Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Imdad Hussain VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural Husnain Abbas and Muhammad Mubashir Akram
CITATION: 2026 PCrLJ 1094 CASE: 2026L3038 TITLE: Imdad Hussain VS State Honorable Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural Husnain Abbas and Muhammad Mubashir Akram COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PCrLJ ============================================================
305 2026 P Cr. L J 1094 [Lahore (Multan Bench)] Before Asjad Javaid Ghural and Tariq Saleem Sheikh, JJ Imdad Hussain ---Appellant Versus The State
and others---Respondents Criminal Appeals Nos. 480, 473 and Murder Reference No. 30 of 2022, decided on 13th October, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---In the unfortunate incident a young girl and mother of an infant boy of just five months had been brutally murdered and her sin set out in the crime report, lodged by her husband as well as in the private complaint filed by her mother, was that she entered into a love marriage---Notorious act of honour killing was a severe violation of human rights and grave societal menace that undermined the rule of law---Deceased lady, being sui juris, was fully competent to enter into marriage with a person of her own choice and no prohibition in that regard was laid down by our religion or the law of land---Wiping out such a person, on the pretext that she had brought shame or dishonor upon the family or community was violative of her fundamental rights of life, liberty and security enshrined in the Constitution---Even the factum that the deceased was murdered on account of her love marriage was admitted by the appellants, in their statements recorded under S.342 Cr.P.C.---Thus, the motive that the deceased was brutally murdered on account of honour killing had been fully proved---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State PLD 2001 SC 96 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---In order to prove the charge against the appellants, Mother of deceased, by appearing in the dock in the Court room reiterated the contents of private complaint---Complainant in categorical terms raised accusing finger towards the appellants for motivating her to take the deceased lady to their house for the sake of her safety and protection---Appellants assured complainant that they would not cause any harm to the deceased lady, thus, she being a widow, for the safety of the deceased lady, took her to the house of appellant GQ ---On the fateful day, at about 12.30 p.m. appellant IH , while armed with pistol 30-bore along with appellant GQ , co- accused and acquitted accused came there and raised lalkara to teach a lesson to the deceased lady for disgracing their honour---Appellant IH made fire shots with his pistol, which landed on different parts of the body of deceased lady---Complainant was cross-examined at length but she remained firm and consistent in her stance and the defence despite hectic efforts failed to shake her testimony on material points---Woman Medical Officer held autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 13.07.2018 and observed sixteen fire arm injuries including exit wounds on her person---Nature of injuries, kind of weapon used for causing those injuries and the duration between injuries and death as well as death and post mortem examination, was exactly in consonance with the ocular account and as such, the medical evidence lent full support to the ocular account---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Eye-witness---Name of witness not mentioned in crime report---Scope---Merely for the reason that the name of a particular person is not mentioned in the crime report as a witness does not necessarily mean that such person has not seen the occurrence. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant at the scene of occurrence proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Record showed that there was trust deficit between the parties and husband of the deceased/complainant of FIR case, had no visiting terms with his in-laws---Even, prior to the sad demise of his wife, her husband filed an application under S.491 Cr.P.C. claiming therein that mother of the deceased lady along with others forcibly abducted her from his house, therefore, there might be a trust deficit between the husband and mother of deceased, which prompted her husband to report the matter to the police without citing the mother as eye-witness of the occurrence, as a result whereof formal FIR was registered---In the said FIR, husband of the deceased lady narrated a very straightforward story and did not claim himself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, it would not be possible for him to narrate the names of eye-witnesses, who had seen the occurrence with their own eyes---Therefore, if at later stage, mother of the deceased lady, stepped forward with the assertion that she knew who committed the murder of deceased, it was not unusual---Even the presence of the complainant at the venue of occurrence was admitted by the Investigating Officer, who during cross-examination deposed that site plan was recorded on the pointation of mother of deceased---Thus, it was manifestly clear that at the time of first visit of the Investigating Officer, not only the complainant was present but she also pointed out the place where the appellants committed the murder of deceased---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 265-F---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Negligence of Investigating Officer in not recording statement of complainant under S.161, Cr.P.C---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---It was alleged by defence that statement of