Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1434. In this matter between The State, Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri and another,Ikram ul Haq and Tahir 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): Sadaqat Ali Khan, Sadiq Mahmud Khurram Title:The State, Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri and another,Ikram ul Haq vs Tahir

JUDGMENT

Reported As: 2025 LHC 1434 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative Judgment

JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.- Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar (convicts) were tried alongwith Muhammad Shaban, Ali Haider and Muhammad Gulzar (since acquitted), the co-accused of the convicts by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum in the case F.I.R. No. 111 of 2022 dated 20.02.2022 registered at Police Station Saddar Jhelum, District Jhelum in respect of offences under sections 302, 34 and 109 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Anwar ul Haq son of Muhammad Siddique (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.08.2023 convicted Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar (convicts) and sentenced them as infra: Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad:- Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Anwar ul Haq son of Muhammad Siddique (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead. Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar:-

---

## Page 2

Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Anwar ul Haq son of Muhammad Siddique (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead. The convicts were, however, extended the benefit available under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the learned trial court. Muhammad Shaban, Ali Haider and Muhammad Gulzar, the co-accused of the convicts, were however acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar (convicts) lodged the Criminal appeal No.840-J of 2023, assailing their convictions and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.46 of 2023 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentences of death awarded to the appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar. The complainant of the case namely Ikram ul Haq also filed Criminal Appeal No.640 of 2023 against the acquittal of the accused namely Muhammad Shaban, Ali Haider and Muhammad Gulzar by the learned trial court. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.840-J of 2023, the Criminal Appeal No.640 of 2023 and the Murder Reference No.46 of 2023 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Ikram ul Haq (PW-7), the complainant of the case, are as under:- "States that on 19-02-2022, 1 alongwith Muhammad Maroof, Anwaar-ul-Haq, Shahzad alias Shadi were playing cards in office of Thekedar Ch.Naeem, situated in village Bagga and were also having Gup-Shup. We sent Shahzad alias Shadi to take Prathas from Lota Morr. We had been playing cards and having Gup-Shup. There was light of bulbs inside office and outside the office. In the meanwhile, at about 11.00 p.m. a motorcar of white colour XLI came and stopped there. Accused Tahir alias Tahiri armed with rifle 44 bore, Shaban son of Mukhtar empty handed, Tasaddaq Gulzar armed with pistol 30 bore, Ali Haider son of Ali Muhammad armed with pistol 30 bore, accused present in the court deboarded from the car. Shaban accused raised Lalkara that they would not leave Anwaar-ul-Haq who put his hands to their honour and they would teach lesson to him. Whereupon, Tahir alias Tahiri made two fire shots of rifle 44 bore, which hit my brother Anwaar on the front of abdomen and on flank. Then Tasaddaq Gulzar accused made two fire shots with pistol 30 bore which hit my brother Anwaar on left and right flanks. Then Ali Haider accused made two fire shots with his pistol 30 bore which hit my brother on leg and umbilicus. Then my brother fell on the ground face towards the ground. Then the said three accused made fire shots which hit my brother Anwaar who was already fallen on the ground. Those fire shots hit different parts of his body. Then Tasaddaq Gulzar accused made fire shot which hit on backside of head of my brother Anwaar. Then accused persons while boarding on their car, making lalkaras and firing fled away towards Belly Paharwal towards their houses. My brother Anwaar succumbed to the injuries at spot. Motive behind the occurrence is that accused Gulzar son of Rehmat had suspicion that my deceased brother had illicit relationship with his daughter. Then police came at the spot, where I got recorded my statement Ex.PJ, which bears my signature and thumb impression. Police sent dead body of the deceased to DHQ Hospital, Jhelum for autopsy after completing the police papers. On 20-02-2022, on the same night as date was changed at 12.00 midnight, police collected 10 empties of 30 bore pistol P1/1-10 and 13 empties of rifle 44 bore P2/1-13. Investigating Officer took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof

---

## Page 3

PW. Police also collected blood with cotton from the place of occurrence in my and Muhammad Maroof presence. Investigating Officer took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Investigating Officer also took into possession three energy savers which were on at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence vide recovery memo Ex.PM, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Investigating Officer also prepared un-scaled site plan on pointing out of me and PW. Investigating Officer recorded my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard. On 22-02-2022. Asif Akhtar Nakash draftsman visited the place of occurrence alongwith Investigating Officer and he took rough notes on my and Muhammad Maroof pointing out. On 11-03-2022, I and Muhammad Maroof went to police station where accused Tahir alias Tahiri, Shaban, Tasaddaq Gulzar and Ali Haider were in custody of police and Investigating Officer was interrogating them. Accused Tahir alias Tahiri made disclosure in our presence that he could led the recovery of weapon of offence rifle 44 bore which he hided in chaff room in his Dera, situated in Belly Paharwal. He also disclosed that he could get recovered motorcar, which was present on his Dera. Tasaddaq Gulzar accused also disclosed that he could get recovered pistol 30 bore weapon of offence, which he hided in a room of tractor. Muhammad Shaban accused also made disclosure that he could led recovery of pistol 30 bore weapon of offence, which he hided in the room of tractor in almirah. Then accused persons led us to their Dera where accused Tahir alias Tahiri got rifle 44 bore P3 from Chaff room, which was wrapped in a plastic sack and gave it to Investigating Officer, who unloaded it found five live bullets P4/1-5. Investigating Officer prepared sealed parcel of rifle and live bullets. Accused Tahir alias Tahiri also produced motorcar registration No.2543/LEA P5 (present outside the court room) which was present in the courtyard of the Dera. Investigating Officer took rifle and live bullets into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PN, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Investigating Officer took motorcar into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PP, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Accused Tahir alias Tahiri was brought back in the official vehicle. Then accused Tasaddaq Gulzar got 30 bore pistol P6 from an iron box present in room of tractor and produced the same before Investigating Officer who found two live bullets P7/1-2 from it on unloading the same. Investigating Officer prepared sealed parcel of pistol and live bullets and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PQ, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Accused Tasaddaq Gulzar was brought back to the official vehicle of police. Then accused Muhammad Shaban from almirah of said tractor room got pistol 30 bore P8 of silver colour and presented the same before Investigating Officer, who found three live bullets P9/1-3 on unloading the same. Investigating Officer prepared sealed parcel of pistol and live bullets and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PR, which was signed by me and Muhammad Maroof PW. Investigating Officer recorded my statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 14-03-2022, I handed over mobile phone P10 of deceased Anwaar to police on demand of police. Investigating Officer took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PS, which was signed by me. Investigating Officer recorded my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard" 4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 29.06.2022, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got statements of as many as ten witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8). Saqib Ali 52/HC (PW-2) stated that on 20.02.2022, the Crime Scene Unit visited the place of occurrence, prepared four sealed parcels and handed them to the Investigating Officer of the case. Asif Akhtar Naqash, draftsman (PW-3) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of

