Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4353
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: MUHAMMAD JAVED vs THE STATE ETC.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4353. In this matter between MUHAMMAD JAVED and THE STATE ETC., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram) DECISION DATE: 22-04-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 494-24 ============================================================ .Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 (The State Vs. Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida)
Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 (Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida Vs. The State and another.)
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 22.04.2026. Appellant by: Mr. Zeeshan Haider, Advocate. State by: Mr. Muhammad Riaz, Deputy Prosecutor General.
SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. – Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) was tried alongwith Muhammad Sajjad alias Gunna,Muhammad Tariq,Muhammad Asif,Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar (since acquitted), the co -accused of the convict ,by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca in the case F.I.R. No. 140 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021 registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran in respect of offences under sections 302 ,324,427,337-A (iii),337-A(vi),337-F(i),337- F(iii),337-F(v)337-D, 114, 148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Bilal (deceased),Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Ghulam Mustafa (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.09.2024 convicted Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 2
Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh :- i) Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Ta’zir on three counts for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/ - as compensation under section 544 -A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the each of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Ghulam Mustafa (deceased); in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment. ii) Simple imprisonment of five years as Ta’zir under section 319 P.P.C. for committing Qatl-i-Khata of Muhammad Bilal (deceased) and directed to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the Muhammad Bilal (deceased) iii) Imprisonment of one year as Ta’zir under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. and directed to pay Daman of Rs.50,000 to the injured namely Muhammad Arshad (PW-13). iv) Imprisonment of three years as Ta’zir under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C. and directed to pay Daman of Rs. 50,000 to the injured namely Muhammad Arshad (PW -13) and to pay Daman of Rs. 100,000 to the injured namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) . The sentences awarded under sections 337 -F(i) and 337 -F(iii) P.P.C. were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead.
Muhammad Sajjad alias Gunna, Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Asif,Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar , the co-accused of the convict, were however, acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) lodged the Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2024 , assailing his conviction and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 under section 374 Cr.P.C. , seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentences of death awarded to the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh . We intend to dispose of the Crimin al Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 3
Appeal No.494 of 2024 and the Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 through this single judgment.
3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Allah Wasaya (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:- “Stated that earlier my son was arrested in case FIR No.273/2020, u/s302/109/148/149PPC, PS Sadder Kehror Pacca and was in judicial lock up in said case. That on 18.03.2021, my son was produced before court at Kehror Pacca in above said case and my two sons namely Abbas & Riaz and grandson Mustafa also came to Kehror Pacca to see him. After proceedings of said case, we set free at 1:45 P.M and my both sons Abbas, Riaz Riaz and grandson Mustafa while boarding in car Mehran bearing No.BR/608-18 driven by Muhammad Bilal left Kachahri. I alongwith Dost Muhammad s/o Muhammad Ameer and Ijaz s/o Allah Bachaya followed said car on motorcycle 125 bearing No.3498/MNL -17-A. As we had threats of life at the hands of accused due to enmity, we went towards Allah Waraya Chowk. At about 1:55 PM when car of my sons reached at Allah Waraya Chowk, a white colour car crossed our motorcycle. I along with witnesses witnessed that accused persons Mohsin, Javed, Sajjad alias Ghuna were armed with rifles, while accused Tariq was driving the car, the accused persons started firing upon car of my sons. We with the fear of firing parked our motorcycle at side of road. Mehran car in which my sons and grandson were boarded was stopped on wrong side of road due to firing. On our seeing accused Mohsin s/o Ahmed Bukhsh alias Natho while armed with rifle, unboarded from their car and started firing on car of my sons. In the meanwhile, accused Javed, while armed with rifle made firing inside the car. Due to firing of accused two passersbies namely Muhammad Arshad an d Abdul Basit sustained injuries and fell down whereas accused Sajjad alias Ghuna was directing the remaining accused persons loudly that they will not leave the place without taking revenge of murder of their brother Musa. On hearing voice of firing peopl e of the locality gathered there, on seeing them accused persons fled away towards Mailsi road. I alongwith witnesses attended my sons, grandson and driver but they succumbed to the injuries. All the accused persons committed murder of my sons, grandson an d injured two passerbies (sic) by firing. Motive behind the occurrence is that the accused persons had suspicion that my sons had committed murder of Musa brother of accused persons. I moved an application Ex.PA to police which bears my thumb impression Ex.PA/1. I nominated three other accused persons -through my supplementary statement on 10.06.2021. I do not remember their names but said persons pointed out location of deceased persons to remaining accused persons during the occurrence. ”
4. After the fo rmal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 4
