Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1417
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: Imran alias Mana, Tanveer Qamar, The State vs The State, The State & 3 JUDGMENT
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1417. In this matter between Imran alias Mana, Tanveer Qamar, The State and The State, The State & 3 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.
Case cited as 2025LHC1417
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Aalia Neelum, Abher Gul Khan Title:Imran alias Mana, Tanveer Qamar, The State vs The State, The State & 3
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 LHC 1417 Result: Appeal Dismissed Judgment
JUDGMENT Abher Gul Khan, J. Imran alias Mana (appellant) along with three other co-accused involved with case FIR No.102/2018 dated 07.02.2018 registered under Sections 302 & 34 PPC at Police Station Gulberg, District Faisalabad, was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Trial court vide judgment dated 23.01.2020 while acquitting the afore-mentioned co-accused proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in the following terms:- Under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer death sentence as to'zir. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Rana Burhan (deceased) which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Against his conviction and sentence Imran alias Mana (appellant) preferred Criminal Appeal No.9714-J of 2020, whereas complainant Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) filed Criminal Appeal No.9716 of 2020 against the acquittal of Muzammil alias Badshah, Tayyab alias Ali Kataria and Nasir Mahmood (respondents No.2 to 4). Likewise, trial court forwarded a reference which was numbered as Murder Reference No.54 of 2020 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. to seek confirmation or rejection of the death sentence imposed on the convict, Imran alias Mana. These three matters are being decided through this single judgment. 2. Epitomized facts of the case of the prosecution put forward in the shape of complaint (Exh.PF) presented by Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) on the basis of which FIR (Exh.PF/1) was registered are that he is
---
## Page 2
resident of Awami Colony whereas his brother Rana Burhan aged 48/49 years was running Estate Agency at Melad Road and did the business of property dealing. On 07.02.2018 at about 3:30 p.m. his brother Irfan and Rana Mujtaba s/o Rana Muhammad Iqbal were sitting in front of the shop of Rana Burhan. Meanwhile, Rana Burhan received a call on his cell No.03006640916 and attended the same. After hearing the phone, the caller used an aggressive tone, and Rana Burhan got worried. After some time, Imran alias Mana, armed with a pump action, Tayyab alias Ali Kataria, armed with a .30 bore pistol, along with two unknown accused, came there on a Qingqi rickshaw and motorcycle and started firing. Imran alias Mana fired the first shot with his pump action, which landed on different parts of Rana Burhan's body, whereas the rest of the accused kept on firing shots from their respective pistols. Imran alias Mana continued firing from his pump action and advanced the threat that if anybody came forward, he would also be done to death. Rana Burhan, after becoming injured, fell on the ground, whereas the accused managed their escape from the place of occurrence while raising Lalkara and making aerial firing. Due to the act of the accused, panic was created in the whole bazaar, and the people, after closing the shops, confined themselves in their houses. The complainant and others shifted Rana Burhan in injured condition to Allied Hospital, where, during the treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The stated motive behind the occurrence was that one Adnan alias Jimmi had a money dispute with the accused, for which Rana Burhan stood as arbitrator and decided that nothing was payable by Adnan alias Jimmi. 3. After the receipt of information about the incident, Idrees Iqbal SI (PW.8) on 07.02.2018 reached the Allied Hospital where complainant Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) presented the application (Exh.PF) for the registration of FIR. Thereupon, he endorsed police proceedings and sent it to the police station through Riaz HC/1430 for the registration of a formal FIR. Thereafter, he inspected the dead body, prepared an injury statement (Exh.PH) and inquest report (Exh.PI), and deputed Umer Farooq 275/C to conduct the autopsy of the dead body. He secured the mobile phone of Rana Burhan from his pocket through memo Exh. PJ. Subsequently, he visited the place of occurrence, drafted an unscaled site plan (Exh.PQ), and secured blood through cotton through memo Exh.PK. From the spot, he also took into possession three empties of cartridges (P.5/1-3) of .12 bore gun and six crime empties of .30 bore pistol (P.6/1-6) through memo Exh.PL. On 23.02.2018, he arrested Imran alias Mana (appellant), who, on 25.02.2018, made a disclosure and in pursuance thereof led to the recovery of repeater .12 bore (P.7) through memo Exh. PM. On the same day, Nasir (co-accused) got recovered rickshaw (P.8), which was taken into possession vide memo Exh. PN. After complying with all the codal formalities, the Investigating Agency submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. The prosecution produced 08 witnesses in total to prove its case against the appellant. Dr. Ijaz Hussain (PW.5) furnished the medical evidence, Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) and Rana Mujataba (PW.7) entered appearance in the witness box as witnesses of ocular account, whereas, Idrees Iqbal SI (PW.8) investigated this case. The remaining PWs were more or less formal and acted according to the law to aid and support the investigation. 