---

## Page 4

occurrence (Exh.PE & Exh.PF). Ibrar Hussain, ASI (PW-4) stated that on 20.02.2022, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PG). Azmat Ali 680/HC (PW-5) stated that on 20.02.2022, Qamar Sultan, SI (PW- 9) handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain blood stained cotton, one sealed parcel said to contain empty shells of the bullets, four sealed parcels prepared by Crime Scene Unit and on 25.02.2022, he handed over the one sealed parcel said to contain blood stained cotton, one sealed parcel said to contain empty shells of the bullets , four sealed parcels prepared by Crime Scene Unit to Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9) for their onward transmission to the office of the Collection Center, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Gujranwala and on 11.03.2022, Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9) handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain a rifle and two sealed parcels said to contain pistols and a car and on 14.03.2022, Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9) handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain the mobile phone device of the deceased and on 18.03.2022 he handed over the one sealed parcel said to contain a rifle and two sealed parcels said to contain pistols and the sealed parcel said to contain the mobile phone device of the deceased to Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9) for their onward transmission to the office of the Collection Center, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Gujranwala. Ihsan ul Haq (PW-6) stated that on 19.02.2022, he identified the dead body of the deceased and on 20.02.2022, he received the dead body of the deceased. Asjad Javed 841/C (PW-10) stated that on 20.02.2022 he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9) investigated the case from 20.02.2022 till 15.04.2022, arrested the appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri and Tasaddaq Hussain on 02.03.2022 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. The prosecution also got Dr. Zahoor ul Haq (PW-1) examined, who on 20.02.2022 was posted as Medical Officer at DHQ, hospital Jhelum and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Anwar ul Haq son of Muhammad Siddique (deceased). Dr. Zahoor ul Haq (PW-1), on examining the dead body of Anwar ul Haq son of Muhammad Siddique (deceased) observed as under:- "DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES. 1. (i). A lacerated wound occipital region of skull on right side, size 0.8 x 1 cm inverted margins entry would. 03 cm back of right ear. (ii) A lacerated wound occipital region of skull on right side, size 3 x 1.5 cm. It was everted margins entry wound. 08 cm behind of right ear. It was an exit wound. Blood was oozing from this injury side and these all injuries were reddish in colour. 2. (i) A lacerated wound left lower chest posteriorly inverted margins size 0.8 x 1.2 cm was noted. (ii) A lacerated wound left upper chest in size 5 x 2.4 cm was noted. (iii) A lacerated wound on left chest posteriorly in the middle inverted margins size 0.8 x 1.3 cm. These all injuries were reddish in colour and blood was oozing. 3. Abrasion on the back of left chest in the lower middle in size 7.5 x 0.8 cm was noted. 4. A lacerated wound on left buttock reddish in colour (1) upper buttock quadrant size 1.2 * 4 cm everted margins (ii) Lower medial 2nd part in size 0.8 x 0.6 cm inverted margins, (iii) Lower buttock quadrant in size 0.8cm * 1 cm was noted. 5. A lacerated wound on right buttock upper outer quadrant in size 0.8 x 1 cm was noted. 6. A lacerated wound on right thigh in the middle, (i) Lateral size 0.8 x 1.2 cm inverted margins. It was an entry wound, (ii) Injury on middle side in size 1.5 x 2.2 c, was noted of everted margins. It was an exit wound. injuries were 11 cm a part. 7. A lacerated wound on right leg in the middle (i) Lateral size 0.8 x 1 cm, inverted margins entry wound, (ii) middle side in size 1.5 cm x 2 cm everted margins exit wound. These injuries were 9 cm from each other. 8. A lacerated wound interiorly on abdominal on left side in size 1 x 0.8 cm inverted margins.

---

## Page 5

9. A lacerated wound on hypogastric region in the middle size 0.6 x 1.2 cm inverted margins. 10. A lacerated wound on front of abdominal on right side (i) middle size 0.8 x 1.2 cm inverted margins. It was an entry wound, (ii) on lateral side in size 1.5 x 2.6 cm everted margins. It was an exit wound. 11. A lacerated wound on right arm (i) front side in size 0.6 x 0.8 cm (ii) medial side was swelling and reddish bruise. 12. A lacerated wound on left knee, (i) upper side in size 0.6 x 0.8cm inverted margins entry wound, (ii) lateral side in size 1 x 2.2cm everted margins. It was an exit wound. FINAL OPINION: After careful external and internal post mortem examination of the dead body, I was of the opinion that the death was due to firearm injuries (Injury No.1, 2 & 11), damaging vital organs Heart and left lungs and hypovolemic shock resulting into death. Those injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." 7. On 22.11.2022, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness namely Junaid ul Saleheen 970/C as being unnecessary. On 20.06.2023, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Bilal as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PZ, Exh.PAA and Exh.PBB). 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, they replied that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar opted not to get themselves examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, however, produced documents (Exh.DA to Exh.DF) as evidence in their defence. 9. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. 10. The contention of the learned counsels for the appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar precisely was that the whole case was fabricated and false and the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsels for the appellants further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsels for the appellants further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsels for the appellants also submitted that the recoveries of the rifle 44 bore (P-3) and car (P-5) from the appellant namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and the recovery of the Pistol (P-6) from the appellant namely Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and were result of fake proceedings. The learned counsels for the appellants also argued that the appellants had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsels for the appellants finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Additional Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellants. The learned Additional Prosecutor General along

