Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2022-12-31, officially reported as 2024 MLD 359. In this matter between The State, Taha Azaam Ullah, Adnan Abdullah Khan and Taha Azaam Ullah, JUDGMENT, 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Aalia Neelum, Asjad Javaid Ghural Title:The State, Taha Azaam Ullah, Adnan Abdullah Khan vs Taha Azaam Ullah,

JUDGMENT

Reported As: 2023 LHC 3712, 2024 MLD 359 Result: Murder Answered in Negative Appeal Accepted P.S.L.A Dismissed Judgment JUDGMENT AALIA NEELUM, J. The appellant-Taha Azam Ullah, son of Tariq Saif-ur-Rehman, Caste Pathan, resident of Street Store Wali near Ali Baba Centre, Farooqabad Tehsil and District, Sheikhupura, has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Sheikhupura vide judgment dated 30.04.2019 in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 324, 34 PPC, P.S. City Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura titled "Adnan Abdullah vs. Taha Azaam Ullah, etc.", whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant-Taha Azam Ullah under Section 302 (b) PPC as Tazir and sentenced to Death for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Shahzad Abdullah Khan (the deceased), with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544-A of Cr.P.C which would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I further. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, Taha Azam Ullah, the appellant, has assailed his conviction by filing the instant appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.27767 of 2019. The learned trial court also referred M.R. No.241 of 2019 (The State. Vs. Taha Azaam Ullah) for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant-Taha Azam Ullah. Whereas the complainant also filed Crl. P.S.L.A No.41181 of 2019 against the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 3, namely Junaid Ahmad Khan, Quadrat Ullah Shahab, and Tariq Saif-Ur-Rehman. All the matters arising from the same judgment of the learned trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment.

---

## Page 2

3. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged in the private complaint (Ex. PC) of Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant is that on 28.06.2017, at about 06:00 P.M., the complainant (PW-1) along with his brother, namely, Shahzad Abdullah Khan (deceased), Ejaz Ahmad Khan (given up PW) and Saif Ullah Khan (PW-2) were proceedings towards chowk of Mirza Ghafoor to offer swings to the children and when they reached the chowk of Mirza Ghafoor, meanwhile, Taha Azam Ullah-the appellant armed with a pistol, Junaid, Quadrat Ullah and Tariq Saif-UrRehman (co-accused since acquitted), all while armed with firearm weapons, came there. Tariq Saif-Ur-Rehman (co-accused since acquitted) raised Lalkara that Shahzad Abdullah Khan (deceased) be not spared and he be done to death. After that, the accused-Taha Azam Ullah made a fire shot which hit Shahzad Abdullah Khan (deceased) on the upper part of the left shoulder. The accused-Taha Azam Ullah made another fire, which hit the deceased on the left side of his back towards the upper side. The accusedTaha Azam Ullah made a third fire, which hit the deceased on the right side of the abdomen. The accused-Taha Azam Ullah made a fourth fire, which hit the deceased on the left side of the abdomen. After that, the accused-Junaid fired four shots at Shahzad Abdullah Khan (deceased), of which three fires were hit near his left knee while the fourth hit his thigh. Then, the accused, Quadrat-Ullah Shahab, fired at the deceased, which hit him on the right thigh, and second fire of the accused, Quadrat-Ullah Shahab, was hit on the right leg of the deceased, Shahzad Abdullah Khan, due to which the deceased fell and succumbed to the injuries. Due to the firing of accused persons, a passerby child also sustained firearm injury. The complainant and prosecution witnesses witnessed the alleged occurrence. 4. The motive behind the occurrence was that one Tahir Ishfaq Ur-Rehman, brother-in-law of the complainant, was serving as Sub-Inspector in Punjab Police and was martyred in 2010. The property left by him was illegally possessed and usurped by Tariq Saif-ur-Rehman and his sons; the issues relating to said property were being looked after by the widow of the deceased and brother of the complainant, namely Shahzad Abdullah Khan (deceased). Due to said grudge, all the accused persons, in prosecuting their common object, murdered Shahzad Abdullah Khan, deceased. 5. Based on the complaint (Ex. PA), formal FIR (Ex. PB) was chalked out by Muhammad Yaqoob, S.I (CW-2). After the registration of the case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Zafar Fareed, S.I (CW7), who found the accused/appellant guilty, prepared a report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Being dissatisfied with the result of the investigation, as the investigating officer being in league with the accused did not investigate the matter properly, the complainant was constrained to file a private complaint (Ex. PC). After recording the cursory evidence of the complainant and having perused the record, all the accused persons were found connected with the commission of the offence, so they were summoned to face the charge. After that, the learned trial court formally charged the appellant and his co-accused on 01.03.2018, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of his version, the complainant produced as many as four (04) witnesses, whereas the prosecution produced the witnesses as C.W-1 to C.W-7. 6. Ocular account, in this case, has come out from the statements of Adnan Abdullah (PW-1)-the complainant, and Saif Ullah Khan (PW-2) the eye witness, whereas Dr. Rao Taimoor Hameed Khan (CW-5), who conducted the postmortem examination of Shahzad Abdullah Khan (the deceased) found the following injuries on his person: - INJURIES 1. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the left shoulder, 2 cm behind the acromion end of the clavicle, making an exit of 1.5 cm x 1 cm in front of the left shoulder with blackening and shooting present. 2. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm behind the left shoulder just below the spine of the left scapula with no apparent exit wound.