5. Dr. Ijaz Hussain (PW.5) on 07.02.2018 at about 6:30 p.m. conducted the autopsy of Rana Burhan and observed the following injuries:- Injury No.1: Firearm wound of entry on the lateral eye of lateral side of left eye, metallic piece recovered from the skin just below the left ear. Injuries No.2 & 3: Each %2 x %2 cm on the front of chest at the sternum skin deep at the distance of 3 cm, 5 cm below the juggler notch. Injury No.4: Firearm wound of entry 1 x 3/4 cm on the front of left side of chest cross the 4th intercostal space, damaged heart and left lung, metallic piece recovered underneath the skin on the back of left chest.
---
## Page 3
Injury No.5: Firearm wound of entry at the upper angle of right axilla and metallic piece recovered from underneath the skin at the right clavicle. Injury No.6-A:Wound of entry 1 x 1 cm on the front of elbow, 1 cm above the elbow. Injury No.6-B: Wound of exit 1 x 1 cm on the front of elbow, 1 cm below the elbow. According to the doctor, the cause of death was injury No.4, which damaged the heart and left lung. The doctor described the probable time between injury and death as immediate and between death and postmortem as four hours. 6. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, Imran alias Mana (appellant) was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., who in response to the question "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" replied as under: - "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated. Intrinsically I, Muzammil alias Badshah had purchased a house owned by the complainant situated in street No.17 of Raza Abad, against consideration amount of 65,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was afforded by me to the complainant on 10.09.2017, the complainant promise to hand over the possession and to execute the same in favour of me by or before 11.01.2018 but the complainant who is a wanderlust and the entire family is known as a terror in the area, having a burden of number of criminal cases against him, refused to get transferred the above said house in the name of me and also paid a denial to pay back the earnest amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. So many Punchayats were conducted but the complainant remained reckless. On one occasion a harsh talk were exchanged between the complainant and Tayab alias Ali Kataria and the complainant threatened to teach a lesson to all the three brothers. During this tug of war in between the complainant and us, Rana Burhan was murdered in a dacoity incident and the complainant party found an opportunity to fulfill their words of teaching us as lesion. I have no motive whatsoever to kill the deceased Rana Burhan. I agitated before the I.O that complainant had done gross in justice to him. The whole prosecution story is full of cracks. It was an unseen and unattended occurrence. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish his case against me beyond any shadow of doubt. My brothers namely Muzammil alias Badshah and Tayyab alias Ali Kataria had been found not involved in the case, which further provides strength to my false implication in this case. I pray for justice. I tendered the FIRs registered against the complainant and his other family members." The appellant neither opted to appear as of his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence. After the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as afore-sated, hence the instant criminal appeals and murder reference. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was an unseen occurrence, but the complainant, in connivance with the local police, managed the presence of the eyewitnesses and involved the appellant and his co-accused with the case. The deceased, after sustaining injuries, remained unattended, and from this aspect, an inference can be drawn that the eyewitnesses were not present at the spot. A bare reading of the evidence of the ocular account reveals that they could not prove their presence on the spot. The medical evidence is in sharp contrast with the ocular account. The recovery of the .12 bore gun has been foisted upon the appellant to strengthen the prosecution case. It was, thus, prayed that by allowing the appellant's appeal, his conviction and sentence be set aside, and he be acquitted from all the charges. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and argued that it was a case of promptly lodged FIR wherein the appellant was named with the specific role of causing the fatal shot to the deceased. The eyewitnesses successfully proved their presence on the spot during the trial. The medical evidence is in line with the ocular account. The positive report of PFSA, through which the empties secured from the spot matched with the gun
---
## Page 4
recovered from the appellant, is another factor to establish the appellant's guilt therefore, the confirmation of the conviction of the appellant was sought. In support of the appeal against acquittal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.9716 of 2020, learned counsel for the complainant raised his voice to the effect that the prosecution produced sufficient material against the respondents connecting them with the commission of the offence, and the reasons given by the learned trial court qua the acquittal of respondents are not based upon facts. The respondents, along with the principal accused, came at the spot in connivance with each other and took the life of an innocent soul. Thus, they are also liable to be convicted and sentenced. 9. We have gone through the case file, heard pro and contra arguments of the learned counsel for the parties well assisted by the Additional Prosecutor General and perused the record. 10. A minute perusal of the record reveals that the instant case emerged from an incident that took place on 07.02.2018 at about 3:30 p.m., during which one Rana Burhan was done to death by Imran alias Mana (appellant) along with three other co-accused. As per the story of the incident put forth by the prosecution, Tanvir Qamar (PW.6), Rana Mujtaba (PW.7), and Irfan (given up PW) were sitting in front of the shop of Rana Burhan at Melad Road. In their view, Rana Burhan, after receiving a call on his Cell No. 03006640916, became worried. Soon thereafter, Imran alias Mana, armed with a pump action, Tayyab alias Ali Kataria, armed with a .30 bore pistol, along with two unknown accused, came there on a Qingqi rickshaw and motorcycle and started firing. Imran alias Mana with his pump action made firing, which landed on various parts of the body of Rana Burhan, who died at the hospital. It is important to mention here that Tayyab alias Ali Kataria was named in the FIR for the role of aerial firing with his .30 bore pistol, whereas Muzammil alias Badshah and Nasir Mahmood accused are not named in the FIR, who were introduced subsequently through supplementary statement of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6). According to the stance of the complainant, at the relevant time Nasir Mahmood accused was driving the rickshaw, whereas Muzammil accused was attributed the role that he had raised Lalkara that Burhan be fired. 11. It is straightaway observed that the incident occurred at a place known as Melad Road, situated at a distance of 2 kilometers from Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad. The police acquired the details of the occurrence through the written application (Exh.PF) of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) presented before Idrees Iqbal SI (PW.8) in Allied Hospital, Faisalabad at about 5:45 p.m. based on which formal F.I.R (Exh.PF/1) was chalked out at about 6:00 p.m. On the one hand, the prosecution claimed that the promptly lodged F.I.R. is a factor that negates all hypotheses of fabrication of facts and absence of PWs from the spot and goes miles in establishing the involvement of the appellant in the commission of a crime. On the other hand, the defence pleaded that the case was registered with an enormous delay, by manipulating the record made it look as if it was promptly registered. To adjudge the veracity of the respective claims of both sides, we have perused the record with the best possible circumspection. Firstly, it is noticed that the complaint (Exh.PF) was prepared at Allied Hospital and was dispatched to Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad, for registration of formal F.I.R through Riaz Head Constable. Inexorably, in the given circumstances, Riaz, Head Constable, was essentially required to be produced before the learned trial court, but surprisingly, he was neither cited as a witness nor summoned for the recording of evidence. In our view, the deposition of the above-said witness was essentially required to prove the prompt registration of F.I.R. Besides that, the defence/accused had a right to cross-examine him to extract the truth. It will wholly be unjust on our part to blindly accept the claim of prosecution about the time upon which F.I.R was registered while paying no attention to withholding the most important witness in this regard. While dealing with the issue of non-production of a police constable who brought the complaint to the police station for the registration of F.I.R, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCM R 326) held as under:
---
## Page 5
".......the non-production of Constable Jehanzeb Khan who took the written complaint and was an eye-witness of the occurrence and of the recovery memorandums; and the inexplicable conduct of the Complainant PW-2 in not proceeding to the police station himself to register the FIR are matters of concern and collectively of incredulity. The conclusion therefrom that we draw is that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, or, at worst, that the petitioner was involved in a false case for ulterior reasons." There is yet another factor which sheds doubt upon the claim of prosecution about prompt registration of F.I.R. and according to postmortem report (Ex.PG) and inquest report (Exh. PI), the Investigating Officer, namely Idrees Iqbal SI (PW.8) mentioned the date and time of incident as 07.02.2018 wherein, the deceased namely Rana Burhan died at 05:00 pm. The dead body of the deceased was identified by Adnan Shafqat and Muhammad Latif at Allied Hospital Faisalabad. Perusal of the record further reveals that the occurrence was statedly witnessed by three PWs, namely Tanvir Qamar, Rana Mujataba and Irfan but the inquest report (Exh.PI) does not contain the name of any of these persons, meaning thereby they were not present in the hospital at the time of identification of the dead body. Had the afore-said eyewitnesses been present at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, the Investigating Officer would have definitely incorporated their names and associated them to identify the dead body. In such circumstances, the FIR (Exh.PF/1) has been lodged with a reasonable delay, and that too after concocting a false story. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1741), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under: - "Apart from dishonest improvements in the version of complainant, perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged after an unexplainable delay of 3 hours despite the fact that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 km. The time of occurrence is around 05:00/05:30 pm and the matter is reported at 08:30 p.m. The complainant had a bike that he used to go to the police station. This delay has not been encountered through plausible explanation by the prosecution." 12. During trial the detail of unfortunate incident leading to the assassination of Rana Burhan was brought on record by Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) and Rana Mujataba (PW.7). So far as Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) is concerned, he was the brother of Rana Burhan (deceased), whereas Rana Mujtaba (PW.7) was not related to the deceased rather was friend of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6). While examining the evidence of eyewitnesses in a case of homicide the question of foremost importance pertains to their acclaimed presence at the spot. In the instant case, we have straightaway observed that according to Tanvir Qamar (PW.6), he was a resident of Awami Colony No.2, Faisalabad, which is situated at 8/9 streets from the place of occurrence, while the incident occurred at Melad Road. In the given circumstances, when the presence of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) at the crime scene was not in accordance with the daily pursuit of his life, he was legally obliged to put forth some compelling reason for his acclaimed attendance, but this burden was not discharged during the trial. Similarly, as per his own stance, Rana Mujatab (PW.7) was a resident of Street No.11, Main Bazar Mansoorabad, Faisalabad, about 10 kilometers from Melad Road. He simply claimed to be in the company of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) and uttered not a single word for his reason of being so. The presence of both the PWs at the spot, in the manner they claimed, makes them chance witnesses and their depositions suspect evidence. As a necessary corollary, the depositions of Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) and Rana Mujataba (PW.7) are to be discarded from consideration. In the case reported as Naveed Asghar and two others v. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 600), the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with the evidence of a chance witness, held as under: - ".....chance witness: a witness who in view of his place of residence or occupation and in the ordinary course of events is not supposed to be present at the place of the occurrence but claims to be there by chance. Testimony of such witness requires cautious scrutiny and is not accepted
---
## Page 6
unless he gives satisfactory explanation of his presence at or near the place of occurrence at the relevant time...". Further reference in this regard is placed on cases reported as Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan and others (2020 SCMR 319) and Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652). 13. There is another factor discerning from the perusal of the record which makes it clear that the manner mode and the way in which the occurrence took place was not narrated alike by witnesses of ocular account and Tanvir Qamar (PW.6) deposed that: "Imran Alias Mana armed with pump action, Tayyab alias Ali Kataria armed with 30-bore pistol alongwith two unknown persons came and started firing. Imran alias Mana made first fire with his pump action which landed on the different parts of the body of Rana Burhan. The accused persons resorted to firing and raising Lalkara. Again accused Imran alias Mana fired at Burhan." Whereas, Rana Mujtaba (PW.7) the other witness of ocular account deposed as under: "After some time Imran alias Mana armed with 12-bore pump action boarding on Qingchi/Rickshaw, Tayyab alias Ali Kataria armed with 30-bore pistol, Nasir Mehmood who was driving Qingchi Rickshaw armed with pistol and Muzammil alias Badshah who was sitting as a pillion ridded on the motorcycle which was driven by Tayyab and raised Lalkara and resorted to firing with their weapons. Imran alias Mana made first fire which hit on the different parts of the body of Rana Burhan. Rest of the accused persons kept on firing with their weapons. Again accused Imran alias Mana made fires with his weapon. Burhan fell down in injured condition and they decamped from the place of occurrence while raising Lalkaras and extending threats of dire consequences while brandishing their weapons." During the course of cross-examination the witness was confronted with his statement (Ex.DA) got recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and he admitted that the story narrated during the course of examination-in-chief was not narrated in the same manner at the time of recording of his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C before police and the witness made dishonest improvement just to strengthen the case of prosecution against the accused. This aspect also leads us to conclude that the eyewitnesses were not present at the spot. Secondly, according to the complainant, Rana Burhan, after sustaining injuries, fell on the ground. He, along with two other witnesses, shifted him to the hospital in injured condition, and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. However, such a stance of the complainant stands negated from the statement of Dr. Ijaz Hussain (PW.5), who during the course of his evidence deposed that:- "The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate." Moreover, none of the eyewitnesses gave any detail as to how they shifted the deceased to the hospital in injured condition. Furthermore, according to both eyewitnesses, the accused came to the spot while riding on a rickshaw and a motorcycle, but neither described the model, make, colour and the number of motorcycle nor the rickshaw. 14. We have observed that accused Tayyab alias Ali Kataria was named in the FIR with the allegation that he was equipped with .30 bore pistol at the relevant time, whereas Nasir Mehmood and Muzammil alias Badshah were not named in the FIR rather they were implicated as culprits of crime on 08.02.2018 based on supplementary statement of the complainant (PW.6). Complainant stated in the supplementary statement that Nasir Mehmood was driver of the rickshaw, whereas Muzammil alias Badshah was attributed the role that he was armed with pistol and had raised Lalkara that Burhan be fired. Investigating Officer during cross-examination further deposed that Rana Mujataba (PW.7) had not nominated Nasir as culprit in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Likewise, in the supplementary statement the complainant had not mentioned the source of his information as to how he came to know about the culpability of accused Nasir and as such no reliance on such statement can be placed. Reference is made to the cases reported as Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State (2007
---
## Page 7
YLR 534) and Nusrat Bibi and others v. The State (2015 YLR 2694). In the latter cited judgment, the following observation was given: - "Reliance on supplementary statement Ex.PL is also liable to be excluded from consideration for the reason that a supplementary statement is neither continuation of first information report nor can be read in expansion thereof; it is a statement for all intents and purposes, in whatever form, is a statement under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, use whereof, is controlled by the riders provided in Section 162 of the Code ibid as such there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to admit supplementary statement in written form in evidence through its exhibition as Ex.PL." According to the statement of Idrees Iqbal SI (PW.8), in his investigation Tayyab alias Ali Kataria and Muzammil Badshah though allegedly were armed with pistols at the relevant time but they were declared innocent and besides that Muzammil Badshah was found to be crippled from his right arm. It is noticed that during the investigation, no crime weapon was recovered from any of the aforesaid three accused, nor was any role of causing injury either to the deceased or PW attributed to them. The matter was investigated up to RIB. However, the complainant filed no application challenging the investigation findings, nor did he opt to file any private complaint in the trial court against the exoneration of the afore-said two accused. During cross-examination, PW.6 categorically admitted that he was fully satisfied with the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (PW.8). PW.7…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.