court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 09.12.2021, 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 twenty-one witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Allah Wasaya (PW-1), Dost Muhammad (PW-2), Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW -13). Sheikh Siraj ud Din draftsman (PW-3) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PR). Saeed Ahmad 71/HC (PW-4) stated that on 18.03.2021, he escorted the dead bodies of Muhammad Ab bas (deceased) and Mustafa ( deceased) to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased. Allah Rakha 623/C (PW-5) stated that on 18.03.2021, he escorted the dead bodies of Muhammad Bilal (deceased) and Muhammad Riaz (deceased) to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased and on 21.0 3.2021, the Investigating Officer of the case took photographs of the dead bodies and on 14.06.2021 Muhammad Asif, Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar ( all since acquitted) were arrested. Abdul Maalik, SI (PW -11) investigated the case from 18.03.2021 till 19.06.2021, arrested the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh on 26.04.2021 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. Khalid Naeem (PW -8) examined, who on 18.03.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ, hospital Kehror Pacca Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 5
and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mustafa son of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) and issued the Post Mortem Ex amination report (Exh.PAA) and on 19.03.2021, Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-8) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Riaz son of Allah Wasaya and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAD) and on 19.03.2021, Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW- 8) also conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Abbas son of Allah Wasaya and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAG). The prosecution also got Dr. Muhammad Sumair Akbar (PW-9) examined, who on 18.03.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ, hospital Kehror Pacca and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Bilal son of Sher Muhammad (deceased) and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAK) and Dr. Muhammad Sumair Akba r (PW-9) who on 18.03.2021 medically examined the prosecution witness namely Abdul Basit (PW -12) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAN) and on the same day also medically examined the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Arshad (PW -13) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAQ).The prosecution also got Dr. Noman Ashraf (PW-19) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Abdul Basit (P W- 12).The prosecution also got Dr. Faisal Ali (PW -20) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Muhammad Arshad (PW-13). Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 6
7. On 17.08.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness es namely Muhammad Hanif and Hafiz Muhammad Siddique as being collusive with the accused. On 06.04.2024, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses nam ely Ijaz, Noor Muhammad, Jam Sarwar, Shabir 931/C, Siddique 618/C and Muhammad Ajmal 562/C as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PAX and Exh.PAW) and the documents (Exh.PAY, Exh.PAZ and Exh.PAAA).
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh 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 , he replied that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh opted not to get himself examined under sectio n 340(2) Cr.P.C, and did not adduce any evidence in his defence.
9. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca convicted and sentenced the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh as referred to above.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh precisely was that the Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 7
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 counsel for the appellant further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly impr obable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the recover y of the rifle (P -29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh was full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and was a result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant 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 Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appe llant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the recover y of the rifle (P -29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 8
deceased, to substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh , the learned Deputy 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 prosecution during the course of trial produced two sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident; one comprising Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and the second set comprising Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW -13). It is also a fact that both the two sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident made entirely different statements from each other. It is also a fact that the set of witnesses comprising Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) had both the witnesses who were related to the deceased namely Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Abbas and Mustafa, whereas the other set of witnesses comprising Abdul Basit (PW -12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW -13) had the witnesses who both were admittedly injured during the incident and were also not related to any of the deceased. For the fact that both sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident made entirely different statements from each other, therefore, it is nece ssary to evaluate their statements separately. Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 9
14. In the first instance , we have considered the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2). Both the said witnesses were related to the deceased namely Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Abbas and Mustafa as Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Muhammad Abbas (deceased) were the sons of Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and the brothers in -law of Dost Muhammad (PW -2), whereas Mustafa (deceased) was the grand -son of Allah Wasaya (PW -1). The prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), both of them had their residences at a distance from the place of occurrence. The prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1), during cross-examination stated as under:- “Allah Waraya Chowk is situated at the distance of 25/30 K.M away from my house. Court premises Kehror Pacca is two K.M away from the place of occurrence” (emphasis supplied) During cross-examination the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) stated as under:- “I cannot tell the distance between the place of occurrence and court premises however, it consumed 10 minutes in reaching the place of occurrence on some vehicle.” (emphasis supplied) During cross -examination, Abdul Maalik, SI (PW -11), the Investigating Officer of the case, also admitted as under:- “Place of occurrence is at the distance of 16 to 20 K.M away from the house complainant and PWs. ” Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 10
