contrary thereto, the medical evidence is completely silent regarding any such injuries and mentions only partial avulsion of the noses of both injured witnesses. The absence of corresponding injuries on their bodies materially undermines the prosecution claim that they were beaten, dragged and forcibly taken away by the accused. Moreover, Abdullah (PW. 2) stated that upon regaining consciousness at Jinnah Hospital, Lahore he found himself 11 Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025, Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026 & Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026 wearing the same clothes which he had worn at the time of the occurrence. He, however, professed ignorance as to whether the accused had taken away those clothes after allegedly removing t hem or whether the same accompanied him to the hospital. The prosecution evidence is entirely silent as to who subsequently clothed the injured witnesses. This glaring omission constitutes yet another circumstance which detracts from the veracity of the pr osecution story. The accumulative effect of the narration of facts mentioned hereinabove is that the matter has not been presented before the Court in its true perspective. Consequently, the ocular account furnished by the prosecution witnesses cannot be a ccepted at its face value without independent corroboration and is not free from doubt. 8. The perusal of the record also discloses a material inconsistency in the prosecution case regarding the attribution of the injuries in question. Initially the FIR ( Exh.CW.1/D) which was recorded by Ashfaq Ahmad, 349/HC (CW.1) on the basis of Rapt No.20 dated 20.06.2014 entered at 6:20 a.m., specifically alleged that appellant Jaffar alias Zafar alone had severed the noses of both injured. However, while instituting t he private complaint (Exh.PB) and subsequently while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant as well as the other eyewitnesses, including the injured themselves, materially improved upon and departed from the earlier version by asserting that appellant Jaffar alias Zafar had cut the nose of Abdullah (PW.2), whereas appellant Ghulam Rasool had severed the nose of Ata Ullah (PW.3). This departure from the earlie r version of the occurrence assumes considerable significance, particularly in view of the settled principle that the first account of an incident ordinarily carries greater evidentiary value than subsequent improvements introduced during the course of trial. It is also pertinent to note that Ashfaq Ahmad, 349/HC (CW.1), while appear ing before the Court deposed that for the registration of an FIR it is a legal and procedural requirement…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.