Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 4586
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: Muhammad Azam, Shahid Hussain, The State vs The State, etc, JUDGMENT
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 4586. In this matter between Muhammad Azam, Shahid Hussain, The State and The State, etc, 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 2025LHC4586
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Farooq Haider, Ali Zia Bajwa Title:Muhammad Azam, Shahid Hussain, The State vs The State, etc,
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 LHC 4586 Result: Appeal Allowed Judgment
JUDGMENT FAROOQ HAIDER, J.:- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.36927-J/2022 filed by Muhammad Azam (appellant) through jail authorities against his "conviction & sentence", Murder Reference No.145/2022 sent by trial court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Muhammad Azam (appellant) and PSLA No.35019/2022 filed by Shahid Hussain (complainant) against order of acquittal of Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi, as all these matters have arisen out of one and same judgment dated: 16.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur/ trial court. 2. Muhammad Azam (appellant) along with his co-accused persons namely Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi was tried in complaint case titled as "Shahid Hussain versus Muhammad Azam, etc." under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 PPC and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 16.05.2022 while acquitting Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi (aforementioned co-accused persons) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: - Convictions Sentences Under Section: 302(b) PPC"Death" as Taz'ir (for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Altaf Hussain) with payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section: 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months.
---
## Page 2
Under Section: 440 PPCFive Years' Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section: 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant/convict. 3. Brief facts, as per application (Ex.PA) made by Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) to Ibrahim Abid, Assistant Sub-Inspector (CW-2) for registration of the case are that on 12.11.2020 at about 7:30 a.m., accused Meraaj Bibi wife of Muhammad Iqbal made phone call to brother of complainant namely Altaf Hussain and asked him to reach at Chah Mian Sana Ullah Chachhar near Kot Sher Khan Road; complainant alongwith his brother Altaf Hussain, mother Parveen Bibi and father Muhammad Hussain reached at the address given by the accused at 10:00 a.m. on Move Car bearing No.LEA-8765; after sometime accused (1) Muhammad Azam armed with 30-bore pistol whereas accused (2) Muhammad Younis armed with 30 bore pistol suddenly came in front of their vehicle; accused No.1 and 2 bolted their weapons towards the face of Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) whereas co-accused namely Iqbal and Mudassar while raising lalkara asked accused No.1 and 2 to kill him upon which complainant, his mother and father came out of the vehicle and beseeched the accused persons but accused persons ignored their request; accused No.1 while standing in front of the vehicle fired straight shot at Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) who was sitting on the driving seat of the vehicle which hit on his head while passing through front screen of vehicle; after that accused No.2 fired shot with his pistol upon brother of complainant which hit at his head while passing through the screen of the vehicle due to which brain came out from the head of his brother and blood started oozing; Altaf Hussain brother of the complainant became unconscious on the seat of car; accused persons Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Younis made firing upon the witnesses who luckily saved but one fire shot hit at tyre of vehicle; upon hue and cry of witnesses, accused persons while making aerial firing and brandishing their weapons fled away from the spot; brother of the complainant was taken to RHC Baseerpur in unconscious condition; the doctor after treatment referred him to DHQ, Hospital Okara where after first aid, he was referred to General Hospital, Lahore and on the way to General Hospital near Manga Mandi, brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. It is relevant to mention here that motive is not mentioned in the application for registration of case, however, it is mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PF) that Muhammad Azam (accused, who is cousin of the complainant) alongwith other co-accused persons abducted sister of the complainant namely Umm-e-Zainab. The complainant party did not take legal action for the sake of honour, however, they used to demand return of their sister through brotherhood, Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) uttered abuses to accused Azam on telephone and exchanged hot words and due to that grudge accused persons in connivance with one another has murdered brother of the complainant. On the basis of aforementioned application of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) case was registered vide F.I.R. No.707/2020 (Ex.CW-2/A) dated: 12.11.2020 under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 PPC at Police Station: Baseerpur, District Okara, however, being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the local police, complainant filed "complaint" (Ex.PF) against Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 PPC. Muhammad Azam (appellant) alongwith Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassir, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi (since acquitted co-accused) were summoned by the trial court to face the trial, they were formally charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; complainant produced as many as two witnesses to prove the charge against the accused whereas ten witnesses were examined by the trial court as Court Witnesses; after recording of evidence, appellant was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. but he refuted the allegations levelled