In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) 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 Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) 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 Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) stated that the reason for their arrival at the place of the incident was that they were returni ng from the court premises after meeting one Sajjad, the son of the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1), after his appearance before the learned trial court in another case, however, Abdul Maalik, SI (PW -11) the Investigating Officer of the case , candidly admitted that he did not collect any evidence so as to prove that Sajjad, the son of the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) had appeared before the learned trial court on the day of the incident and that it was for this reason that t he prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had firstly proceeded to court premises and secondly were returning from the said premises after meeting Sajjad when the occurrence took place. Abdul Maalik, SI (PW -11) stated during cross-examination, as under:- “ I did not collect any evidence to establish the fact that on the day of alleged occurrence there was any hearing of complainant and Pws in Tehsil courts Kehror Pacca.” Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 11
Had Sajjad appeared before the learned trial court on the day of the incident then his attendance must have been marked by the learned trial court and the prosecution could have easily proved the order sheet maintained by the learned trial court showing th e appearance of the said Sajjad , which then would have provided the strongest proof of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) meeting Sajjad at the court premises however that evidence was not brought on record , denuding the false reason given by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) for their reason of presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence . The proven failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to provide a reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence, has repercussions, proving that there was no reason actually for the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to be visiting the place of occurrence. The very inception of the prosecution case is thus put in doubt due to the said abject failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2). 15. We have also noted that though it was claimed by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) that they had gone to the place of occurrence on a motorcycle however, during the course of the investigation as well as before the learned trial court, the said motorcycle, allegedly used by prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2), to arrive at the place of occurrence, was not produced. The motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namel y Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) to Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 12
arrive at the place of occurrence was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case. During cross -examination , Allah Wasaya (PW-1) admitted that the motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to arrive at the place of occurrence was not handed over to the police and stated as under:- “We never produced the motorcycle which was in our use to the investigating officer. ” Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW -2) also admitted during cross-examination, as under:- “I did not produce my motorcycle to the police. ” Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) the Investigating Officer of the case stated during cross-examination that no motorcycle under the use of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) was taken into possession and stated as under:- “The motorcycle which allegedly in the use of complainant and PWs was not taken into possession by me. In inspection notes as well as in rough site plan I did not mention the presence of any motorcycle belonging to complainant and PWs. ” (emphasis supplied) The non-production and the non -availability of the motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to arrive at the place of occurrence and the failure of prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) to produce the same before the Invest igating Officers of the case, leads to only one conclusion and that being that no such vehicle was available. Had such a Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 13
vehicle been used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW- 1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) to arrive at the place of occurrenc e, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of Abdul Maalik, SI (PW -11), the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of t he case but it was not and it proves that a false claim was made by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) that they had arrived at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle. In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) failed miserably to prove that they had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, prior to the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of “Muhammad Ali Vs. The State” (2015 SCMR 137) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- “The Investigating Officer during the cross -examination has admitted that the 'Dala' was not present when he visited the spot and he had not taken into possession the said 'Dala' during investigat ion. So the story introduced by the eye-witnesses that they were travelling on the 'Dala' when the incident took place is not supported by any connecting material.” The prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and the mode through which they arrived at the place of occurrence. The prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only that the p rosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had a reason to proceed to the place of occurrence but also to prove the mode through which the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 14
Muhammad (PW -2) arrived at th e place of occurrence. The failure of the prosecution to prove the said facts has vitiated our trust in the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW -1) and Dost Muhammad (PW -2) as being truthful witnesses. In this respect, reliance is placed on the ca ses of “Muhammad Rafiq v. State” (2014 SCMR 1698) , “Usman alias Kaloo v. State” (2017 SCMR 622) and “Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State” (2017 SCMR 724). 16. We have also noted that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) claimed that the motive of the incident was that in an earlier incident, Musa (deceased) , the brother of the appellant was murdered and the appellant had a suspicion that the so ns of Allah Wasaya (PW -1) were involved in the murder of Musa (deceased),therefore, the appellant chose to commit the Qatl-i-Amd of…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.