---

## Page 3

3. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the right side of the abdomen 14 cm from the umbilicus, making an exit of 2 x 1 cm behind the right buttock. 4. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the left side of the abdomen, making an exit of 1 x 2 cm above the right buttock. 5. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the left-right front side 10 cm from the inguinal ligament, making an exit of 2 x 2 cm behind the left thigh. 6. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 0.5 x 0.5 cm above the left knee joint, making an exit of 1 x 1 cm behind the left knee in the left popliteal fossa. 7. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 2 x 2 cm on the left leg 8 cm below the knee joint, making an exit of 2 x 2 cm on the medial side of the left knee. 8. A 7 x 2 cm lacerated wound due to grazing injury of a firearm in front of the left tibia 7 cm below the knee joint, causing fracture of left tibia/fibula. 9. A 3 x 1 cm graze injury of bullet 14 cm above the medial malleolus. 10. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the right thigh 4 cm from the inguinal ligament, making an exit of 2 x 2 cm on the right buttock. 11. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1.5 cm on the right thigh 13 cm from the inguinal ligament, making an exit of 1 x 2 cm on the right thigh. 12. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm above the right knee, making an exit of 2 x 2 cm on the medial side of the right knee. 13. A penetrating firearm entry wound of 1 x 1 cm on the right thigh's lateral side, exit 2 x 2 cm behind the right buttock. After conducting the postmortem examination, the doctor opined that the cause of death was severe hemorrhage and shock, leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. However, injuries No.2, 3, and 4 themselves are sufficient to cause the death of an ordinary human being following the normal course of nature. The probable time between injury and death was immediate, whereas between death and postmortem was about 09 to 12 hours. The statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses are formal in nature. 7. The complainant gave up Haji Ahmad, Aamir Khan, and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, being unnecessary. The learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence after tendering the Punjab Forensic Science Agency reports and firearms &Tool marks Examination (Ex. PH & Ex. PJ). 8. The appellant was also examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein neither he opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., nor he produced defence evidence. In response to a particular question that why this case was against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition: - "Complainant and PWs are inter-se related, and they deposed falsely against me just to blackmail. The complainant & witnesses were belatedly summoned as they have no concern at the place of occurrence." 9. After evaluating the evidence available on record in light of arguments advanced from both sides, the learned trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction in the afore-stated terms. 10. We have given our anxious and most thoughtful consideration to both sides' rival submissions. We have minutely gone through the evidence on record. 11. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 28.06.2017 at 06:00 p.m. in the area of Chowk Mirza Ghaffar, Farooq Abad, within the area of Police Station, City Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura, which is at a distance of 03-Farlang from the place of occurrence. Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant reported the incident through written complaint (Exh. PA) to Muhammad Yaqoob, S.I. (CW-2) at P.S. City Farooq Abad, after that F.I.R. (Ex. CW-2/A) was registered at 07:15 p.m. Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant, took one hour and fifteen