complainant/mother of deceased under S.161 Cr.P.C was recorded at a belated stage, which reduced its value to nil, as such no reliance could be placed upon such a statement---Recording the statement of a relevant person/witness was the duty of the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer conceded presence of this witness at the time of his first visit of place of occurrence and he also prepared site plan on her instructions, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to record the statement of such important witness---It was a matter of record that said witness was running from pillar to post for recording her statement and finally she succeeded in bringing on record her stance in the shape of statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. by the intervention of the Ex Officio Justice of Peace but the said statement was also not recorded in actual terms which persuaded her to file private complaint---Even otherwise, if it was presumed that no statement of said witness under S.161 Cr.P.C. was available on record even then the same was not helpful to the defence, as the trial was conducted in the private complaint filed by her---Proper procedure for recording of prosecution evidence, after framing of charge had been laid down in S.265-F of Cr.P.C.---Nowhere in the said Section a prohibition had been contained that the Court was bound only to record the testimony of a person, whose statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police---In the instant case, presence of said witness at the time of occurrence was an admitted fact, therefore, none else was more aware of the facts than the said witness and her testimony could not be excluded merely for the reasons that the Investigating Officer due to negligence or with mala sdfide intention did not record her statement under S.161 Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Quality of evidence important than number of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---No doubt that alleged eye-witness was running a tea stall at katchehry road near a hospital of City and he could not furnish any plausible explanation qua his presence at the venue of occurrence during working hours---Thus, testimony of said witness being the chance witness could not be relied upon but that fact alone did not render the prosecution story unworthy of credence for more than one reasons---Firstly, admittedly, the incident had taken place inside the house of appellant GQ , where the presence of independent male eye-witness was impossible---Secondly, in the matter of appreciation of the evidence it was not the number of witnesses rather quality of evidence that was important---There was no requirement under the law that a particular number of witnesses were necessary to prove/disprove a fact---Evidence must be weighed not counted---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Appellant IH was arrested on 20.07.2018 and during investigation he led to the recovery of pistol 30-bore, which was sent to the Office of Forensic Science Agency for comparison with the cartridge cases secured from the spot---According to the report of said office, crime empties secured from the spot were found to be fired from the pistol recovered by the said appellant---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. Muhammad Amin v. The State and another 2019 SCMR 2057 and Asad Rehmat v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1156 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Role of co-accused in investigating, encouraging and authorizing the principal accused to commit murder proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---It was an admitted fact that incident of honour killing had taken place inside the house of appellant GQ ---No doubt according to prosecution's claim, said appellant did not cause any injury to the deceased but happening of incident in his house alone was sufficient to believe that he not only conspired with the principal accused but also provided him full aid in accomplishing his task, as without his active assistance, it was not possible for the principal accused to enter into his house and commit the murder of innocent soul---Appellant was so influential person in the community that on his asking, complainant took his young girl in his house for shelter---Deceased lady was done to death on account of so-called honour killing---Bringing the deceased lady in the house of said appellant showed that the said appellant was master mind of entire incident---Role of said appellant in instigating, encouraging and authorizing the principal accused for committing the murder of deceased lady made him direct participant in the murder, even ifhe did not personally inflict any harm to the victim---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, the appeals were dismissed, accordingly. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing---Record showed that recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant IH remained inconsequential---Three co-accused of the said appellant had been acquitted of the charge---No special circumstance was required to consider mitigationfor converting the sentence of death into imprisonment for life rather an iota of single instance was sufficient to justify lesser sentence---When a case qualified the awarding of both sentences of imprisonment for life and that of the death, the proper course for the Courts, as a matter of caution, was to give preference to the lesser sentence---Thus, death sentence awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeals were dismissed in circumstances. Dilawar Hussain v. The State 2013 SCMR 1582 and Ghulam Moy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu and others v. The State 2014 SCMR 1034 rel.
Husnain Abbas and Muhammad Mubashir Akram for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2022). Malik Amir Manzoor Awan and Ejaz Ahmad Khan Baloch, Syed Abid Hussain Imam for Appellant with appellant Ghulam Qasim (in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2022). Sardar Muhammad Hussain Gorchani and Ch. Shahid Ali for the Complainant. Malik Mudassar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ghulam Abbas, S.I for the State. Date of hearing: 13th October, 2025. judgment Asjad Javaid Ghural, J .--- Through the afore-titled criminal appeals under Section 410 Cr.P.C., appellants Imdad Hussain and Ghulam Qasim have challenged the vires of judgment dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajanpur in private complaint titled Anwar Mai v. Imdad Hussain , under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C, relating to case FIR No.241/2018, dated 13.07.2018, under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C registered at Police Station, Kot Mithan, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:- i) Appellant Imdad Hussain; Under Section 302 (b) P.P.C Death along with compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Zubaida Bibi and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. ii) Appellant Ghulam Qasim; Under Section 302/109 P.P.C Imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs.200,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Zubaida Bibi as required under section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convict Ghulam Qasim. 2. Murder Reference No.30 of 2022 sent up by the trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant Imdad Hussain will also be decided through this common judgment. 3. Initially, Abdul Sattar (CW-10) got lodged formal FIR (Ex.CA/1) alleging therein that he contracted Court marriage with Mst. Zubaida Bibi (deceased) and out of said wedlock one child Muhammad Ayyan, aged about five months was born. 5/6 days prior to the occurrence, his mother in law, accompanying by Imdad Hussain, Ghulam Qasim and Zafar Hussain came in his house and took the deceased with them deceitfully and forcibly. On the fateful day at about 12.30 (noon), he along with eye-witnesses went to Basti Ghulam Qasim Gatt in search of his wife, when he heard the voice of firing from the house of Ghulam Qasim. After a while, appellants along with co-accused Zafar Hussain (since acquitted) and an unknown accused came outside the house and told him that they by declaring Mst. Zubaida Bibi as Kali, committed her murder. After few months of the occurrence, Mst. Anwar Mai claiming herself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence filed private complaint (Ex.PA). In the private complaint besides above three nominated accused of FIR, she also involved Mukhtiar and Ghulam Hassan (since acquitted) in the commission of crime. She assigned the role of causing fire shot to appellant Imdad Hussain and abetment to the rest of four accused. Bone of contention i.e. love marriage of the deceased with the complainant of the State case remained the same. 4. Earlier, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2019 acquitted co-accused Ghulam Hassan and Mukhtiar, whereas, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the same manner as enumerated above but besides them, it also awarded life imprisonment to co-accused Zafar Hussain. Conviction and sentence of the appellants and their co-accused were challenged and this Court vide judgment 21.03.2022 remanded the matter to the trial Court for re-writing of the judgment, in accordance with the material available on record. In the post remand proceedings the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 08.04.2022 acquitted co-accused Ghulam Hassan, Mukhtiar and Zafar Hussain, whereas, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. 6. In this unfortunate incident a young girl and mother of an infant boy of just five months has been brutally murdered. Her sin set out in the crime report (Ex.CA/1), lodged by her husband Abdul Sattar, (CW-10) as well as in the private complaint (Ex.PA) filed by Mst. Anwar Mai (PW-1)/real mother, was that she entered into a love marriage. The notorious act of honour killing is a severe violation of human rights and grave societal menace that undermines the rule of law. The deceased lady, being sui juris, was fully competent to enter into marriage with a person of her own choice and no prohibition in this regard was laid down by our religion or the law of land. Wiping out such a person, on the pretext that he/she has brought shame or dishonor upon the family or community is violative of his/her fundamental rights of life, liberty and security enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In case reported as Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 96) , the apex Court has observed as under:- Legally and morally speaking, no body has any right nor can anybody be allowed to take law in his own hands to take the life of any body in the name of Ghairat . Niether the law of the land nor religion permits so-called honour killing which amounts to murder (Qatl-i-Amd) simpliciter. Such iniquitous and vile act is violative of fundamental right as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which provides that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution. Even the factum that the deceased was murdered on account of her love marriage was admitted by the appellants, in their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. Thus, the motive that the deceased was brutally murdered on account of honour killing has been fully proved and now the question which requires determination is that whether the appellants were responsible for such murder or not? 7. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, Mst. Anwar Mai (PW-1)/mother of deceased, by appearing in the dock in the Court room reiterated the contents of private complaint (Ex.PA). She in categorical terms raised accusing finger towards the appellants for motivating her to took the deceased lady to their house for the sake of her safety and protection. They assured her that they will not cause any harm to the deceased lady, thus, she being a widow, for the safety of the deceased lady, took her to the house of appellant Ghulam Qasim. On the fateful day, at about 12.30 p.m. appellant Imdad Hussain, while armed with pistol 30-bore along with appellant Ghulam Qasim, co-accused Ghulam Hassan and Zafar Hussain (since acquitted) came there and raised Lalkara to teach a lesson to the deceased lady for disgracing their honour. Appellant Imdad Hussain made fire shots with his pistol, which landed on different parts of the body of deceased lady. She was cross-examined at length but she remained firm and consistent in her stance and the defence despite hectic efforts remained fail to shake her testimony on material points. Learned counsel for the appellants laid much emphasis that had this witness was present at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time, her name would have been cited as an eye-witness in the promptly lodged crime report, as such her presence at the venue of occurrence was doubtful and no reliance can be placed upon her testimony. We are not impressed with this submission. Merely for the reason that the name of a particular person is not mentioned in the crime report as a witness does not necessarily mean that such person had not seen the occurrence. It is evincing from the record that there was trust deficit between the parties and husband of the deceased/complainant of FIR case, have not visiting terms with his in-laws. Even, prior to the sad demise of his wife, he filed an application under section 491 Cr.P.C. (Ex.DB) claiming therein that mother of the deceased lady along with others forcibly abducted her from his house, therefore, there might be a trust deficit between the husband and mother of deceased, which prompted her husband to report the matter to the police without citing the mother as eye-witness of the occurrence, as a result whereof formal FIR (Ex.CA/A) was registered. In the said FIR, husband of the deceased lady narrated a very straightforward story and does not claim himself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, it would not be possible for him to narrate the names of eye-witnesses, who had seen the occurrence with their own eyes. Therefore, if at latter stage, mother of the deceased lady, stepped forward with the assertion that she knew who committed the murder of deceased, it was not unusual. Even the presence of the complainant (PW-1) at the venue of occurrence was admitted by the Investigating Officer (CW- 7), who during cross-examination deposed that Point No.2 was recorded on the pointation of mother of Zubaida Bibi. It is thus manifestly clear that at the time of first visit of the Investigating Officer, not only the complainant (PW-1) was present but she also pointed out the place where the appellants committed the murder of deceased. Learned counsel further emphasized that statement of this witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded at a belated stage, which reduces its value to NIL, as such no reliance can be placed upon such a statement. This submission is also repelled for the reasons, that recording the statement of a relevant person/ witness is the duty of the Investigating Officer. As has been observed supra the Investigating Officer conceded presence of this witness at the time of his first visit of place of occurrence and he also prepared site plan on her instructions, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to record the statement of such important witness. It is a matter of record that this witness was running from pillar to post for recording her statement and finally she succeeded in bringing on record her stance in the shape of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the intervention of the Ex Officio Justice of Peace (Ex.DA/3) but the said statement was also not recorded in actual terms which persuaded her to file private complaint. Even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments, we presume…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.