---
## Page 3
against him; he did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however produced documents in his defence. Trial court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through the impugned judgment dated: 16.05.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that convictions recorded against and sentences awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' and result of non-reading/ misreading of evidence, therefore, same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 5. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of instant appeal; learned counsel for the complainant in support of PSLA (mentioned above) against the order of acquittal of Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassir, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi submits that said order of acquittal is against the law and facts of the case and also result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence in this case took place at 10:00 a.m. on 12.11.2020, however, application for registration of F.I.R. (Ex.PA) was filed on 12.11.2020 at 7:20 p.m. and on the basis of said application, F.I.R. (Ex.CW-2/A) was recorded at 7:20 p.m. on 12.11.2020. Though it is mentioned in application (Ex.PA) that after the occurrence, Altaf Hussain (deceased of the case) was taken to RHC Baseerpur in unconscious condition where Doctor after medical treatment referred him to DHQ Hospital, Okara wherefrom after providing first aid he was referred to Lahore General Hospital and when complainant was taking his brother to Lahore General Hospital, he expired near Manga Mandi but neither any Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of Altaf Hussain issued from RHC Baseerpur nor any Emergency Admission Register of RHC Baseerpur was brought on the record by the prosecution so much so any record showing medical treatment of Altaf Hussain in RHC Baseerpur is also not available on the record; any record to show that Altaf Hussain was referred from RHC Baseerpur to DHQ Hospital, Okara has also not been brought on the record; record about provision of any first aid to Altaf Hussain in DHQ Hospital, Okara has not been produced; similarly, any referral slip to show that Altaf Hussain was referred to General Hospital, Lahore is also not available on the record, therefore, any plausible reason to justify delay in registration of the case has not been brought on the record by the prosecution, hence, there is unexplained delay in registration of the case which reflects that none of the cited eyewitnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence. First Information Report (crime report), which is cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, cannot be termed as promptly recorded and such sort of FIR cannot provide any support to the case of prosecution rather superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR is bound to fall. It is well settled that when there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Mst. ASIA BIBI versus The STATE and others" (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64); relevant portion from paragraph No.29 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "There is no cavil to the proposition, however, it is to be noted that in absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always considered the delay in lodging of FIR to be fatal and castes a suspicion on the prosecution story, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. It has been held by this Court that a FIR is always treated as a cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those involved in a crime; thus, it has a significant role to play. If there is any delay in lodging of a FIR and commencement of investigation, it gives rise to a doubt, which, of course, cannot be extended to anyone else except to the accused..."
---
## Page 4
Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 13.11.2020 at 01:40 a.m. and it is also relevant to mention here that documents were also received from the police at 1:30 a.m. on 13.11.2020 which fact leads to the conclusion that documents were not ready, time was consumed by the prosecution for preparing the same, therefore, postmortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased with delay, which further shows that F.I.R. was even not recorded at the stated time rather with much delay, however, anti-time has been shown in the record which negates presence/availability of cited eyewitnesses including the complainant at the time and place of occurrence; in this regard, cases of "HAROON SHAFIQUE versus The STATE and others"(2018 SCMR 2118), "MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias FEEQA versus The STATE" (2019 SCMR 1068), "SUFYAN NAWAZ and another versus The STATE and others" (2020 SCMR 192) and "MUHAMMAD ADNAN and another versus The STATE and others" (2021 SCMR 16) can be safely referred. It goes without saying that application was moved by Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (CW-9) of Police Station: Baseerpur to Medical Officer, RHC Baseerpur for having permission to record the statement of Altaf Hussain which is Ex.DB and copy of the same is available at Page No.176 of the Paper Book which is hereby scanned below:- Perusal of aforementioned application reveals that Altaf Hussain was brought to RHC Baseerpur under supervision of Liaqat Ali 1457/C and it was mentioned by the Medical Officer on the said application that victim was brought in emergency at RHC Baseerpur at about 11:30 a.m. on 12.11.2020, meaning thereby that police was having the knowledge of occurrence at least at 11:30 a.m. or prior to that but even then case was not registered till then for which any reason appealing to the common prudent mind has not come on the record which reflects deliberation, consultation and procuring as well as inducing the witnesses on part of the prosecution and tailoring story for registration of the case on the one hand whereas negation of presence of cited eyewitnesses including the complainant on the other hand. Ocular account in this case comprises of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) and Muhammad Hussain (PW-2). They both were neither resident of the place of occurrence nor were having any job/business place there, therefore were chance witnesses and it was necessary for them to establish valid reason regarding their presence at the time and place of occurrence; relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) in this regard is hereby reproduced:- "I alongwith my brother Altaf Hussain deceased, my mother Perveen and father Muhammad Hussain are resident of village Chak Kamboh. Chak Kamboh is situated at a distance of 12-km from the place of occurrence." It is also important to mention here that it was not mentioned in the application (Ex.PA) that why Meraaj Bibi called Altaf Hussain through phone to come at Chah Mian Sana Ullah Chachhar near Kot Sher Khan Road and any motive for the occurrence was also not mentioned in said application (Ex.PA), however, dishonest improvement in this regard was made by the very same complainant Shahid Hussain (PW-1) when he filed complaint regarding the occurrence (Ex.PF) wherein he mentioned that Meraaj Bibi made phone call to Altaf Hussain and summoned him for taking Umm- eZainab (sister of Altaf Hussain) who was abducted by Muhammad Azam (accused) alongwith others and motive was also mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PF) that Muhammad Azam (accused) alongwith others abducted Umme-Zainab (sister of the complainant) on 01.10.2020, Altaf Hussain uttered abuses to Azam (accused) on telephone, exchange of hot words took place and due to said grudge accused persons while deceitfully calling Altaf Hussain committed his murder. However, it is relevant to mention here that neither any phone of Meraaj Bibi was recovered during investigation of the case nor even produced during trial of the case so much so said Umm-e- Zainab was also not produced during trial of the case; relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) is hereby reproduced:-
---
## Page 5
"No mobile phone was affected from Mst. Miraj Bibi" Even allegation levelled by the complainant that Meraaj Bibi summoned Altaf Hussain through phone was found false during investigation of the case; relevant portions of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) are hereby reproduced:- "The allegations levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. that Miraj Bibi present in the court summoned Altaf Hussain deceased telephonically found false in my investigation." "During my investigation it was surface of the record that according to CDRs reports that Miraj Bibi did not make any call to Altaf Hussain deceased." Therefore, said aspect could not be proved during trial of the case, hence the very alleged cause regarding going of complainant and other cited eyewitnesses with Altaf Hussain (deceased of the case) to the place of occurrence could not be established; any document i.e. MLC or referral slip or medical treatment chart or death certificate to show that complainant or any other cited eyewitness was accompanying Altaf Hussain when he was taken in injured condition to hospital was not brought on the record; application for registration of the case was even recorded after thoroughly inspecting the dead body, relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "Firstly I.O. inspected the dead body thoroughly and thereafter I got drafted application Ex.PA. The dead body handed over to us after autopsy at 04:00 a.m. on the following day i.e. 13.11.2020 at Police Station Basirpur but I do not know exactly the time of conducting Post mortem examination by the Doctor." It was case of prosecution that Altaf Hussain was shifted in injured condition to RHC Baseerpur from where to DHQ Hospital, Okara and from there he was taken to General Hospital, Lahore but any cloth of cited eyewitnesses or complainant smeared with blood of Altaf Hussain has not been produced during trial of the case. It is very much important to mention here that version of complainant was not verified by any person who is resident of the vicinity; relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that none from the vicinity verified our version put forth by me in the F.I.R. during the course of investigation." Moreover version of complainant party that they went to get custody of Umm-e-Zainab was found as dishonest improvement and in this regard relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "I had got recorded in my application Ex.PA that "to get the custody of my sister Zainab Bibi as she was abducted by accused Muhammad Azam etc. prior to the occurrence" confronted with Ex.DA where it is not so recorded." Furthermore, motive introduced by the prosecution during trial of the case was also found as dishonest improvement and relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "I had not got recorded in my application Ex.PA which I got recorded in my examination in chief "motive behind the occurrence is that accused Muhammad Azam had abducted my sister Zainab Bibi some days prior to the occurrence alongwith his companions and my brother had abused Muhammad Azam due to which they committed the murder of my brother Altaf Hussain." By now it is well settled that witness who introduces dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, cannot be relied; in this regard, case of "MUHAMMAD ARIF versus The STATE" (2019 SCMR 631) and "KHALID MEHMOOD and another versus The STATE and others" (2021 SCMR 810) can be advantageously referred. It was not brought on the record that in whose presence Altaf Hussain uttered abuses to Muhammad Azam accused (now appellant) and in whose presence altercation took place
---
