Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 266178
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Shoaib Ahmed vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 266178. In this matter between Shoaib Ahmed 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 Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 14-JUL-2026 CASE NO: Criminal Revision-197-2023 CITATION: 2026 IHC 266178 PARTIES: Shoaib Ahmed VS The State etc. LAW / SECTION: u/s 337-F(v) and 34 PPC SUBJECT: Against Conviction, REMARKS: Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to payment of Daman. Appeal has been dismissed. Hence this revision. FIR No. 27/2017 dated 06.03.2017 U/s 337-F(v), 34 PPC P.S. Shams Colony, Islamabad ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Revision No.197 of 2023
Shoaib Ahmed Vs. The State and another
Petitioner by: Mr. Haroon-ur-Rashid, Advocate along with the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 by: Barrister Osama Jamil, SPP along with Abaid Ullah, ASI.
Respondent No.2 by: Mr. Sajjad Haider Malik and Ms. Ambreen Anwer, Advocates.
Date of Hearing: 17.06.2026.
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- Through the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged judgment dated 13.11.2023, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, West-Islamabad (“Appellate Court”), whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, West-Islamabad (“Trial Court”), was dismissed. Vide the judgment dated 18.03.2023, the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No.27/17, dated 06.03.2017, u/s 337-F(v) and 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Shams Colony, Islamabad and sentenced u/s 337-F(v) PPC to pay Daman of Rs.200,000/- to the injured complainant within a period of one year in 12 equal installments. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant revision are that on 11.02.2017, at 11:00 am, the petitioner Shoaib Ahmed along with his father co-accused Aurangzeb started fighting with the complainant due to their previous enmity. The petitioner armed with Danda, hit the same on the hand of the complainant due to which he sustained injury. 2 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
On this incident, the above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. 3. After registration of the FIR, the petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. During the investigation, they were found involved in the commission of the alleged offence, therefore, a Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was submitted before the learned Trial Court. The charge was framed, to which the petitioner and his co-accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the prosecution evidence was summoned. The prosecution produced as many as four (04) witnesses to substantiate the allegations. After completion of the prosecution evidence co-accused of the petitioner died, therefore, the proceedings against him abated. Statement of the petitioner was recorded u/s 342, Cr.P.C, in which he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. The petitioner did not opt to appear in the witness box as required u/s 340(2), Cr.P.C or to produce the defense evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments vide judgment dated 18.03.2023 convicted and sentenced the petitioner u/s 337-F(v) PPC to pay Daman of Rs.200,000/- to the injured complainant within a period of one year in 12 equal installments. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Court before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2023. 4. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, to enable the petitioner to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, his statement as mandated u/s 342 Cr.P.C was reduced into writing, wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. The petitioner declined to record his statement on oath as envisaged u/s 340(2) Cr.P.C and to produce any defense evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 18.03.2023. Feeling 3 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. 13.11.2023. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case and has been passed while ignoring the basic principles of law; that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures; that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the petitioner was wrongly convicted; that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 25 days and there were material contradictions regarding the time and manner of the occurrence; that statements of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and contained dishonest improvements; that no independent witness was produced; that the alleged motive of a land dispute was never investigated, no weapon was recovered during investigation, and the site plan and recovery documents were prepared after considerable delay; that the alleged injuries were not properly supported by the injury sheet or medical record, while the doctor admitted important deficiencies in the medical documents. It was lastly argued that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious contradictions, the documentary evidence was unreliable, and no credible evidence connected the petitioner with the alleged offence, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment while contending that the prosecution has proved its case against the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt and prayed for dismissal of the instant revision. 7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their invaluable assistance. 8. A careful examination of the complaint Exh-PA shows that the complainant alleged that a quarrel took place between him and Aurangzeb along with his son, Shoaib. It was specifically stated that 4 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