---

## Page 6

with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Additional Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the recoveries of the rifle 44 bore (P-3) and car (P-5) from the appellant namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and the recovery of the Pistol (P-6) from the appellant namely Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Additional Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offenders with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Additional Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellants namely Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri son of Mukhtar Ahmad and Tasaddaq Hussain son of Muhammad Gulzar. The learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the Criminal Appeal No.640 of 2023, assailing the acquittal of Muhammad Shaban, Ali Haider and Muhammad Gulzar by the learned trial court from the charges also merited acceptance. 12. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and with their assistance carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 13. A perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that the whole prosecution case as against the appellants is based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8). The relationship of the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) with the deceased is on record. Anwaar ul Haq (deceased) was the brother of the prosecution witness namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7). The prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) all of them had their residences at a distance from the place of occurrence. The prosecution witness namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7), during cross-examination stated as under:- "Inter-se distance between my house and place of occurrence is about 150 meters. Inter-se distance between house of Maroof PW and place of occurrence is about one kilometer" (emphasis supplied) Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, during cross-examination, stated as under:- "Maximum distance between place of occurrence and house of complainant party is one kilometer. Inter-se distance between house of Mahroof and place of occurrence is about 03 kilometers." (emphasis supplied) In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) can be validly termed as "chance witnesses" and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same. We have noted with grave concern that the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place. The prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW- 7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) had claimed that as the place of occurrence was a shop/office from where the receipt was to be received by prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8), therefore, the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) arrived at the said shop/office on a tractor trolley and were waiting for the receipt to be given and using the said time for playing cards, that the accused

---

## Page 7

arrived at the place of occurrence. A perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) reveals that in fact there was no reason for the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) to have gone to where the occurrence took place. Furthermore, during cross-examination, it was brought on record that prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) had contrived their reason for arrival at the shop/office where the occurrence took place and had not mentioned the same in their earlier statements. Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination, as under:- "It is correct that it is not mentioned in FIR that complainant and witnesses were present in the shop to receive receipt. Complainant and witnesses did not state before me that they used to obtain receipt from the shop of occurrence" Most importantly, the owner of the shop/office namely Ch. Naeem, Contractor, from whom the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) had to receive the receipts and in whose shop/office the alleged occurrence took place, never joined the investigation of the case in support of the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) that they had to receive any receipts from him. Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) during cross-examination, admitted as under:- "We did not produce Ch.Naeem Contractor before Investigating Officer to prove the said that Shahzad was his Munshi." Qamar Sultan, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, also admitted during cross- examination as under:- "Owner of the shop where the occurrence took place is Ch.Naeem Thekedar. It is correct that Ch.Naeem Thekedar did not join the investigation" The prosecution witness namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) also claimed that he had to receive the receipt from one Shahzad alias Shadi Munshi, however, the said Shahzad alias Shadi Munshi also did not appear before the Investigating Officer of the case during the investigation of the case. Then the prosecution witness namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) further claimed that he had already received the receipt from Shahzad alias Shadi Munshi and if he already had, then there was no reason for the presence of prosecution witnesses namely Ikram ul Haq (PW-7) and Muhammad Maroof (PW-8) at the said shop/office. Ikram ul Haq (PW-7), during cross-examination, stated as under:-…

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 2024
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant