Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Nauman Ijaz VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Aalia Neelum, C.J and Abher Gul Khan Chaudhary Walayat Ali
CITATION: 2026 PCrLJ 1051 CASE: 2026L3037 TITLE: Nauman Ijaz VS State Honorable Justice Aalia Neelum, C.J and Abher Gul Khan Chaudhary Walayat Ali COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PCrLJ ============================================================
305 2026 P Cr. L J 1051 [Lahore] Before Aalia Neelum, C.J and Abher Gul Khan, J Nauman Ijaz ---Appellant Versus The State
and others---Respondents Criminal Appeals Nos. 30048-J, 30043 and Murder Reference No. 109 of 2022, decided on 17th November, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions between medical and ocular account --- Documentary evidence prevailing over oral evidence --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---As per record, the complainant took his injured brother to the hospital and there met the Investigating Officer, to whom he reported the incident through a written complaint---The prosecution story conflicted with the documentary evidence---The Medico-Legal Certificate showed that the victim was taken to the hospital by his brother S and a police constable, where he received medical treatment---The arrival time of the victim was recorded as 12:20 p.m., and his examination was conducted at that time---Whereas the FIR was registered at 01:40 p.m. on 14.12.2019---The Medical Officer deposed that on 14.12.2019 at about 12:20 p.m., he medically examined the injured---Undisputed documentary evidence must prevail over oral evidence---In the present case, the Medico-Legal Certificate was to be given preference over the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration --- Recording by police officer --- Victim not in fit condition --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured without seeking opinion from the doctor and outside the emergency ward---Hospital record showed that the injured was admitted at 12:45 p.m. and remained under observation with medical support---The record suggested that the injured was not in a fit condition to make a statement---The alleged dying declaration was neither recorded by a doctor nor in the presence of an independent witness---Such evidence was not reliable or convincing to establish guilt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of witnesses at the spot of occurrence doubtful --- Contradictory versions --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence was doubtful---Complainant gave inconsistent statements regarding his presence and routine visits---Eye-witness MS and her daughter contradicted the complainant regarding the occurrence and their presence---Such contradictions rendered the presence of witnesses doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in statements of witnesses --- Inconsistent ocular account --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Complainant stated that the eye-witness was in the kitchen, whereas the eye-witness stated that she was present in the room---Investigating Officer failed to specify her position in the site plan---Such inconsistencies weakened the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved --- Prosecution story improbable --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---The alleged motive of teasing was not substantiated---Record showed existence of a kidnapping case involving the same family, which made the alleged motive improbable---Contradictions between documentary evidence and oral testimony struck at the root of the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness --- Adverse inference --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Material witness Z was not produced---Adverse inference was to be drawn under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984---Non-production of said witness weakened the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery doubtful --- Break in chain of custody --- Accused was charged with committing the murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Recovery of pistol and crime empties suffered from inconsistencies in custody and transmission---Dates of deposit and dispatch to the Forensic Science Agency were contradictory---No link evidence established safe custody---Possibility of tampering could not be ruled out---Recovery lost its evidentiary value---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Chaudhary Walayat Ali for Appellant. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Imran for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 17th November, 2025. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J .--- The appellant, Nauman Ijaz, son of Ijaz Ahmad, Caste Sheikh, resident of street No.4, Kamal Abad, District Faisalabad, has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Faisalabad, vide judgment dated 31.03.2022 in case FIR. No.996-2019, dated 14.12.2019, offences under sections 302, 449, 34 of P.P.C, registered at the police station, Raza Abad, District Faisalabad, whereby the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 (b) P.P.C and sentenced to Death for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mohsin Raza, with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as envisaged under section 544-A of Cr.P.C, which would be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I. The appellant was also convicted under section 449 P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years, with fine of Rs.75,000/- and, in case of default, to undergo 04 months S.I. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, Nauman Ijaz, the appellant, has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing the instant appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.30048-J of 2022 . The learned trial court also sent M.R. No.109 of 2022 ( The State v. Nauman Ijaz ) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Nauman Ijaz. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also filed a Crl. Appeal No.30043 of 2022 against the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 and 2. All the matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution story as alleged in the FIR (Ex. PB) lodged on the application (Ex.PE) of Muhammad Asim (PW-5)-the complainant is that on 14.12.2019, at about 12:00 Noon, the complainant (PW-5) along with his brother, Mohsin Raza (since dead) and Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) were present in the room of the house. Suddenly, the accused, Nauman Ijaz, along with an unknown accused person, while armed with their respective weapons, entered the house. Upon seeing the complainant party, the accused, Nauman Ijaz, raised a lalkara and made a fire shot which hit the right side of the abdomen of Mohsin Raza (since dead). The accused, Nauman Ijaz, made a second fire which landed on the left side of the belly of Mohsin Raza (since dead). Thereafter, the accused, Nauman Ijaz, made a third fire, which hit the left leg near the knee joint of Mohsin Raza (since dead), whereupon Mohsin Raza (since dead) fell. After that, the accused persons decamped from the place of occurrence while making aerial firing. The complainant (PW-5) and Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) took Mohsin Raza (since dead) to the hospital in an injured condition. 4. The motive behind the occurrence was that accused-Nauman Ijaz, used to tease the daughter of Muhammad Shafique, namely, Iqra, and when the brother of the complainant, Mohsin Raza (since dead), forbade him, he bore a grudge against Mohsin Raza (since dead), and resultantly, the alleged occurrence took place. 5. On 17.12.2019, Ali Akbar, A.S.I (PW-11) received information that Mohsin Raza, the injured, died at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, whereupon he (PW-11) entered this information in the rapt Rozmancha vide rapt No.11, and altered the offence under section 324 P.P.C into an offence under section 302 P.P.C. 6. After registration of the case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Atique-ur-Rehman, S.I. (PW-10), who arrested the accused on 04.01.2020, and having found him 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 23.10.2020, 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. 7. 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 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-Nauman Ijaz, made the following deposition: - It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that Iqra PW daughter of Shafique PW was a trainee in a beauty parlor situated at a distance of 2 or 3 streets from the house of Shafique PW. The parents of Iqra and also her brother Zahid were against her training. Moreover, Tayyaba sister of Iqra PW was allegedly abducted and case FIR No.508/19, dated 01.05.2019, under sections 365-B, 376, 148, 149 P.P.C, police station, Raza Abad was registered on the instance of Mst. Nasreen wife of Shafique PW. Due to these circumstances, the relatives and some of their opponents were deadly against the family of Shafique PW. The complainant Muhammad Asim and her deceased brother Mohsin are not relatives of Muhammad Shafique PW but despite that they used to visit them frequently. Neither Shafique PW nor Zahid, brother of Iqra initiated for registration of this case, despite the fact that occurrence allegedly took place in their house. Rather it was registered on the application of Asim PW who is resident of Mullan Pur Chak No.77/JB (as per his CNIC), situated at a distance of about 25 KM. There is no conflict between the family of Nauman Ijaz and Muhammad Shafique PW. The complainant has involved innocent Nauman Ijaz accused just to save their honour, in connivance with police, as the actual culprit could not be traced. Neither the PWs nor the accused were present on the spot on the alleged day of and time of occurrence. 8. 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. 9. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 10. In the instant case, the occurrence took place on 14.12.2019 at about 1.15 p.m., whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is one (1) kilometer. Whereas in the instant case incident was not reported at the Police Station, rather Ali Akbar ASI (PW-11) met Muhammad Asim (PW-5), complainant at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, at 1:15 p.m., who received the complaint (Ex.PE) endorsed the police Karvai at 1:15 p.m. on 14.12.2019 and referred the same to Police Station through Muhammad Umair Aslam 6114/C (PW-12) for lodging of a formal FIR based on which Kashif Ali 5741/MHC (PW-3) chalked out the formal FIR (Ex.PB) at 1:40 p.m. on 14.12.2019. The entire criminal case depends on the first information recorded in the complaint before the police, and the entire evidence depends on that document. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, took his brother, Mohsin Raza, to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, for medical treatment. The relevant portion of the examination-in-chief of Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant is as under:- We thereafter took our brother Mohsin Raza for providing him medical facility to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that:- Police reached at the spot at 2:00 PM. I informed the police regarding the occurrence by making telephonic call. I made call to rescue 15 to inform about the occurrence. After making call to rescue 15, Ali Akbar S.I reached at the hospital. Volunteered that position of my brother was critical that's why, we had shifted him to Allied Hospital. We reached hospital at about 10:30 PM. Application was drafted by computer operator, sitting outside the allied hospital. I signed the said application at one 01:40/01:45 PM. Application was presented to Ali Akbar S.I. Ali Akbar S.I came at the spot at 02:00 PM after his interaction with us in the hospital. ----- The information of the occurrence furnished to police by me at about 12:00 Noon by making a call to rescue 15. ---- Police did not arrive at the spot in my presence. The police met me for the first time after the occurrence at about 1/1.15 at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. The police official who met me at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, were Ali Akbar A.S.I and other constables. Similarly, Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) deposed during examination-in-chief that:- I along with Asim thereafter took Mohsin Raza for providing him medical facility to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. In the same lines, Iqra (PW-7) deposed during the examination-in-chief. Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11) deposed during his examination-in-chief that on receiving information of the incident, he, along with other police officials, reached Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, where he received a written complaint (Ex.PE) from Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant. Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11) deposed during cross-examination that: It is correct that time on my police proceeding is mentioned by me is 1:15 PM. Muhammad Umair Aslam 6114/C (PW-12) deposed during cross-examination that:- Ali Akbar ASI handed over to me complaint Exh.PE at about 01:15 PM at Allied Hospital. In the light of the prosecution's evidence, it has come to record that the Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant took his brother Mohsin Raza, the then injured to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad to save his life and there he met Ali Akbar ASI (PW-11), the investigating officer, to whom he reported the incident through a written complaint (Ex.PE). This prosecution story conflicts with the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence, i.e., medico-legal certificate (Ex.PQ), shows that Mohsin Raza was taken to the Government General Hospital, GM Abad, Faisalabad, by his brother Sohail and Adnan Amin, 1787/Constable, where Mohsin Raza received medical treatment. His arrival time is recorded as 12:20 PM in the relevant column, and his examination is conducted at that time. Along with this, the column in which the date of the police docket court order is written, FIR No. 996/2019, is mentioned. Whereas FIR (Ex. PB) was registered at 01:40 p.m. on 14.12.2019. Dr. Nasir Hussain (PW-13) deposed during examination-in-chief that on 14.12.2019 at about 12:20 PM, he medically examined Mohsin Raza. The undisputed documentary evidence must prevail over the oral evidence. In the present case, the undisputed documentary evidence is the medico-legal certificate (Ex.PQ); therefore, the medico-legal certificate (Ex.PQ) should be given preference over the overall oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, Muhammad Shafique (PW-6), Iqra (PW-7), Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11) and Muhammad Umair Aslam 6114/C (PW-12). A man may lie, but documents do not" is a cardinal legal principle for evaluating evidence. Dr. Nasir Hussain (PW-13) deposed and also mentioned in the medico-legal certificate (Ex.PQ) that a copy of the medico-legal certificate (Ex.PQ) was received by Sohail . Relevant portion of cross-examination of Dr. Nasir Hussain (PW-13) is as under:- I have mentioned the name of Sohail, who received the MLC from me. Dr. Nasir Hussain (PW-13) deposed during the cross-examination that:- The examinee was vitally unstable and semi-conscious state. The examinee was in critical condition at that time. Ali Akbar, A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer, deposed during his testimony that he recorded the dying declaration of Mohsin Raza, who was then injured. He (PW-11) deposed that upon receiving information of the occurrence, he went to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad; After receiving a written complaint (Ex. PE), he sent it to the police station at 01:15 p.m. on 14.12.2019; After that, he proceeded to the place of the occurrence, securing blood through cotton from the place of the occurrence, five crime empties P5/1-5 of pistol 30-bore, prepared recovery memos, and recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding recovery proceedings; and on the same day he (PW-11) recorded statement of Mohsin Raza, then injured. From the deposition of Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer, it reveals that he recorded the statement of Mohsin Raza on the same day after visiting the place of occurrence. Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer, deposed during the cross-examination that:- I did not seek information from Doctor before recording the statement of injured Muhammad Asim. I recorded the statement of injured Mohsin Raza at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad outside the emergency. 11.
From the above deposition of Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer reveals that he recorded the statement of Mohsin Raza, who was then injured outside the emergency of Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Whereas the Anesthesia notes Ex.PS/1-42 of Allied Hospital, Faisalabad (available at page 200 of the paper book) reveal that Mohsin Raza, then injured, was admitted to the hospital on 14.12.2019 at 12:45 p.m., and UOP (stands for Urine Output) was started and observed from 01:00 p.m. till 08:00 p.m. The Anesthesia record Ex.PS/1-42 of Allied Hospital, Faisalabad (available at page 201 of the paper book) reveals that Mohsin Raza, then injured, was under observation since 1:00 p.m. on 14.12.2019. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged dying declaration was not made to any doctor or independent witness, but only to Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer, who, as stated above, arrived at the hospital after visiting the place of occurrence and the outside emergency ward. When Mohsin Raza was already injured and under the supervision of the Anesthesia doctors from 12:45 p.m. on 14.12.2019 onward. Allied Hospital (FMU), Faisalabad, Accident and Emergency mortality summary Ex.PS/1-42 (available at page 177 of the paper book) shows that the patient was transferred to the ICU in a shock state, with inotropic support and a ventilator. This suggests that Mohsin Raza was not lying outside the emergency ward, and he was in an unconscious condition with oxygen tubes having been inserted in his nostrils. Mohsin Raza was not in a fit condition to make the declaration before Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer. The evidence of the alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased Mohsin Raza to Ali Akbar A.S.I. (P.W-11), the investigating officer relied upon by the prosecution and not accepted by the trial court, was, in our view, not strong, satisfactory, or convincing enough to establish that the deceased Mohsin Raza was in a fit condition to make an oral declaration to Ali Akbar A.S.I. (PW-11) before his death. In the circumstances mentioned above, the presence of Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant at the place of occurrence, is highly doubtful. Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, deposed during examination-in-chief that he was present at the house of Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) with his brother, Mohsin Raza, when the incident occurred. Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that he used to meet Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) every day or after 4/5 days before the occurrence; it was his routine. But at the same time, he expressed his ignorance of the fact that he did not know about the teasing by the appellant of Iqra Bibi (7), the daughter of Muhammad Shafique (PW-6). He (PW-5) also deposed that in the days of the occurrence, he resided at Ghulam Muhammad Abad, which was at a distance from the place of the occurrence 3/3 kilometers, and Muhammad Shafique (PW-5) is a friend of theirs (complainant and deceased). Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that:- ---Muhammad Shafique PW is our friend, not relative. House of Muhammad Shafique PW is situated in Street No.23, Raza Abad, Faisalabad City. At present we all the family members are residing in Sadar Bazar, Ghulam Muhammad Abad. My this address is not mentioned in my CNIC, however, the address of our village Chak No.77/JB Mullanpur is mentioned there. At the time of occurrence, we were residing at Ghulam Muhammad Abad. The distance between the place of occurrence and the place of my residence at Ghulam Muhammad Abad is about 3/3 KM. ---- There was no special occasion in the house of occurrence on the fateful day. --- It is not in my knowledge that Shafique was ever approached at any forum while complaining against Numan Ijaz regarding teaching his daughter Iqra. I also never complained at any forum in writing by alleging that accused Nauman teased Iqra daughter of my friend Muhammad Shafique PWs. Volunteered this fact was for the first time disclosed to me by Shafique PW on the date of occurrence, prior to the occurrence---I used to visit house of Shafique PW daily or after 4/5 days prior to the occurrence. ---------- The application for registration of criminal case was got typed by me from the computer operator, sitting outside Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. I have not consulted with PWs Iqra and Shafique regarding contents of said application. Soon after the drafting of said application I told Iqra and Shafique that they have been cited as witnesses. I have mentioned my address at application Exh.PE as resident of Chak No.77/JB Mullan Pur. Whenever I joined the investigation I mentioned my same address before the police. -------- The distance between Raza Abad and 77/JB Mullan Pur is about 30 to 35 KM. Place of occurrence is situated in Raza Abad colony. I have mentioned in my application Exh.PE Shafique is dear to me (Aziz). Whereas Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) deposed during examination-in-chief about the place of residence of Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant ----Muhammad Asim and Mohsin Raza sons of Mushtaq, residents of Chak No.77/JB Mullan Pur, Faisalabad came to meet us and we were sitting in the residential room of our house--- He (PW-6) also deposed during cross-examination that: ----Deceased Mohsin Raza and his brother Muhammad Asim came together at the scene crime fifteen minutes prior to the occurrence. House of Muhammad Asim/complainant is at a distance of four kilometers from my house. Mohsin deceased and Muhammad Asim complainant were residing in the same house during the days of occurrence. Deceased was friend of my son Muhammad Zahid that is why we were on visiting terms. My son Muhammad Zahid works in motor market. ----------- My house is situated in a public thoroughfare. Deceased and complainant used to visit out house once or twice in a week and sometimes after a week--- Iqra (PW-7), an eye-witness, deposed contrary to Muhammad Asim (PW-5), the complainant, and Muhammad Shafique (PW-6) about the reason for the visit of the complainant and the deceased and her presence at the time of the occurrence. Iqra (PW-7), an eye-witness, deposed during cross-examination that:- -----The complainant Asim and deceased Mohsin Raza are friend of my father and brothers---At the time of occurrence my elder brother was also present in the house namely Muhammad Zahid. The accused Nauman Ijaz used to tease me prior 2/3 months from the occurrence. I told my parents about…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.