Shoaib attacked the complainant with a stick (Danda), causing a blow to his hand, while Aurangzeb slapped him during the incident. The complainant further alleged that he sustained injuries on different parts of his body as a result of the assault and, due to the severity of the incident, fell unconscious at the spot. It was further stated that Hafiz Haseeb and Tariq reached the place of occurrence, intervened, and rescued the complainant from the petitioner and his co-accused. The matter was immediately reported to Police Station Shams Colony, Islamabad, where Rapat No. 20, dated 11.02.2017 was duly recorded. Thereafter, the complainant was shifted to PIMS Hospital for medical examination and treatment. These facts constitute the basis of the complainant’s version and explain the circumstances in which the police record was initiated and the complainant received medical assistance following the alleged occurrence. 9. The complainant appeared before the learned Trial Court and recorded his statement as PW-1. During his cross-examination, he admitted that a civil suit had been pending between him and the petitioner and his co-accused since the year 2010 and that the said suit had ultimately been decreed in their favour. This admission clearly establishes the existence of prior litigation and strained relations between the parties, which is a relevant circumstance while appreciating the prosecution evidence. The complainant further admitted that immediately after the alleged occurrence, he first went to Police Station Shams Colony and, thereafter, accompanied by a police official, proceeded to PIMS Hospital for medical examination and treatment. He also admitted that after about 11:00 a.m., he went to the District Courts, Islamabad, to attend Court proceedings. On the other hand, PW-2 Tariq Mehmood, who claimed to be an eye-witness, gave a materially different version of the occurrence. He deposed that both the petitioner and his father were armed with a stick (Danda) and a stone. According to him, the petitioner struck the complainant with the stick, while his father hit the complainant on the shoulder with a stone. He 5 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
further stated that after the incident, they first took the complainant to their workshop and thereafter shifted him to PIMS Hospital. This version is inconsistent with the statement of the complainant. The complainant never alleged that father of the petitioner had struck him with a stone or caused an injury to his shoulder; rather, his specific allegation was that father of the petitioner merely slapped him. Likewise, the complainant stated that he first went to the police station after the occurrence, whereas PW-2 categorically stated that they directly took the complainant for medical treatment at PIMS Hospital after taking him to the workshop. These contradictions are material and not minor, which relate to the manner of assault, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and his co-accused, and the sequence of events immediately after the occurrence. Such contradictions strike at the root of the prosecution case and substantially diminish the reliability of the ocular account. These contradictions also cast serious doubt upon the actual presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence, as an eye- witness would ordinarily narrate the incident and the subsequent events consistently with the complainant. In these circumstances, the contradictory statements of PW-1 and PW-2 create a genuine and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story, making the alleged occurrence doubtful and unsafe to rely upon without independent and convincing corroborative evidence. 10. Further examination of the prosecution evidence reveals that the alleged occurrence took place at about 11:00 a.m. PW-3, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, SI, who acted as the Investigating Officer, prepared the injury sheet Exh-PB on the basis of the complainant’s allegations regarding the injuries sustained during the incident. A perusal of the injury sheet shows that only three injuries were reported to the Investigating Officer, and significantly, no complaint or mention of any injury to the complainant’s left index finger was recorded therein. This omission assumes considerable importance because the prosecution later attempted to rely upon a fracture of the left index finger as one of the 6 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
major injuries allegedly caused during the occurrence. The prosecution also produced PW-4, Dr. Farrukh Kamal, who exhibited the Medico- Legal Certificate (MLC) as Exh-PE. However, during his cross- examination, the doctor made several important admissions, which materially weaken the prosecution case. He admitted that the treatment sheet of the complainant did not bear his signatures, that he had not issued any prescription for the complainant’s treatment, and that the radiologist had not endorsed the MLC. He further admitted that neither the X-ray films of the complainant’s fingers nor the radiologist’s report had been placed on the judicial record. It is an established principle that where the prosecution relies upon a fracture or any injury requiring radiological confirmation, the best available evidence consists of the X- ray films and the expert opinion of the radiologist. In the present case, despite having the opportunity, the prosecution failed to produce either the radiologist as a witness or the radiologist’s report and the relevant X-ray films to substantiate its claim. The absence of these essential medical documents leaves the alleged fracture unsupported by reliable scientific evidence. Consequently, the medical evidence remains incomplete and fails to provide satisfactory corroboration to the complainant’s version. These serious deficiencies in the medical evidence create substantial doubt regarding the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant and, therefore, considerably weaken the prosecution case. 11. Another important circumstance that cannot be ignored is the unexplained delay in reporting the occurrence and obtaining medical treatment. It is an admitted position on the record that the alleged incident took place at about 11:00 a.m. It is also undisputed that the distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station was only about 2 kilometers. The prosecution further admitted that the complainant was taken to PIMS Hospital in the company of PW-3, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, the Investigating Officer. However, the OPD treatment sheet and medical record of PIMS show that the 7 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