---

## Page 4

minutes to report the incident to the police. Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that after about 15 minutes of the occurrence, he went to Bazar and got drafted a written complaint. In this regard, Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that:- "After about 15 minutes of the occurrence I went to Bazzar got drafted an application for registration of criminal case by operator of photo state machine. I did not write the application for registration of case myself. The shop of photo state operator is about 2 Farlang from the place of occurrence. I did not produce the said operator of photo state machine before the police nor I introduce his name to the police to verify the fact I got drafted the application from him. I did not telephonically informed the police immediately regarding the occurrence. The witness volunteered I produced the application before the police. The police station and the place of occurrence both situates within the town of Farooqabad. The distance between the place of occurrence by a motorbike is about 10/15 minutes. The distance between place of occurrence and police station city Farooqabad is about 3 Farlang. I went to up to photo state machine on foot. During this way there are so many shops and markets. The distance between the place of photo state machine and police station is about 2 and half Farlang. The photo machine operator was known to me earlier.--------Though I had to prepare an application for registration of case so, I did not opt to go police station first." Contrary to the above, Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross- examination that:- "Police arrived at the place of occurrence after about one and half/two hours after the occurrence. The witness volunteered that upon arrival of the police I got written the application for registration of case and went to police station and then police came at the spot and then after police brought the dead body." Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) deposed during cross-examination that:- "The application for registration for Criminal case Ex.PA is undated and untimed." Saif Ullah (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: - "Police firstly arrived at the place of occurrence after about one and a half hour." Whereas, Zafar Fareed S.I. (CW-7) the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that:- "On 28.06.2017 I received the copy of the FIR alongwith the original application for registration of FIR at about 07:30. The occurrence in this case took place at 06:00 PM on 28.06.2017 and the FIR stood registered at the police station at 07.15 PM on the same day.-------- On receiving of FIR I immediately rushed to place of occurrence where Saif Ullah Khan, Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Adnan Abdullah Khan, Qaisar and Aamir were present.----- I prepared inquest report in accordance with law with due care." Contrary to the depositions of the above witnesses i.e. Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant, Saif Ullah (PW-2) and Zafar Fareed S.I. (CW-7)-the investigating officer, Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW2) deposed during examination-in-chief that on receiving the complaint (Ex. PA), moved by Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant, on his dictation, F.I.R. (Ex. CW-2/A) was generated through the computer system. In this regard, he (CW-2) deposed during examination- in-chief that: - "I lodged formal FIR through the computer system. I dictated the contents of FIR to the computer operator. The copy of FIR generated through computer system is Ex.CW-2/A. This copy of FIR bears correct contents according to application and my endorsement upon the application and bear my signatures. Then afterwards I sent the original application for registration of case and copy of FIR to Zafar Fareed SI In-charge Homicide Wing Saddar Circle by Zahid Javed 938/C." During cross-examination, Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) admitted that:-