## Page 6
between them, so this claim of prosecution also could not be proved. Thus motive could not be established. Now when stated cause of going complainant and cited eyewitnesses including the complainant with Altaf Hussain (deceased of the case) to the place of occurrence i.e. summoning on phone call by Meraaj Bibi could not be established and even any abuse uttered by Altaf Hussain to Muhammad Azam (accused) or any altercation took place between them also could not be established then it can safely be said that if reason for the occurrence was abduction of Umm-e- Zainab by Muhammad Azam (accused) alongwith others then it could have been the reason for the complainant party to murder Muhammad Azam (accused) and not for Muhammad Azam (accused) to murder them and in such state of affairs if for the sake of arguments, it is considered as the reason for the occurrence then this reason was also for killing the complainant who was brother of Umm-e-Zainab, Muhammad Hussain (PW-2) who was father of Umm-e-Zainab and Perveen Bibi who was mother of Umm-e-Zainab but they remained unhurt which also raises eyebrows regarding prosecution version. Any case was not registered regarding abduction of Umm-e-Zainab; relevant portions of statement of Muhammad Hussain (PW-2) in this regard are hereby reproduced:- "I did not get register criminal case regarding abduction of my daughter Umm-e-Zainab. Witness volunteered that due to intervention of Bradari I did not get register criminal case against the accused." "It is correct that we had not mentioned the persons of my brotherhood who allegedly intervene for non-registration of F.I.R. regarding the abduction of Umm-e-Zainab as witness in this private complaint as well as in the F.I.R. case. We did not produce the aforesaid person of my brotherhood in order to verify my stance which is stated by me today in the court." Furthermore, Muhammad Hussain (PW-2) also introduced dishonest improvements; relevant portions of statement of Muhammad Hussain (PW-2) in this regard are hereby reproduced:- "I had stated before the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that "to take his siter Zainab Bibi from Chah Mian Sanaullah Chachhar, near Kot Sher Khan road" confronted with Ex.DA where it is not recorded from portion A to A." "I had stated before the I.O. in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that motive behind the occurrence was that accused Muhammad Azam present in the court abducted my daughter Zainab Bibi some days prior to the occurrence aongwith his companions and my son abused Muhammad Azam accused due to which they committed the murder of my son Altaf Hussain confronted with Ex.DA where it is not so recorded from portion B to B." As per column No.8 of Inquest Report, eyes of the deceased were open; relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (CW-9) is hereby reproduced:- "I have mentioned in column No.8 of the inquest report the eyes of the deceased were opened." and it is worth-mentioning here that Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) clearly stated before the court that presence of complainant and other cited eyewitnesses was not verified by residents of the place of occurrence and in this regard relevant portions of his statement are hereby reproduced:- "During my first visit of place of occurrence the people of the vicinity joined the investigation and I recorded their statement in "Duryaft". Mian Sana Ullah Chachar the owner of the GEO service station joined the investigation and I got recorded the statement of Mian Sana Ullah Chachar. It was the version of the aforesaid Mian Sana Ullah Chachar that at the time of occurrence he alongwith employees/servants were present at his GEO service station. He further stated that one girl while making cell phone call came towards home and thereafter returned back on several time. It was the version of Mian Sana Ullah Chachar that the main who was sitting at a driving seat became injured and one of them (Mian Sana Ullah Chachar) called the workers of rescue 1122. He
---
## Page 7
further stated that rescue 1122 came at the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital. It is correct that the aforesaid Mian Sana Ullah Chachar did not disclose the presence of Shahid Hussain complainant Parveen Bibi and Muhammad Hussain PWs at the time of occurrence with Altaf Hussain the then deceased." "On the same day, the persons who joined the investigation alongwith Mian Sana Ullah Chachar namely Mian Ghulam Mohiodeen Chachar, Haider Ali, Syed Muhammad Ameen s/o Syed Muhammad Altaf Hussain Shah and Shoukat Ali also joined the investigation and corroborated the statements of the above mentioned Mian Sana Ullah Chachar." "It is correct that the above mentioned independent respectables did not disclose the presence of Muhammad Shahid Hussain complainant alongwith Parveen Bibi and Muhammad Hussain PWs at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence." Furthermore, role alleged against Muhammad Younis (co-accused) that he made firearm shot and caused injury to the deceased was not proved during investigation; relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) is hereby reproduced:- "I challaned Muhammad Younis accused to the extent of mere presence at the place of occurrence. No recovery was affected from Muhammad Younis accused." It is relevant to mention here that Muhammad Younis (co-accused) against whom allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased was levelled on the basis of same set of evidence and same circumstances, he has been acquitted. In view of above discussed facts, ocular account produced by the prosecution in this case is neither confidence inspiring nor reliable, hence same is hereby discarded. Medical evidence in this case was produced by Dr. Saif Ullah, Medical Officer (CW-7). As per site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.CW-4/A), Muhammad Azam (present appellant) fired shot with pistol 30-bore at Altaf Hussain from a distance of four feet, if length of his arm and barrel of pistol is deducted from said distance, then from the remaining distance there should have been at least blackening at the wound of the deceased but it was not observed. Any MLC, referral slip from RHC, Baseerpur or DHQ Hospital, Okara was not produced by the prosecution (as detailed above) and it was mere version of the prosecution; relevant portion of statement of Dr. Saif Ullah, Medical Officer (CW-7) is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that it is no MLC case. There is no referring letter from RHC Basirpur or from DHQ Hospital, Okara for further referring to LGH Lahore. The witness…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.