complainant was brought to the hospital on 11.02.2017 at 02:22 p.m., reflecting a delay of approximately three hours and twenty-two minutes after the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to offer any satisfactory or convincing explanation for this considerable delay. When both the police station and the hospital were situated at a short distance from the place of occurrence, it would normally be expected that the injured person would be taken for medical examination without unnecessary loss of time. The absence of any explanation regarding this delay creates a serious gap in the prosecution story and raises doubt about the sequence of events narrated by the witnesses. It is a settled principle of criminal law that where there is an unexplained delay in reporting an occurrence or obtaining medical examination, particularly when the relevant authorities and medical facilities are easily accessible, such delay adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution case unless it is satisfactorily explained. In the present case, no such explanation has been furnished. Consequently, this unexplained delay constitutes another circumstance that weakens the prosecution case and lends support to the reasonable doubt arising from the evidence already discussed. 12. A further important aspect of the case is that, according to the prosecution’s own version, there were two eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence, namely Tariq Mahmood and Hafiz Habib (also referred to in the record as Hafiz Haseeb). Out of these two witnesses, only Tariq Mahmood was produced before the learned Trial Court for his statement, while the other eye-witness was not produced by the prosecution. No plausible explanation has been offered for withholding the testimony of this material witness. Since the said witness was admittedly present at the place of occurrence, his evidence was both relevant and essential for unfolding the true facts of the case. In terms of Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Court may presume that evidence which could and should have been produced, but was withheld, would, if produced, have been unfavorable to the party 8 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
withholding it. Due to deliberate failure of the prosecution to produce a natural and material eye-witness this Court draw adverse inference that had that witness been produced, he might not have supported the prosecution’s version of the occurrence. Reliance is placed upon Sher Ayaz Khan alias Sheraz Khan vs. Gul Najeeb Khan, (2025 SCMR 380) and Mst. Zarsheda vs. Nobat Khan, (PLD 2022 SC 21). Non production of an eye witness before the learned Trial Court further weakens the prosecution case and adds to the doubts already arising from the inconsistencies in the ocular and medical evidence. 13. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the Court is not required to identify multiple or serious doubts to justify an acquittal. The law is firmly settled that even a single reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution case is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal. This principle is rooted in the fundamental concept that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and the accused is to be considered innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If any part of the prosecution evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused that doubt must always be resolved in favour of the accused. Therefore, the existence of even one credible doubt is enough to shatter the prosecution case and secure the accused’s acquittal. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Nawaz vs. State, (2024 SCMR 1731). 14. It is also a well-settled and fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always rests upon the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts, and the accused is under no obligation to prove his innocence. The prosecution must produce reliable, consistent, and confidence-inspiring evidence that establishes the guilt of the accused to such an extent that no reasonable doubt remains in the mind of the Court. In the present case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, 9 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
inconsistencies in the statements of the eye-witnesses, deficiencies in the medical evidence, unexplained delay in obtaining medical examination, and the withholding of a material eye-witness without any satisfactory explanation. These circumstances are not minor irregularities but go to the very root of the prosecution case and create serious and reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the allegations. 15. The High Court is competent to entertain a revision against concurrent findings of fact, however, such jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only where it is shown that the conviction ought not to have been recorded. A revision is not a substitute for an appeal. Unlike an appeal, which is a statutory right permitting a comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence, the revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and is exercised only to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Interference is, therefore, warranted only where the impugned judgments suffer from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material procedural irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, are unsupported by any legal evidence, or are so perverse that no reasonable person could have arrived at such findings. Reliance is placed upon Farzam Khan vs. The State, [PLD 1966 (W.P.) Peshawar 5]. 16. In the present case, the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and have misread and overlooked important pieces of evidence having a direct bearing on the outcome of the case. Such erroneous appreciation of the evidence has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s 439, Cr.P.C. 17. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision is hereby allowed and the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 18.03.2023 as well judgment of the learned appellate Court dated 13.11.2023 are hereby set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted from case F.I.R. No.27/17, dated 06.03.2017, offences under Section 337-F(v), 34 10 Crl. Revision No.197/2023.
P.P.C., registered at Police Station Shams Colony, Islamabad by extending him the benefit of doubt. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. 18. Before parting with this judgment, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has assailed only the judgment of the learned Appellate Court in the instant revision. However, as an appeal is a continuation of the trial proceedings, such omission does not have any adverse bearing on the maintainability or merits of the instant revision.
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Announced in open Court on 14.07.2026.
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
R.Anjam