---

## Page 5

"Whenever an application for registration of criminal case is presented, an E-Tag number is marked upon such FIR with date. The E-Tag number of this FIR is CF-6/29/2017-609 dated 29-06- 2017. ----------According to FIR the case was registered on 28.06.2017 at 07:15 P.M dated 29-06- 2017." "Might be I received a receipt for submission of my application for registration of case from police station city Farooqabad. I signed over receipt Ex. DA for submission of my application for registration of case. My I.D card number and Cell phone number have been written on Ex. DA. The time of reporting the matter is written in Ex. DA on 29.06.2018 at 1:42 am." On perusal of FIR (Ex. PB), it reveals that on its top E-Tag No.CF-6/29/2017-609, Serial No.SKP-CFA- 000129 was written. Admittedly, the serial number was written at the top of the FIR along with its E- Tag number, while chalking out FIR (Ex. PB), and the serial number and the E-Tag number cannot be inserted later on. If the contents of the FIR were written and the computer operator cannot complete the FIR in one go, they can save the data already entered by choosing the "SAVE" tab. After writing complete data in the online FIR themselves and clicking the "FINAL SUBMIT" button, no change will be possible/entertained if required. The E-Tag No.CF-6/29/2017-609, and Serial No.SKP- CFA-000129 was not handwritten. Rather, before submitting FIR, E-Tag No.CF-6/29/2017-609, and Serial No.SKP-CFA-000129 was written. After entering data online, changing the entries in the FIR is impossible. There is a specific column in the FIR i.e., column No.1 wherein date and time of the report of the crime are to be mentioned and Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) deposed that on his dictation the contents of FIR were typed by the computer operator. So, in the column No. 1 of FIR (Ex. CW-2/A) the time of reporting 07:15 PM on 28.06.2017 was typed by the computer operator as dictated by Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2). Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) made the following answer to the question of the Court: - "The copy of FIR Ex.PB and Ex.CW-2/A are the copy of the same FIR which was exhibited twice, however I signed upon the copy of Ex.CW-2/A." Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) signed the copy of Ex. CW-2/A and on the top of the copy of Ex.CW-2/A -Tag No.CF-6/29/2017-609 and Serial No.SKP-CFA-000129 are mentioned. The E-Tag number reveals that the complaint was made on 29.06.2017 at 01:42 a.m. On perusal of the online receipt (Ex. DA), it reveals that the same was signed by Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant, and the online receipt of the online complaint number mentioned therein is CF- 6/29/2017-609 dated 29 June 2017 at 01:42 AM and status was pending, and the incident was reported about the murder and complaint was handed over to Zafar Fareed S.I. Zafar Fareed S.I. (CW-7)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that "E-tag Number written on copy of FIR is 609 dated 29.06.2017." The learned trial court, while dealing with the issue, held that the computer at the front desk did not work due to interception in the supply of electricity. As and when such FIR is uploaded on the internet, an independent E-tag number containing the time and date of its uploading is automatically generated by the internet system itself according to software prepared for linking up these FIRs to the internet. This date and time given in E-tag cannot be manually marked. Rather computer and internet system itself mark such a particular number. While holding that there is no delay in the registration of FIR, the learned trial court overlooked the fact that FIR was not entered in the register meant for registration of FIRs available at each police station. Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) deposed that he lodged the FIR through the computer system, and on his dictation to the computer operator, the contents of the FIR were generated. It suggests that there was no electricity breakdown in the police station at the time of lodging of FIR, as stated by Muhammad Yaqoob S.I (CW-2). Admittedly, the statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. of Adnan Abdullah Khan (PW-1)-the complainant was not incorporated in the register for FIRs registration. Muhammad Yaqoob S.I (CW-2) admitted in his examination-in-chief that FIR was lodged through the computer system on his dictation, and the computer operator entered the

---

## Page 6

same. The prosecution has not produced the Computer Operator to whom dictation was given by Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2), and he typed the FIR (Exh.CW-2/A), nor the name of the computer operator came on the record. According to Rule 24.5 of Police Rules 1934, the F.I.R. shall be filled in the printed Form in Form 24.5(1) with pages serially numbered with three carbon copies (each of the four pages of the register bearing the same serial number). Since the written complaint (Ex. PA) was not recorded in the first information report register, it throws doubt on the time of reporting the incident to the police. Whenever information regarding cognizable offence is lodged with the police officer, he is obliged to take the same down in writing if it is made orally or receive the complaint in writing and straightaway proceed to enter the substance of it in the book/register kept for that purpose in terms of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Chapter XIV CRPC deals with giving/reporting information to police in cognizable cases and its power of investigation. Section 154 of CrPC deals with the registration of FIR by the officer in charge of a police station based on the information about a cognizable offence. It casts a statutory duty on him to enter the substance of such information in the prescribed register/form, which is commonly called FIR, and the act of entering it is called registration of a crime or case. The police did not register F.I.R. (Exh.CW-2/A) in the book/register kept for registration of cases and instead entered the complaint in the computer and assigned a number. No explanation has been furnished regarding how the FIR registration number and E-tag number appeared on this document. It leads to only one inference that the document is prepared later. The evidential value of the First Information Report will be reduced if it is made after the unexplained delay, particularly when the same was not entered in the printed Form 24.5 (1) of Police Rules 1934. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Rule 24.5. hereunder:- "24.5. First Information Report Register. (1) The First Information Report Register shall be a printed book in Form 24.5. (1) consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled before a new one is commenced cases shall bear an annual serial number in each police station for each calendar year. Every four pages of the register shall be numbered with the same number and shall be written at the same time by means of the carbon copying process. The original copy shall be preserved in the Police Station for a period of sixty years. The other three copies shall be submitted as follows:- (a) One to the Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer nominated by him. (b) One to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence as is required by Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code. (c) One to the complainant unless a written report in Form 24.2(1) has been received in which case the check receipt prescribed will be sent. (3) In the case of the railway police, the copy intended for the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence shall be submitted through the Superintendent of the district police; Provided that at railway police station, other than district headquarter stations, where there is a Magistrate having jurisdiction, one copy shall be sent to such magistrate direct, one to the Deputy Superintendent of the Railway Police and another to the Superintendent of District Police. The extra copy required in such cases will be made by inserting an extra sheet of paper and carbon paper and afterwards filling the printed headings, etc., by hand. (4) All information required by the form shall be filled in, and thereafter the serial number of each case diary submitted shall be noted on the reverse of the original copy which is to remain at the police station. (5) On the conclusion of the case the particulars contained in the charge sheet slip shall be filled in on the reverse of the original copy and the slip returned to the Superintendent's office." According to Article 112 of the Police Order, 2002 (22 of 2002), the Provincial Police Officer/Inspector General of Police, Punjab, with the approval of the Government of Punjab, made amendments in

---

## Page 7

Rules 22.3 and 22.4 of Police Rules, 1934 and notified through Notification No. 43604/DIG/I.T. dated 15.12.2017 which are as under: - "In the Police Rule, 1934, in Chapter XXII: (1) for rule 22.3, the following shall be substituted: "22.3. Station Clerk:- (1) A Station clerk shall: (a) be a literate head constable or IT literate officer; (b) work under the supervision of the officer incharge of the police station; (c) act as a clerk, accountant and record keeper; and (d) be the custodian of the property at the police station. (2) A station clerk may be assisted by one or more assistant clerks. (3) The Provincial Police Officer may, by general or special order, assign any one or more tasks to any officer mentioned above."; and (2) in rule 22.4, for clause (a), the following shall be substituted: "(a) He shall: (i) maintain hard as well as soft copy (electronic copy) of the registers as per orders of the Provincial Police Officer; (ii) dispose of and be responsible for early disposal of all the correspondence as per instructions of the officer incharge of the police station; and (iii) write all reports and returns called for by the competent authority." A bare perusal of the above amendment would show no reference to Rule 24.5 to be amended. The fact that lodging FIR was madeon the computer due to the above amendment cannot justify that FIR was legally lodged. No amendment to Rule 24.5 was made. The act of Muhammad Yaqoob S.I. (CW-2) does not align with the law and, thereby, is in absolute violation and non-compliance with Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934. The FIR is the document entered into a book/register maintained at the police station under Rule 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934. The statement of complainant is entered therein under section 154 Criminal Procedure Code. Based on this, the law is set into motion. The mandatory provisions of the law were departed, which creates doubt about the truthfulness of the allegation leveled in the FIR and that when the incident was reported to the police and left unexplained holes in the prosecution story, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused. 12. Another aspect of the case makes the prosecution case doubtful. Zafar Fareed (CW-7)-the investigating officer deposed that on receiving of FIR (Exh.CW-2/A), he immediately rushed to the place of…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Browse Pakistani court decisions from the year 2022
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant