Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAHIR SARWAR alias SHAHAB and others VS Respondent: THE STATE and others
Court Name: Federal Shariat Court Judge(s): Haziqul Khairi, Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan And Salahuddin Mirza Title: TAHIR SARWAR alias SHAHAB and others vs THE STATE and others Case No.:Criminal Appeals Nos.287/L, 291/L, 300/L, 331/L Criminal Revision No,110/L of
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2007 P Cr. L J 1682 Result: Appeals accepted Judgment JUDGMENT ' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, C.J.--- The charge against accused persons namely Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab, Usman Khalid, Saif-ur-Rehman, Khalid Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Hafiz-ur-Rehman Yasir was framed under sections 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 302/34, 302/109 and 201/34, P.P.C. By the learned Sessions judge, Sheikhupura who convicted and sentenced Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab, Usman Khalid and Saif-ur-Rehman as under:-- (1) Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab "He is convicted under section 302(b) read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death with compensation of {{WORDS CUTS}} Rs.1,00,000 (one deceased unde would further ees only) payable to the legal heirs of 544-A, Cr.P.C. In case of default he S.I. For 6 months." (2) Usman Khalid "He is convicted section 302(b) read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentence o life imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac Rupees only) payable to the legal heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In case of default he would further undergo S.I. For 6 months. He is given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C." (3) Saif-ur-Rehman "He is also convicted under section 302(b) read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac rupees only) payable to the legal heirs of
---
## Page 2
deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In case of default, he would further undergo S.I. For 6 months. He is also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C." ' Accused Khalid Rehman, Muhammad Afzal-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Hafiz-ur-Rehman were not found guilty. 2. The said convicts have preferred appeals against the impugned judgment, dated 6-9-2004 hearing Criminal Appeals No,300/L of 2004 filed by Usman Khalid, Criminal Appeal No,291/L of 2004 by Saif-urRehman and Criminal Appeal No,287/L of 2004 by Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab whereas the State filed Criminal Murder Reference No,2/L of 2005 against appellant Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab and the complainant had filed Criminal Revision No,110/L of 2004 for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Appeal No,331/L of 2004 for conviction of acquitted accused Hafeez-ur-Rehman Yasir. 3. The prosecution case as borne out from the impugned judgment is that one Azmatullah S.-I. Reported that on 11-9-2002 the complainant Ghulam Mustafa recorded a statement before him that his daughter Mst. Ambreen aged about 16 years was a student of 2nd year in Government College for Women Sheikhupura and on 9-9-2002 she left for the College but did not come back. While he was looking for her, P.Ws. Aamer Ashraf son of Muhammad Ashraf and Javed Iqbal son of Muhammad Latif informed him on the road that Khalid Ahmed son of Siraj Din and one Saleem (also known as Muhammad Afzal-ur-Rehman) had abducted his daughter in a car and went towards the City side. The complainant alleged that both the accused with common intention had abducted his daughter Mst. Ambreen for the purpose of Zina. He, therefore, requested for her recovery from them. 4. The case was registered. During the investigation Khalid Ahmed accused was arrested and other suspects Muhammad Saeed etc. Were joined in the investigation. It was revealed that Mst. Ambreen had illicit relations with appellant Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab who was arrested on 29-4- 2003. After getting his physical remand a request was made by the police for sending him into the judicial lock-up, however, on the request of the complainant Mustafa in writing he was discharged by the learned Magistrate. 5. Appellants were charged under section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Htidood) Ordinance, 1979 and sections 302/34, 303/109 and 201/34, P.P.C. They denied the charges hence their trial. 6. The case was reopened on 14-4-2004 on the directions of Supreme Court, when the I.-G. Punjab, constituted an investigation Team consisting of D.I.