Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 PCrLJ 875
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: Muhammad Arif vs StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Tariq NadeemM. Sharif Meo
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between Muhammad Arif and StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Tariq NadeemM. Sharif Meo, officially reported as 2026 PCrLJ 875. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2026 P Cr
2026 P Cr. L J 875 [Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)] Before Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J Muhammad Arif---Appellant Versus The State and another---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2021 and Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2020, decided on 20th February, 2025. (a) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In cases of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence---If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused. Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 782 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376 & 338-C---Qatl-i-amd, rape, isqat-i-janin---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the niece of complainant by cutting her throat with sharp-edged weapon---As far as evidence of last seen was concerned, the same came out from the mouth of two witnesses, who were close relatives of deceased---Testimonies of both the said witnesses came up with material contradictions and inconsistencies which made the evidence of last seen highly doubtful---According to the testimony of Investigating Officer, both the witnesses of last seen had failed to point out the place where they met with the appellant and deceased---As per the contents of FIR, the occurrence took place on 30-06-2019 at Asar prayer time and according to the testimony of complainant, police took dead body of deceased to RHC, at about 12:00 p.m. and the dead body of deceased was handed over to him after 02:00 p.m.---Funeral prayer of deceased was conducted after Asar prayer---Witnesses of last seen also reached at RHC, where they disclosed the fact regarding the evidence of last seen of appellant with deceased and then submitted application to police---In such circumstances, if said witnesses informed the evidence of last seen evidence to the complainant before lodging of the FIR then their names should have been mentioned in the FIR---Such self-negating and contradictory statements of the said witnesses reflected that they were not truthful witnesses, rather they were deposing an afterthought, fabricated and concocted story just to create incriminating evidence to strengthen the case of un-witnessed occurrence against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen evidence---Scope---Last seen evidence is always considered to be weak type of evidence, unless corroborated by some other independent evidence. Fayyaz Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 2026 and Muhammad Abid v. The State PLD 2018 SC 813 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376 & 338-C---Qatl-i-amd, rape, isqat-i-janin---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation of rape not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the niece of complainant by cutting her throat with sharp-edged weapon---Occurrence allegedly took place on 30-06-2019 at Asar prayer time and as per statement of complainant, dead body of deceased was found in the sugarcane crop on the next morning i.e. 01-07-2019 at about 06:30 a.m.---Initially, it was not the case of prosecution that appellant, who was fianc e of deceased used to commit rape with her (deceased) since 03/04 months, subsequently, complainant got recorded his supplementary statement wherein he stated that witnesses of last seen evidence had narrated the said facts to him---Complainant further stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of occurrence, appellant committed rape with the deceased---One of the witnesses of last seen evidence was brother-in-law of deceased and as per his evidence, he had knowledge that the appellant used to commit rape with deceased since 3/4 months of the occurrence---Although, complainant had disclosed in his evidence that the appellant was fianc e of deceased but in rural areas, a girl was not allowed to accompany her fianc e before her marriage and it was more difficult to go inside the sugarcane crop along with him---Even otherwise, said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that a brother-in-law, who had already knowledge that the appellant used to commit rape with his sister-in-law (deceased) then why he had allowed the deceased to accompany the appellant to go in a sugarcane crop---Moreover, one of the witnesses of last seen evidence during his cross-examination stated that he himself never saw the appellant while committing rape with deceased---According to the statement of said witness, the appellant used to commit rape with deceased for last 03/04 months but such stance of the prosecution was not supported from any substantial evidence because no report during that period was made by the complainant or any of the family members of deceased; even no complaint was made to police in that regard by deceased herself---Whereas, other witness during his Court statement had not uttered even a single word about the commission of rape with deceased by the appellant---Testimony of said witnesses revealed that the prosecution had subsequently cooked up false story in order to make the prosecution story in line with the medical evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----DNA profile---Scope---DNA report is per se admissible in evidence and it is a high degree of corroborative piece ofevidence, which plays very significant role in the safe administration of justice---Moreover, DNA report gives a passage to the Courts of law to reach at a just conclusion. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376 & 338-C---Qatl-i-amd, rape, isqat-i-janin---Appreciation of evidence---Safe transmission of sample parcels to the office of Forensic Science Agency not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the niece of complainant by cutting her throat with sharp-edged weapon---Court should be very conscious about the safe transmission of sealed sample parcels of DNA to the office of the Forensic Science Agency, which was lacking in this case---Woman Medical Officer during her examination-in-chief stated that after conducting autopsy on the dead body of deceased, she handed over to police last worn clothes of deceased, police papers, postmortem report, stitched dead body of deceased, sealed jars i.e. stomach, large and small intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, hyoid bone, complete heart, brain and lungs with 10% formalin; samples of saturated saline i.e. blood samples; two internal and two external vaginal swabs for semen detection and DNA typing; container containing fetal tissues for DNA typing and gestational age---Similarly, a Constable/witness endorsed the said statement of Woman Medical Officer---Said Constable further stated that he handed over said articles to the Investigating Officer, who took into possession said documents vide recovery memo attested by witnesses---Surprisingly, Investigating Officer, while appearing in the Court did not utter even a single word regarding handing over to him sealed jar containing fetal as well as other articles and documents by Constable/witness in his evidence---Head Constable had deposed in his evidence that on 01-07-2019, Investigating Officer handed over to him sealed parcels for onward transmission to the office of the Forensic Science Agency for toxicology analysis---Head Constable handed over said sealed parcel to Investigating Officer on 14-07-2019---When evidence of Investigating Officer was completely silent with regard to handing over the sealed jar said to contain fetal tissue to Head Constable then all the afterward proceedings were nullity in the eye of law---In this way, the prosecution had failed to prove the factum of safe transmission of sealed jar of fetal tissue to the office of the Forensic Science Agency---When the safe transmission of sample parcels to the office of the Forensic Science Agency was not proved then the positive report of DNA could not be relied upon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence may confirm the ocular account with regard to seat of injuries and its duration, nature of injuries and kind of weapon used for causing such injury but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of crime. Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 1427 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 376 & 338-C---Qatl-i-amd, rape, isqat-i-janin---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the niece of complainant by cutting her throat with sharp-edged weapon---In the present case, weapon of offence, churri, was recovered at the instance of the appellant on 08-07-2019, from his house and the positive report of the Forensic Science Agency to the extent of weapon of offence was on record---However, said recovery and positive report were not helpful to the prosecution because as per statement of Head Constable, on 01-07-2019 Investigating Officer handed over to him sealed parcels i.e. churri, sickle/daranti and blood stained soil and other sealed parcels for keeping the same in safe custody in malkhana---If the churri was recovered on 08-07-2019 then how the same was handed over to Head Constable seven days before---Said fact made the recovery of churri highly doubtful---Although, as per report of the Forensic Science Agency, human blood was identified on churri, but same was not matched with the blood stained clothes of deceased or blood stained soil taken into possession from the place of occurrence---In this way, said piece of evidence could not be used against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486 rel. (i) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery of weapon of offence---Conviction---Scope---When evidence of last seen had already been disbelieved by the court, conviction could not be sustained merely on the ground of recovery of weapon of offence. Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali and another v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 281 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---In the event of a doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right. Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shahzad and another 2024 SCMR 51 and Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731 rel. M. Sharif Meo for Appellant. M. Afzal Taija Defence Counsel. Zafar Iqbal Soomro, D.D.P.P for the State. Zafar Iqbal Ghalu for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.---Muhammad Arif appellant was tried by the learned trial court in case FIR No. 475 dated 01.07.2019 offences under sections 302, 376, 338-C(c), P.P.C registered at Police Station Zahirpeer and after conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 25.03.2021, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under section 302 (b), P.P.C Life imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default thereof to further undergo six months S.I. Under section 376, P.P.C 14 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he will further undergo for a period of three months S.I. Under section 338-C(c), P.P.C seven years R.I. as Taz zir. The sentences passed against the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. The appellant has filed the titled appeal against his convictions and sentences, whereas a criminal revision has been filed by Wali Muhammad petitioner/complainant (PW.2) for enhancement of sentence of the appellant. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, supra mentioned matters are being disposed of by means of this single judgment. 2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the trial court reads as under:- I am resident of Jajja Abbasian, Basti Wahgian and laborer by profession. One of my niece namely Kubra Bibi daughter of Shafi Muhammad aged about 19/20 years having sickle and cloth went to bring gross/fodder from the sugarcane crop. She did not return for quite some time. Upon it, I along with Inayatullah son of Rassol Bakhsh and Muhammad Ashraf son of Wali Muhammad went out in her search but unable to trace her. Ultimately in the morning at 6.30 AM it was known to me that the dead body of my niece was present in sugarcane field of Jam Zahid son of Abdul Karim situated 09/10 acres away from my house. The throat of said Kubra Bibi has been cut with sharp edged weapon. The blood is also present near the dead body. I identified the dead body of Kubra Bibi. Some unknown person has committed murder of Kubra Bibi 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance. I have reappraised the whole evidence and taken everything into my consideration in the light of arguments advanced by both the sides. 4. The facts and circumstances highlighted in FIR (Exh.PJ) as well as other evidence led by the prosecution case clearly depict that the alleged occurrence had not been witnessed by anyone and in order to prove its case, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the circumstantial evidence, which is normally considered as a weak type of evidence. It is well settled by now that in such like cases, prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence and if any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused. Reliance is placed upon the esteemed judgment of the Hon ble of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1782). 5. In an attempt to prove the accusation against the appellant and to form a complete chain of circumstances, the prosecution has relied upon the last seen evidence furnished by Abdul Wahid (PW.5) and Abdul Malik (PW.6), medical evidence and recovery of weapon of offence. 6. As far as the first significant piece of evidence in this case i.e. evidence of last seen is concerned, the same came out from the mouth of Abdul Wahid (PW.5) and Abdul Malik (PW.6), who were close relatives of Mst.Kubra Bibi (deceased). Abdul Wahid (PW.5) during his examination-in-chief deposed that on 30-06-2019 at about Asar prayer time, he (PW.5) along with his brother Abdul Malik (PW.6) was coming back from their land, they saw the appellant along with Mst. Kubra Bibi (since deceased) while holding sickle and a piece of cloth for making fodder, going in the sugarcane crop of one Jam Zahid. They inquired from the appellant where they were going, upon which he replied that they were going to take fodder from the field of Jam Zahid, then they went on their way. Thereafter, they stayed in the house of their niece at Khanpur. On the next day at about 11/12:00 pm, they came back to their home, where they received information regarding murder of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased). They immediately reached at RHC, Zahirpeer, where he (PW.5) along with his brother Abdul Malik (PW.6) disclosed whole story of last seen to Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2). Abdul Malik (PW.6) stated in line with the testimony of Abdul Wahid (PW.5). I have also noted that the testimonies of both the supra-mentioned PWs came up with material contradictions and inconsistencies which make the evidence of last seen highly doubtful. Abdul Wahid (PW.5) during his cross-examination stated that he did not get record in his statement to the police about the fact that they stayed in the house of their niece at Khanpur on last night. He also did not record in his statement to the police about the time as 11/12:00 p.m. of their returning to home from Khanpur. He (PW.5) further admitted the factum of their going to RHC, Zahirpeer and their disclosure to Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2) about last seen has also not been get recorded by him in his statement to police. He (PW.5) did not get record in his statement about the fact that they went to Khanpur while boarding on motorbike. He recorded in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that they lastly seen Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) along with the appellant while holding a sickle and piece of cloth. Confronted with Exh.DA where word cloth was not mentioned. He (PW.5) further stated that they reached at RHC, Zahirpeer after 12 O Clock after receiving information of murder of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased), when they unfolded the last seen evidence to complainant after offering Zohar prayer, police was not present. It consumed about 15 minutes in offering prayer. He (PW.5) and his brother (PW.6) came back to home after disclosing the fact of last seen to complainant, while complainant and others remained present in hospital for postmortem proceedings. Abdul Malik (PW.6) during his cross-examination stated as under:- .I along with my brother Abdul Wahid departed from Khanpur to our home after 11:00 AM. We reached to our home after 12:00 PM. I and my brother Abdul Wahid are residing in the same Haveli. When we reached at home, we were informed about the occurrence of murder of Mst. Kubra Bibi, upon which we proceeded to RHC, Zahirpir. When we reached at RHC, Zahirpir proceeding of postmortem examination has been completed and at that time people of our locality were returning back home along with dead body, where we informed complainant Wali Muhamamd about last seen evidence after about 03:00 PM. I cannot tell the exact time of our reaching at RHC, Zahirpir, perhaps it might be after 03:00 PM . Whereas, Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2) during his cross-examination stated as infra:- .PWs Abdul Wahid and Abdul Malik were also reached at RHC, Zahirpir where they disclosed the fact regarding accused Muhammad Arif and then I submitted application Ex.PC to police Contrary to above, Amjad Hussain, SI/Investigating Officer (PW.4) during his cross-examination stated infra:- .I received information of the occurrence in the shape of written complaint submitted by complainant Wali Muhammad at police station. Complainant came at police station along with written complaint at about 02:35 PM. I chalked out formal FIR of this case within 05/10-minutes as it was against unknown accused He (PW.4) further destructively stated below:- .When I reached at the place of occurrence at about 04:40, dead body of deceased was lying there . According to the testimony of Amjad Hussain, SI/Investigating Officer (PW.4) both the witnesses of last seen have failed to point out the place where they met with the appellant and Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased). As per the contents of FIR (Exh.PJ), the occurrence took place on 30-06-2019 at Asar prayer time and according to the testimony of Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2), police took dead body of Mst.Kubra Bibi to RHC, Zahirpeer at about 12:00 p.m. and the dead body of Mst. Kubra Bibi deceased was handed over to him after 02:00 p.m. Funeral prayer of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) was conducted after Asar prayer. PWs Abdul Wahid (PW.5) and Abdul Malik (PW.6) were also reached at RHC, Zahirpeer where they disclosed the fact regarding the evidence of last seen of appellant with Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) and then he submitted application (Exh.PC) to police. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that if Abdul Wahid (PW.5) and Abdul Malik (PW.6) informed the evidence of last seen evidence to the complainant before lodging of the FIR then their names should have been mentioned in the FIR. These self-negating and contradictory statements of the supra mentioned PWs reflect that they are not truthful witnesses, rather they are deposing an afterthought, fabricated and concocted story just to create incriminating evidence to strengthen the case of un-witnessed occurrence against the appellant. Even, it is well settled by now that last seen evidence is always considered to be week type of evidence, unless corroborated by some other independent evidence, which is lacking in this case. In this respect, the reference can be made to the cases of Fayyaz Ahmad v. The State (2017 SCMR 2026) and Muhammad Abid v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 813). 7. It is further noted that the prosecution has also examined Muhammad Ashraf (PW.3), who during his cross-examination stated as under:- I got recorded my statement to police at the spot on 01-07-2019 at about 11/11:30 AM. When police recorded my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. many people including complainant and PW Inayatullah were present, however, police did not join the people who gathered there Whereas, according to the testimony of Amjad Hussain, SI (PW.4), he received information of occurrence at about 02:35 p.m. Relevant lines of his cross-examination read as under:- I received information of the occurrence in the shape of written complaint submitted by complainant Wali Muhammad at police station. Complainant came at police station along with written complaint at about 02:35 PM. I chalked out formal FIR of this case within 05/10-minutes as it was against unknown accused. It is correct that investigation of this case was entrusted to me by the order of SHO concerned after 02:40 PM. I reached at the place of occurrence after two hours of chalking out of the FIR. Volunteer stated that on the same time, I had chalked out another case of similar nature due to which, I reached at the place of occurrence after inspecting the place of other case.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------When I reached at the place of occurrence at about 04:40, dead body of deceased was lying there .. In the light of above mentioned circumstances, it is abundantly clear that on 01-07-2019, FIR was not lodged till 11:30 a.m. rather the same was registered at 02:40 p.m. In this way, the statement of Muhammad Ashraf (PW.3) is of no avail to the prosecution. 8. I have noticed that the occurrence allegedly took place on 30-06-2019 at Asar prayer time and as per statement of Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2) dead body of Mt. Kubra Bibi was found in the sugarcane crop of Jam Zahid on the next morning i.e. 01-07-2019 at about 06:30 a.m. Initially, it was not the case of prosecution that appellant, who was fianc e of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) used to commit rape with her (deceased) since 03/04 months, subsequently, Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2) got recorded his supplementary statement (Exh.PC) wherein he (PW.2) stated that Abdul Wahid (PW.5) and Abdul Malik (PW.6) have narrated the above-mentioned facts to him. He (PW.2) further stated in his examination-in-chief that the on the day of occurrence, appellant committed rape with the deceased. Abdul Wahid (PW.5) was dully confronted with this fact. Relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:- .I got recorded in my statement to police that accused Muhammad Arif had used to commit rape with Mst. Kubra for last 03/4 months. Confronted with Ex.DA where period of 03/4 months is not so recorded . I have noted that Abdul Wahid (PW.5) was brother-in-law of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) and as per his evidence, he (PW.5) had knowledge that the appellant used to commit rape with Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) since 3/4 months of the occurrence. Although, Wali Muhammad, complainant (PW.2) has disclosed in his evidence that the appellant was fianc e of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) but in our rural areas a girl is not allowed to accompany her fianc e before her marriage and more difficult to go inside the sugarcane crop along with him. Even otherwise, this fact do appeal to a prudent mind that a brother-in-law, who had already knowledge that the appellant used to commit rape with his sister-in-law (deceased) then why he had allowed the deceased to accompany the appellant to go in a sugarcane crop. Moreover, he (PW.5) during his cross-examination stated that he himself never seen the appellant while committing rape with Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased). I have further observed that if according to the statement of the said witness, the appellant used to commit rape with Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) for last 03/04 months but such stance of the prosecution is not supported from any substantial evidence because no report during that period was made by the complainant or any of the family members of Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) even no complaint was made to police in that regard by Mst. Kubra Bibi (deceased) herself. Whereas, Abdul Malik (PW.6) during his court statement has not uttered even a…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.