Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

CITATION: 2026 PCrLJ 1515 CASE: 2026L3053 TITLE: Muhammad Sabir VS State Honorable Justice Aalia Neelum C.J and Abher Gul Khan Muhammad Ashan Bhoon, Barrister Muhammad Ali Bhoon and Barrister Muhammad Afzal Sraa COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PCrLJ ============================================================

305 2026 P Cr. L J 1515 [Lahore] Before Aalia Neelum C.J and Abher Gul Khan, J Muhammad Sabir ---Appellant Versus The State and others---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 14716-J and Murder Reference No. 37 of 2023, decided on 16th March, 2026. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Original FIR not produced---Unattested photocopy inadmissible---Reconstruction of file not established---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Defence raised an objection that the original FIR chalked out by the prosecution witness was not available on record and an attested copy thereof could not be exhibited---Such objection was repelled by the Trial Court while observing that an attested copy of the FIR was available in the file, for the reason that the file had been reconstructed under the order of the competent authority after loss of the original record---Upon review of the record, however, no order of the competent authority for reconstruction of the file was found---Photocopy of the FIR was exhibited, but the same was not attested; it only bore the stamp of the police station without any certificate---Mere affixing of a stamp on a document did not make it an attested document---Nor was it mentioned thereon that the same was a true copy of the FIR prepared in connection with the occurrence, the original of which was not available on record---Photocopy of a document was totally inadmissible in law as it did not constitute secondary evidence---Prosecution apparently remained unaware of the significance of the Court's rejection of such copy of a public document---First Information Report, having been treated as unauthenticated and its exhibition lacking legal validity/sanctity, was of no avail to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Post-mortem examination delayed---Dead body received late in mortuary---Prosecution failing to explain delay---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---As per deposition of the prosecution witness, it consumed 30/40 minutes to reach the hospital---Post-mortem report revealed that the dead body was received in the department at 01:15 a.m. on 25.03.1998---As per opinion of the Medical Officer, probable time elapsed between death and post-mortem was 6 to 10 hours, which suggested that the incident took place between 06:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998---If the dead body was handed over at the place of occurrence to Police Constables at 07:30 p.m. or 08:00/08:15 p.m., it had to be received in the dead house before 09:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998---Document, however, revealed that the dead body was received in the department on 25.03.1998 at 01:15 a.m. and post-mortem was conducted at 04:00 a.m., for which the prosecution rendered no plausible explanation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Blank columns in recovery memo and inquest report---Accused not known when documents were prepared---First Information Report timing rendered doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Recovery memo of last worn clothes produced by official witnesses revealed that after writing Versus the place was left blank, suggesting that until receipt of the last worn clothes on 25.03.1998 and preparation of memo of last worn clothes, the accused was not known to the prosecution---Even the column regarding date and time of preparation of the inquest report was left blank---In such circumstances, it appeared that the FIR was not registered when it was stated to have been registered, and the prosecution story became doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of widow/eye-witness at the spot doubtful---Surroundings of house stated contrary to site plan---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Widow of the deceased/eye-witness deposed that on 24.03.1998 she, along with her deceased husband, was present in their house---Complainant and a Patwari came there; they were sitting and, in the meanwhile, after Maghrib prayer, the bell of the door rang and the deceased opened the door; he, along with one person, went to the drawing room; she was in the kitchen and guests were sitting in the courtyard---Perusal of the un-scaled site plan revealed that before the incident, the deceased, complainant and witnesses were present in the courtyard at the southern side of the quarter, whereas at the end of the quarter facing north, there was a door opening into the street, adjacent to the drawing room, where the alleged incident took place---Said eye-witness admitted during cross-examination that she had not mentioned in her statement that guests were sitting in the courtyard---She also deposed about the surroundings of the house contrary to the site plan---According to the scaled site plan, the main gate was on the southern side, while the small gate was on the northern side just behind the house; there were no gates to the quarter on the eastern and western sides; said quarter was on the eastern side, while there was an open paved road, 12 feet wide, on the western side---Eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that she had been living in the same quarter since her marriage---If said witness was living in the same quarter and only occasionally had to go to her village, she should have had correct knowledge of the surroundings of the quarter---Said fact rendered the deposition of the eye-witness doubtful and cast doubt on her presence at the spot---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weaponss, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Proceedings under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C. not proved---Ocular account disbelieved---Abscondence alone insufficient for conviction---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---As far as appellant's abscondence was concerned, evidence against him was that he had absconded after the incident---Police Official deposed in examination-in-chief that on 07.10.1999, Investigating Officer handed over to him non-bailable warrants of arrest of the accused for execution---Thereafter, on 11.10.1999, Police Official returned the non-bailable warrants of arrest with his report on the overleaf--- After that, on 12.10.1999, Investigating Officer handed him the proclamation to be pasted at a thoroughfare outside the accused person's residence and at the main entrance of the District Court---On 19.10.1999, Investigating Officer recorded his statement---Police Official admitted during cross-examination that he made his report on the overleaf of the warrant---Warrant and report thereon were not available on police file---Nothing was available to show that proceedings under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had taken place against the appellant as prescribed by law---In the present case, the substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account had been disbelieved; therefore, no conviction could be based on abscondence alone---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Enmity---Double-edged weapon---Motive for occurrence and false implication---Scope---Enmity, as is well known, is a double-edged weapon that cuts both ways; on the one hand, it provides a motive for the accused to commit the occurrence in question; on the other hand, it equally provides an opportunity to the first informant to implicate his enemy---Proof of motive by itself may not be a ground to hold the accused guilty. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Acquittal not challenged---Absence of strong corroboration against remaining accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that co-accused had been acquitted and complainant party had not assailed such acquittal---If prosecution evidence was disbelieved qua a major portion of accused persons, it could not be believed qua the other accused in the absence of very strong corroboration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Akhtar Ali and others v. State PLJ 2008 SC 269; Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758 and Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 rel. Muhammad Ashan Bhoon, Barrister Muhammad Ali Bhoon and Barrister Muhammad Afzal Sraa for Appellant. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General along with Mudassar, Inspector and Mehboob, S.I. for the State. Naveed Ahmed Khawaja and Shahid Asghar Bisria with the brother of the Complainant, for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 16th March, 2026. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J .--- Muhammad Sabir son of Lehrasib, Caste Gujjar, resident of Barnali, Police Station Khurrianwala, District Gujrat-the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide judgment dated 06.02.2023 in case FIR No.58 of 1998, dated 24.03.1998, offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, 201 of P.P.C, registered at the police station, Wahdat Colony, District Lahore, whereby the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 (b) P.P.C and sentenced to Death as Tazir for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Inayat Meeran, with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as envisaged under section 544-A of Cr.P.C, and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201 of P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years, with the direction to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and, in case of default thereof, undergo 02 months. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Muhammad Sabir, the appellant, has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.14716-J of 2023. The trial court also sent M.R. No.37 of 2023 ( The State v. Muhammad Sabir ) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Muhammad Sabir. Both matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution's story, as alleged in the FIR (Ex. PD) lodged on the statement of Nisar Jillani (the complainant died during trial), is that on 24.03.1998, the complainant (died during trial) came to meet his brother Inayat Meeran (since dead), who was working in the Punjab Assembly. After getting free from the office, the complainant (died during trial), along with Zafar Patwari, came to his house situated at 41-A, Wahdat Colony, Lahore, and they were sitting in the courtyard of the house. When Inayat Meeran offered Maghrib prayer, meanwhile, a knock at the door was made, and Inayat Meeran, after opening the door, made the guests sit in the drawing room of the house. After some time, the noise of an altercation arose. Complainant (died during trial), Zafar Iqbal (PW-11), and Farkhanda Bibi (PW-1) went inside the room and saw that the accused Sabir was holding a pistol in his hand, who pointed the same towards Inayat Meeran. The accused Sabir fired a shot that hit Inayat Meeran on the chest at the front, and he fell. Sabir ran out of the room, and the complainant followed him out. Liaquat Topa, armed with a Kalashnikov, was standing near the door, who threatened him that if he came forward, he would also be killed. Out of fear, the complainant stood in the doorway. Liaquat Topa and Sabir ran away. A white car was parked at short distance away, and two-armed persons he could identify who were sitting in it; they escaped. The motive for the murder is that Nazir's co-accused father was killed by the complainant s paternal cousin, Pir Muhammad. Inayat Meeran followed the case and secured Pir Muhammad's acquittal from the High Court. Furthermore, since then, Nazir, the co-accused, has been trying to get Inayat Meera killed. For the past six/seven days, they have been receiving news from different sources. Nazir from London consulted Sabir and others about the murder of Inayat Meera. Nazir Ahmed and Muhammad Iqbal provided information about the abetment. Action should be taken. 4. After the occurrence, the complainant reported the incident at the police station through his statement to Rana Abdul Sattar S.I (not produced), on the same day, i.e., 24.03.1998, based on which Ghias-ud-Din, DSP (PW-7) chalked out a formal FIR (Exh-PD). After registration of the case, the investigation of the case was conducted by Ashiq Ali, S.I. (PW-12), who arrested the accused persons, and having found them guilty, prepared a challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction while placing the names of all accused persons in Column No.3 of the challan. On 04.10.2021, the trial court formally charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein neither he opted to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C., nor opted to produce any evidence in his defence. In response to a particular question that why this case was against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition: - Denied being incorrect and false. I am innocent having no concern whatsoever with the alleged occurrence and the whole story of the FIR is totally false, fabricated and fake. I have been made scapegoat in this case due to the previous enmity, grudge and litigation as being (Bhanja) of co-accused namely Nazir Ahmad son of Lal Khan, whose father was murdered by Atta Jillani, Pir Rehmat, Wilayat and Mehdi, the real cousins (Tayazad) of the complainant and the deceased namely Inayat Miran. I am a British National and living there for the last about 23 years approximately and law abiding citizen and neither contravened any provision of law in Pakistan nor in European countries. Actually, the murder was committed by one Liaqat Topa who was having financial affairs with the deceased and the complainant party. The said Liaqat Topa was a hardened criminal, hired shooter and serial killer and the complainant party was very well aware of the fact regarding the murder of the deceased and they got the said Liaqat Topa murdered in a police encounter managed by them in revenge of the murder of the deceased Inayat Miran, but I along with co-accused Nazir Ahmad (my maternal uncle) have falsely been implicated just on the basis of previous enmity and grudge by the complainant party. The story of the case is totally false, all witnesses were managed and planted against me, otherwise, I have no concern with the alleged occurrence. I myself voluntarily came to Pakistan and appeared before the concerned investigating officer regarding this case in good faith and with Bona fide intention just to prove my innocence and the ulterior motives and mala fide of the complainant party and in this regard number of people along with their affidavits were produced before the I.O just to prove my innocence and stance but all in vain as the I.O. refused to collect the evidence tendered by me regarding my innoc3ence as he was in connivance with the complainant party and falsely involved me. I was constrained to file a petition under sections 22-A, 22-B of Cr.P.C titled Muhammad Sabir v. SHO and the Investigating Officer, police station, Wahdat Colony, Lahore before the learned Justice of Peace for the collection of proper and detailed evidence, record the version of mine, witnesses produced by me and to investigate the matter impartially and transparently pertaining to this case. I am totally innocent having no concern with the alleged occurrence and request this Honourable Court for the clean acquittal. 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant s conviction in the afore-stated terms. 7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 8. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 24.03.1998 at 7:15 p.m. in Wahdat Colony, located within the jurisdiction of Wahdat Colony Police Station, District Lahore, which is only two furlongs from the place of occurrence. The formal FIR (Ex.PD) was registered on 24.03.1998 at 7:40 p.m., based on a verbal statement (not on record) made by Ch. Nisar Jillani, the complainant, at 7:30 p.m., before Rana Abdul Sattar, S.I. (since dead). According to the police proceedings incorporated at the bottom of the FIR, Rana Abdul Sattar, SI (since dead), along with police officers, was on patrol duty in the official vehicle at Bukhari Market when he received information about the incident and reached the spot. Chaudhry Nisar Jilani, the complainant (since dead), appeared before him and made the verbal statement (not on record), which was recorded, read out, and explained to him. Rana Abdul Sattar, SI (since dead), forwarded the Fard Biyan (not on record) through Shabbir Hussain, 8459/C (not cited as a witness) to the police station for the formal registration of the FIR. Relevant portion of FIR is hereby reproduced:- Contrary to the above, Saeed Ahmad 9956/C, while appearing as PW-5, deposed during cross-examination that before proceeding to the place of occurrence, he was present outside the police station on patrolling duty, and they reached the place of occurrence on foot. Saeed Ahmad 9956/C, while appearing as PW-5, deposed during cross-examination as under:- Before proceeding to the place of occurrence, I was present outside the police station on patrolling duty.---------------We reached the place of occurrence on foot. We were not on official vehicle. As per the proceedings taken in the police station, it appears that upon receiving the complaint from Shabbir Hussain 8459/C (not cited as a witness), Ghais-ud- Din, D.S.P. (PW-7, then S.I.), prepared the FIR (Ex.PD) and admitted that the complaint is not available on record. Ghais-ud-Din D.S.P admitted during cross-examination that:- It is correct that complaint is not available in the file on the basis of which I chalked out formal FIR. No note given by me on the said complaint is available in the record. During the examination-in-chief of Ghais-ud-Din D.S.P (PW-7), the defence has raised an objection that the original FIR chalked out by the prosecution witness is not available on the record, and an attested copy of the FIR cannot be exhibited. The objection of the learned defence counsel was repelled by the trial court while observing that an attested copy of the FIR is available in the file for the reason that the file was reconstructed under the order of the competent authority after the loss of the original record. However, upon review of the record, no order from the competent authority to reconstruct it has been found. A photocopy of the FIR is marked as Ex. PD. We examined the FIR (Ex.PD), which is not attested; it has only the stamp of police station without certificate. The mere imposition of a stamp on a document does not make it an attested document. It is not mentioned as a true copy of FIR (original not available on record) prepared in connection with the incident. A photocopy of a document is totally inadmissible in law as it is not secondary evidence. Apparently, the prosecution is unaware of the significance of a court's rejection of such a copy of a public document. Therefore, this FIR, which is treated as unauthenticated and marked as Ex. PD lacks its legal validity/sanctity, hence of no avail to the prosecution. It goes without saying that original copy of the FIR always remains available for the period of 60 years in the police station but same has also not been produced in this case and any reason whatsoever regarding non production of the same has also not been brought on the record by the prosecution, which further raises eyebrows on the subject. It is also notable that the occurrence took place at 07:15 p.m. on 24.03.1998, and the distance between the police station and the place of the occurrence was two furlongs. The police reached the place of the occurrence, and further proceedings occurred there, as described at the bottom of FIR (Ex.PD) registered on the verbal complaint made by Ch. Nisar Jillani (who has since passed away) to Abdul Sattar S.I. (also dead) at 07:30 p.m. on the same day. The dead body of Inayat Meeran reached the mortuary of K.E. Medical University, Lahore, at 1:15 a.m. on 25.03.1998. During the trial, the learned DDPP made an oral request to examine Zia-ud-Din Chishti, a draftsman, and Saeed Ahmad/C as secondary evidence of Hameed-ud-Din Chishti and Abdul Sattar S.I. (both since dead). Notice was given to the defence, and they raised no objection, allowing both to be produced as secondary evidence. Saeed Ahmad 9956/C appeared as PW-14. He appeared twice in the witness box; first, as PW-5, when he testified that on 24.03.1998, he, along with Miraj Din constable (who was later given up as PW) and Abdul Sattar S.I., went to the place of the incident, where Abdul Sattar S.I. handed over the dead body of Inayat Meeran along with relevant papers for deposit in the dead house. Later, Saeed Ahmad, 9956/C, was produced as PW-14 in secondary evidence for Abdul Sattar, S.I. During cross-examination, Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-14) stated as follows: It is not in my knowledge that on said date Abdul Sattar SI was already dead. Today I came to know that Abdul Sattar SI had died after perusing the case file. He (PW-14) produced the inquest report of Inayat Meeran-deceased (Ex.PG), injury statement (Ex.PH), application for postmortem examination (Ex.PJ), and also placed on the record memo of recovery (Ex.PC) whereby the last worn clothes were taken into possession handed over by him (PW-14) to Abdul Sattar SI. (since dead). Saeed Ahmad 9956/C while appearing as PW-5 deposed during cross-examination that:- I reached the place of occurrence along with the I.O at about 07:30 p.m. Before proceeding to the place of occurrence, I was present outside the police station on patrolling duty. He (PW-5) also deposed during cross-examination that they reached the place of occurrence at about 08:00/08:15 p.m. Self-contradictory statements have been made by Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-5) during cross-examination by stating that he, along with I.O., reached the place of occurrence at 07:30 p.m. After that, he stated that they reached the place of occurrence at 08:00/08:15 p.m. On perusal of the inquest report (Ex.PG), in column No.3 of the time and date of receiving information of death, it is mentioned that 07:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998. It is the case of the prosecution that Inayat Meeran offered Maghrib prayer; after that, the door was knocked on, and the incident took place. In March, the time of Maghrib was from 06:15 p.m.…

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