-G. (Investigation) Punjab, Ch. Munir Ahmed, S.P. (Investigation) Punjab, Tariq Abbas Qureshi S.P. (Investigation), Sheikhupura and Parvez Qandhari D.S.P. (Investigation), Punjab. During the re-investigation by the said team. P.W.17 Ghulam Mustafa complainant and P.W.18 Javed Iqbal appeared before the police and stated that on 22-5-2004 at 5-00 p.m. While they were present in their house appellants Tahir Sarwar alias Shahab and Usman Khalid came to meet them and were taken to the dinning room where one by one both of them made extra-judicial confession of murder of Mst. Ambreen stating that on 9-9-2002 they had taken Mst. Ambreen to Lahore where they stayed in Dream Hotel near Railway Station Lahore for a night. Next day on 10-9-2002 appellant Tahir Sarwar summoned appellant Saif-urRehman and in his car they went to house of Hafiz-ur-Rehman Yasir accused situated in the Housing Colony, Sheikhupura where they murdered Mst. Ambreen by administering poison to her. Her dead body was thrown into the Q.B. Link Canal near Bhikhi as Mst. Ambreen had become pregnant and family members of appellant Tahir Sarwar were not agreeable for his marriage with her. Both confessed that they had committed major sin and requested for their apology. In view of the said extra- judicial confession the police arrested appellants Tahir Sarwar, Usman Khalid' on 27/28-5-2004 and also appellant Saif-urRehman who was also implicated in the murder of Mst. Ambreen by them. 7. The appellants or any one of them led the police party to Dream Hotel, Lahore, to the house of Hafiz-ur-Rehman Yasir in Housing Colony Sheikhupura and to Q.B. Link Canal. During investigation
---
## Page 3
recoveries of golden ornaments, bed sheets, Love letters and mattress, hotel record, poisonous material etc. Were made by the police. 8. The appellants denied the charges against them and demanded trial in which as many as 27 prosecution witnesses were produced before, the trial Court. 9. P.W.17 Ghulam Mustafa, father of the deceased Ambreen and complainant in his deposition had further stated that on 11-9-2002, two days after her abduction, he came to know that his daughter was handed over by Muhammad Afzal (who was also known as Saleem) to his nephew appellant Tahir Sarwar. Afterwards Ghulam Sarwar and Javed, the two brothers of Afzal alias Saleem accused, came to him and told him that they knew the whereabouts of his daughter and offered to pay him Rs.10,00,000 and also to take the hand of his daughter in marriage with appellant Tahir Sarwar provided he withdrew the case against him. He accordingly, exonerated appellant Tahir Sarwar of the crime and he was discharged. However, they did not keep up their compromise and his daughter was not returned as agreed. On 25-8-2003, Ghulam Sarwar, Javed and three unknown persons had physically tortured him and P.W.18 Javed. However, after reopening of the case, appellants Tahir Sarwar and appellant Usman Khalid came to his house on 22-5-2004 and made confession of their guilt which in his words is as follows:- "On 22-5-2004 myself, my relative Javed and other ,family members were conversing with each other while sitting in our house. Tahir Sarwar accused and Usman accused came there. Tahir Sarwar accused stated to me that he wanted to tell me something, separately. Myself and Javed had taken Tahir Sarwar to dinning room of our house. He stated before us that on 9-9-2002 he along with Usman accused had abducted Mst. Ambreen and taken her to Dream Hotel, Lahore. He stated before us that in the Hotel Ambreen informed him that she was pregnant because of his intercourse and she wanted to marry him. Tahir Sarwar also stated before us that on 10-9-2002 she have summoned Saif-ur-Rehman accused along with his car. He also stated before us that Mst. Ambreen was brought to house of ' Yasir accused situated in Housing Colony, Sheikhupura in the aforesaid car by Tahir Sarwar, Usman and Saif-ur-Rehman accused. He also stated' that in the aforesaid house she was administered a poison and murdered by them. He also stated that they had thrown away the dead body in the canal. He apologized after making the aforesaid statement. ' Thereafter, Tahir Sarwar left the room and Usman accused came to us. He stated before us that he along with Tahir Sarwar and Said-ur-Rehman accused had administered poison and murdered Mst. Ambreen and her dead body was thrown away in the canal. He also corroborated the statement made before us by Tahir Sarwar accused. We became infuriated but accused pergons ran away. I stated the aforesaid facts to the police on the night." 10. It was admitted by P. W.17 Ghulam Mustafa that after passage of 1-1/2 years of registration of case under section 506, P.P.C. Appellants Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid made the confession. He made no effort to hold them up when besides P.W.18 Javed a number of other persons were also present in the house. He also did not call telephone No,15 for police assistance. There was police post within the Housing Colony, Sheikhupura so also at Chowk Peer Bahar Shah where traffic flows around the clock. A police station is also located on the roadside between village Bhikhi and Bridge of Bhikhi canal. No one from public was associated either at the house of Yasir in Housing Colony Sheikhupura or at the Bhikhi Canal or at the time of recoveries. 11. Similar confession was made by appellants Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid in terms of form, contents and substance before P.W.18 Javed Iqbal, the maternal-uncle of Mst. Ambreen in the house of P.W.17. In cross-examination he stated that he did not utter any words during the conversation with them nor did he inform the police on telephone to arrest them nor they made any attempt to apprehend any of them. He however, recorded his statement before police after the confession of the appellants at 8-00 p.m. At the police station (confronted with Exh.D.K. Where there
---
## Page 4
is no mention of the time and police station). He stated before the police that they had taken appellant Tahir Sarwar to the dinning room. (confronted with Exh.D.K. There is no mention of the word dinning). He stated before the police that appellant Tahir Sarwar also stated that Mst. Ambreen was taken to Housing Colony by him and Saif-ur-Rehman accused. (confronted with Exh.D.K. Where it is not so recorded). Similarly, he stated before police that they had thrown her dead body into the canal at the Bridge on Faisalabad Road. (confronted with Exh.D.K. There is no mention of words "bridge on Faisalabad Road"). He admitted that no person from the adjoining area of the bridge was joined with the investigation of this case. He further stated that the Faisalabad-Sheikhupura Road is very busy road and the transport at all times ply over there around the clock. House of Yasir accused is situated within area of Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura. He had not taken any police official from Police Station Saddar when he visited the house of Yasir. Nobody from the surrounding area of Police Station "A" Division Canal Department or Rest House was associated with the investigation. In his presence a sample of the poison (seem- ulfer) was obtained from the shop of P.W.5. Tahir Rafiq and kept in a sealed parcel. Being an eye- witness to the abduction of Mst. Ambreen outside the college, he stated that after the occurrence on 9-9-2002 he had chased Muhammad Khalid and Afzal (Saleem) along with P.W. Aamir Ashraf (husband of his sister) firstly on foot and then hired a rickshaw. However, on their failure to do so they did not go to police station but informed Ghulam Mustafa, complainant on the road. According to him Afzal is uncle of Tahir Sarwar and is also known as Saleem. 12. P.W.19 Aamer Ashraf in his testimony had stated that he was a witness to abduction of Mst. Ambreen and informed Ghulam Mustafa the father P.W.17. He chased the abductors of Mst. Ambreen but failed to catch them. He was residing with the complainant Ghulam Mustafa for the last 11/12 years and made statement before the police on 11-9-2002 on the third day of abduction. He admitted that his mother is real sister of Mst. Mussrat P.W.16 mother of deceased Ambreen. He neither had residence nor any business nor any concern near the place of occurrence. 13. P.W.20 Jamshecl Ali Khan was a class-fellow of appellant Tahir Sarwar from class 3rd to 7th and also studied with him in Fazl-e-Haq College Mardan and worked in the hostel of the college together. On 7-9-2002 on the invitation of appellant Tahir Sarwar he along with his friend Bilal proceeded from Peshawar to Lahore where he had booked room No,141 in Dream Hotel for them. On 8-9-2002 the appellant Tahir Sarwar and Usman went to Sheikhupura but the next day appellant Tahir Sarwar came back to the hotel along with Mst. Ambreen. He booked another room No,144 in the hotel where he along with Mst. Ambreen stayed. On 10-9-2002 at about 10-30 a.m. Appellant Saif-urRehman who is a friend of appellant Tahir Sarwar came there with his car and all of them proceeded to Sheikhupura in the car. On the way all stopped at Shandara where Mst. Ambreen went inside a P.C.O. And made a call. Afterwards they again proceeded towards Sheikhupura and took him and Bilal to the house of Tahir where they stayed till the next day. In his cross-examination he stated that some members of his family were in police service, judiciary and some were members, of Parliament. ' Waqar Khan, A.S.P., is his relation who during investigation of this case was posted at Sheikhupura. Inspector Bhatti had approached him for joining with the investigation of the case and had given him details of the case. He, had made a statement before the police that appellant Tahir Sarwar had booked one room for him and his friend on 8-9-2002 (confronted with Exh.D.D. Booking by Tahir Sarwar is not mentioned). Again it was stated that the 2nd room of the hotel was booked by appellant Tahir Sarwar (confronted with Exh.D.D., the name of Tahir Sarwar is not there). Similarly he deposed that he had stated before the police that appellant Tahir Sarwar informed.Him that he would come back after leaving others in a house of a friend (confronted with Exh.D.D. The house of his friend is not mentioned).
---
## Page 5
14. P.W.5 Babar Rafique (Pansar) stated that on 27-5-2004 police came to him. There was no one from public with them. They demanded sample Seem-ulfar which he handed over to them. He was declared a hostile witness. He admitted in cross-examination to D.A. That appellant Saif-ur- Rehman is the son of his wife's sister. 15. P.W.6 Muhammad Ramzan a taxi owner denied that no one had hired his car/taxi used in the case whereupon he was declared hostile by the prosecution as he had resiled from his statement before police. In cross-examination to D.A. He denied that two years back a Toyota Corolla 2-D Registration No,9739/LOU was in his use. He voluntarily stated that he had been driving car for the past 5/6 months only. He denied that on 29-5-2004 appellant Saif-ur-Rehman came to his Dera in police custody and stated that he had taken the aforesaid car from him on 10-9-2002. He voluntarily stated that one S.-I. And two constables came to him to taxi stand and directed him to come to the police station along with the car on 29-5-2004. He also denied that on the pointation of appellantSaif-ur-Rehman the police had taken the possession of the said car from his custody from the taxi stand. Similarly it was also incorrect that memo. Of recovery of car Exh.P.G. Was signed by him. He also denied that he made any application for Supardgi of the aforesaid car or filed any application or recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. He however, admitted that Exh.P.H. Bears his signature, which was obtained on blank papers. 16. P.W.10 Farhan deposed that he is owner of- P.C.O. Outside Dream Hotel, Lahore. He did not know who had made a call from his P.C.O. On 9-9-2002. He admitted that on 28-6-2004 the police had brought appellant Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid to his P.C.O. And showed him the telephone bill of his P.C.O. Which was identified by him. Except the said bill police had not shown him anything else. He was also declared hostile witness as he had resiled from his previous statement. During cross-examination he stated voluntarily that the appellants were not known to him prior to 28-6- 2004. He also did not remember if some girl was with them. He expressed his ignorance if the girl whose photograph (Exh.P.M.) was with the accused persons. He denied that any identification parade was made in this case. 17. P W.14 Muhammad Imtiaz stated that he had installed P.C.O. Near Darbar Allah Hu, Sheikhupura Road Shandara Lahore in 2001. He did not identify any of the accused present in the Court who made call from his P.C.O. He voluntarily stated that a lady was working at his P.C.O. Whereas he was busy in his scarp business at Misri Shah, Lahore. He was also declared hostile as he had resiled from his previous statement. He denied that on 28-5-2004 police had brought Saif-urRehman accused to him at the said P.C.O. And that in his presence he pointed out that on 10-9-2002 he along with appellants Tahar Sarwar. Usman Khalid and Mst. Ambreen had come there for a telephone call. He also denied that Mst. Ambreen had conversation with her mother on telephone No,04931-610764. He denied having attested memo. Exh.P.C. Or Exh.P.R. 18. P.W.15 Ijaz Masih the Manager of Dream Hotel near Railway Station Lahore deposed that on 8-9- 2002 one Jamshed came to the hotel and booked Room No,141. The next day viz. 9-9-2002 at 10-00 a.m. Appellants Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid came to the hotel and booked Room No,144. On 10- 9-2002 at about 11-00' p.m. The said person vacated both the rooms. There was a girl with them who resembled with the photograph Exh.P.M. But she was not wearing any spectacles. Thereafter, about 1-3/4 months back police came to the hotel and asked for the hotel record of September, 2002. Again the police came the same day accompanied by appellant Saif-ur-Rehman and took possession of original hotel record and got his signature on 2/3 papers vide memo. Exh.P.S. However, receipt of Exh.P.S./7 did not bear his signature nor it was signed by the accused in his presence. On 2-6-2004 the police along with appellants Tahir Sarwar and Khalil visited the hotel. In cross-examination he stated that as a Manager of the hotel he does not directly deal with the customers. The office record was written and signed by Khuram Shahzad. Salainat and Madam
---
## Page 6
Nazia (not produced), night sheet, were neither signed by customer nor signed or stamped by Excise Department. Except Jamshed no other person is mentioned in hotel record. 19. 19. P. W.16 Mst. Musarrat Bibi is the mother of deceased Mst. Ambreen. She stated that on 9-9-2002 her daughter Mst. Ambreen was abducted. She was told on telephone by her that she was with Saleem and they were going abroad and getting married. On the next day Saleem told her from Lahore Airport that he and Ambreen were getting married and were going abroad. At the time of abduction, she was, wearing gold locket with chain, gold earnings, another gold chain and one ring. She had put on black clothes. She identified ring P.2 and a pair of earrings P.3/1-2 as belongings to her daughter. She also identified locket with chain P.4 and one separate chain P.5 vide memo. Exh.P.W. P.W. Javed Iqbal is her brother. The telephone call for her came in the house her neighbour of Sheikh Abdul Wadood in the evening time. She admitted that the ornaments present in the Court were of common pattern available in the market. She also stated before the Investigating Officer that she identified the shoe of her daughter. 20. The prosecution had examined 4 Police Officers namely P.W.21 Iftikhar Hussain S.-I. P.W.22 Abdul Rashee'd S.-I. P.W.23 Muhammad Arshad Inspector, Incharge Investigation, Saddar Sheikhupura. P.W.24 Muhammad Anwar S.-I. Crime Branch, Lahore who individually and jointly carried out the investigation of the case. 21. P.W.21 had arrested appellant Saif-ur-Rehman and Hafiz-urRehman on- 29-5-2000 and on their disclosure recorded statement of. Ejaz Masih owner and manager of Dream Hotel from where the record of the hotel was taken into possession. Recovery of seem-ulfar (poison) was also made at the instance of appellant Saif-ur-Rehman so also he led the Police Officer to the House No,X-162 Housing Colony Sheikhupura and to the place at bridge Bhikhi of Q.B. Link Canal where dead body, of Mst. Ambreen was thrown to car p.1 taxi Stand Sheikhupura. 22. P.W.22 Abdul Rasheed S.-I. Had arrested appellant Usman Khalid on 29-5-2004 who led him to the house of murder and to the shop of Tahir Rafiq Pansari P.W.S. He made recoveries of ornaments. He admitted that he neither recorded any case dated 25-5-2004 nor 27-5-2005 nor his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded in the case. He had not written case number on the mattress and Chadar. He had not reported his arrival and departure in the case diary. Similarly he had not given information at Nolakha Police Station about his arrival and departure from the said police station. 23. P.W.23 Muhammad Arshad Inspector, Incharge. Investigation, Sadar, Sheikhupura took into possesion the record of the hotel, prepared memo., recorded statement of Eijaz Masih and Iftikhar Hussain S.-I. Appellant Tahar Sarwar led him to the house in Sheikhupura owned by the father of Yasin accused to bridge of Bhikhi Canal and to the place from where the dead body of Mst. Ambreen was thrown into the canal. He recovered pair of Kantey and one finger ring from his room at Shami Road Sheikhupura and shoe of Mst. Ambreen from the canal. He also took him to taxi stand but the car could not be recovered. The names of appellants Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid were not mentioned in the night sheets of the hotel record. He also did not incorporate these proceedings in the Roznamcha diary of Police Station Bhikhi. He had also not reported at Police Station Nolakha, Lahore while going to Dream Hotel and after returning from there. 24. P.W.24 Muhammad Anwar S.-I. Crime Branch Punjab, Lahore stated that on 5-5-2004, he joined the investigation team of this case. This case remained under investigation from 11-9-2002 till 4-5- 2004. There is no mention of the name of any girl in memo.. Exh.P.BB. He had read out letter Exh.P.AA. At the time of its taking into possession. The said letter did not contain date, month and year. 25. P.W.25 Iftikhar Hussain Cheema, Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura stated that till 24- 5-2004 there was no incriminating material against the appellants. He did not endorse on Exh.P.W.25/1-9 and is not sure whether the appellant Tahir Sarwar himself had written on it or not.
---
## Page 7
He cannot say if the letter Exh.P.AA. Was on the file at that time. The specimen of handwriting was not sealed in his presence. He had not appended any certificate on document Exh.P.W.25/10-18. The specimen signatures aforesaid were not sealed in his presence. 26. P.W.26 Muhammad Bashir Qureshi, Examiner of questioned documents Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore stated that he was of the opinion that the writings on letter Exh.P.AA. Bore identical characteristic with the corresponding specimen writings of Muhammad Tahir alias Shahab on sheets Exh.P.W.25/1-9. He was of the opinion that the disputed English signature on Exh.P.S/7 bore identical characteristic with present sets of specimen/routine signatures on Exh.P.W.25/10-18. Exh.P.W. 26/Mark 1-3, P.14 and P.15. The letter contained no date, month and year. Letter Exh.P.AA. Did not contain signatures of anybody. He had not given reason in respect of his opinion on Exh. P . W . 26/1. 27. According to the District Attorney, P.W. Wajeeb-ulHassan, S.-I. Was won-over by the accused persons. Ten Police Officers were given up by him as unnecessary whereas P.W.5 Babar Rafique (Pansari); P.W.6, Muhammad Ramzan owner of Taxi/car and P.W.10 Farhan (owner of P.C.O.) were declared as hostile witnesses during the proceedings by the prosecution. The complainant also gave up P.Ws. Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Saleem as they were won- over by the accused persons. 28. The appellants were examined by the learned trial Judge under section 342, Cr.P.C. And they denied die allegations. However, appellant Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid undertook to adduce evidence 'in their defence but they failed to do so. 29. The prosecution case revolves around circumstantial evidence coupled with extra-judicial confession of appellants Tahir Sarwar and Usman Khalid. The story of the prosecution starts with love letters exchanged between…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.