Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1597
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: The State, Liaquat Ali, Mazhar and another vs Liaquat Ali, The State, The JUDGMENT
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1597. In this matter between The State, Liaquat Ali, Mazhar and another and Liaquat Ali, The State, The JUDGMENT, 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.
Case cited as 2025LHC1597
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, Sultan Tanvir Ahmad Title:The State, Liaquat Ali, Mazhar and another vs Liaquat Ali, The State, The
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 LHC 1597 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative Judgment
JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.-Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada, Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada (convicts) were tried along with Shahzada and Basit Ali (both since acquitted), their co-accused, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan Abdaal in the case F.I.R. No. 234 of 2018 dated 15.08.2018, registered in respect of offences under sections 302,324, 337- F(i),337-A(ii), 148 and 149 P.P.C. at the Police Station Saddar Hassan Abdaal, District Attock for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Asghar Ali son of Ghulam Khan (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.04.2022, convicted Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada, Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada (convicts) and sentenced them as infra: Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada:- Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Asghar Ali son of Ghulam Khan (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default thereof, the convict was directed to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till death. Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada :- i) To pay Arsh equal to 5% of Diyat under section 337-A(ii) P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C. to Najabat Ali (PW-12) .
---
## Page 2
ii) To pay Daman of Rs.20,000/- under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C. to Najabat Ali (PW-12) . Kamran Ali son of Shahzada:- i) To pay Arsh equal to 5% of Diyat under section 337-A(ii) P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C. to Najabat Ali (PW-12) . ii) To pay Daman of Rs.20,000/- under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C. to Najabat Ali (PW-12) . Till the payment of above mentioned Arsh and Daman amounts, Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada (convicts) were directed to remain confined and their imprisonment was to be treated as simple imprisonment. The convict namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada was however acquitted the charge under section 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148 and 149 P.P.C. by the learned trial court. The convicts namely Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada were acquitted of the charge under section 302,324, 148 and 149 P.P.C. by the learned trial court. Shahzada and Basit Ali , the co-accused of the convicts, were acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada(convict) lodged the Criminal Appeal No.778-J of 2022, assailing his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada (convicts) lodged the Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2022, assailing their convictions and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.82 of 2022 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada . We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 778-J of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2022 and the Murder Reference No.82 of 2022 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Sohbat Khan (PW-11), the complainant of the case are as under:- "Stated that on 15.08.2018, at about 06:30 p.m., my son Shafqat Ali was grazing cattle near Haidri Masjid at a distance about 20 paces from my house. Meanwhile, suddenly, accused persons Shahzad alias Shada armed with Sota, Mazhar armed with sickle, Kamran armed with Sota, sons of Shahzad alias Shada, Basit son of Ishtiaq empty handed emerged there. Accused Shahzad alias Shada raised Lalkara to his co-accused persons to teach lesson to Shafqat for making litigation with Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili upon which accused persons started beating Shafqat Ali my son. My son Shafqat raised hue and cry, hearing which my nephew Najabat Ali son of Aksar Zaman alias Kala rushed to get relieved Shafqat from the hands of accused persons. Accused Mazhar Ali made a sickle blow on Najabat Ali which hit on left side of his face, who fell injured upon which Kamran accused made a Sota blow which hit on lower side of left shoulder towards chest. I and my brother Asghar Ali aged about 45/50 years alongwith nephew Najab Ali and my son Barkat Ali, hearing noise, came out from the house. Meanwhile, Liaqat armed with 12 bore, alongwith Shahzad alias Shada, Mazhar, Kamran, Basit son of Ishtiaq rushed towards us while accused Shahzad alias Shada again raised Lalkara upon which Liaqat made fire which hit my brother Asghar Ali on his right temporal region of his head, who fell injured and succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons while raising Lalkaras fled away from the place of occurrence. On 10.08.2018, at about 01:30 p.m., my son Barkat Ali and nephew Najab Ali were passing near Dera of Shahzad alias Shada. Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili, Shahzad alias Shada, Mazhar, Liaqat, Kamran, Basit were sitting at the Dera of Shahzad alias Shada. Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili was saying to his co-accused to murder Asghar and Sohbat Khan and he will deal with the matter. Under objection from learned defence counsel that the witness is recording hearsay evidence regarding hatching of conspiracy and it is inadmissible in Qanun-eShahadat Order. Learned counsel for the Complainant replied that it is not hearsay evidence. (As the witness has not stated about getting information from other person and he is
---
## Page 3
narrating the story whatever is mentioned in his complaint/Fard Biyan and definitely, the prosecution shall prove the alleged hatching of conspiracy through independent evidence, therefore, the defenc objection is over ruled) Police reached at the spot and recorded my statement Exh.P- H which bears my signatures Exh.P-H/1. On 04.09.2018, I handed over attested copy of plaint and order sheet P-8/1-5 and copy of documents relating to Revenue Board P- 9/1-6 to police, who took the same into possession vide recovery memo Exh.P-J and obtained my signatures and recorded my statement. The motive behind the occurrence is pendency of civil litigation between us and Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili. Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili asked the accused persons to eject us from the land." 4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 27.11.2018, 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 sixteen witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Sohbat Khan (PW-11) and Najabat Ali (PW-12). Shaukat Ali (PW-1) stated that on 15.08.2018, the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession blood stained earth and one empty cartridge (P-1) from the place of occurrence. Nazir Muhammad (PW-2) stated that on 15.08.2018, he identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of its post mortem examination. Nazim Ali (PW-4) stated that on 11.10.2018, the appellant namely Kamran Ali got recovered Danda (P-3). Muhammad Ashraf (PW5) stated that on 02.09.2018, the appellant got recovered Rifle 12-bore (P-4). Aqil Khan Patwari, (PW-6) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PF). Dilshad Ahmad 1321/C (PW-7) stated that on 15.08.2018 he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Amir Shahzad 1676/HC (PW-9) stated that on 15.08.2018, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain the empty cartridge, one sealed parcel said to contain blood stained earth , one sealed parcel said to contain a bullet and the last worn clothes of the deceased and on 19.08.2018, he handed over the one sealed parcel said to contain the empty cartridge, one sealed parcel said to contain blood stained earth, one sealed parcel said to contain a bullet to Muhammad Ismail, ASI (PW-8) for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 02.09.2018, Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW- 16) handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain a gun which on 13.09.2018 , he handed over to Muhammad Ismail, ASI (PW-8) for its onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore. Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16) investigated the case from 15.08.2018 till 12.10.2018, arrested the appellant namely Liaquat Ali on 28.08.2018, arrested the appellants namely Mazhar Ali and Kamran Ali on 09.10.2018 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. Noman Shaukat (PW-14) examined, who on 15.08.2018 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ hospital Hassan Abdaal and on the same day, conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Asghar Ali son of Ghulam Khan ( deceased). Dr. Noman Shaukat (PW-14), on conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of Asghar Ali son of Ghulam Khan ( deceased) observed as under:- "Description of injuries:- (1) Firearm entry wound 3.0 cm X 2.0 cm with inverted edges on right of face near right ear. Route Entered from right side of face downward passing skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, fracturing right maxilla upper molar teeth then fracturing right mandible with lower molar passing into the neck damaging great vessels of neck including jugular vein, crossed and damage great vessels of
---
## Page 4
chest crossing the left lung damaging it and found at back of left lung at about second rib level. 300 ml to 500 ml blood was recovered from chest cavity. All injuries were antemortem. In my opinion, the cause of death was a shock & hemorrhage due to injury No. 01 which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 01 was antemortem. " On 15.08.2018 , Dr. Noman Shaukat (PW-14) also medically examined Najabat Ali (PW-12) . Dr. Noman Shaukat (PW-14), on examining Najabat Ali (PW-12) observed as under:- "INJURIES 1. Incised wound measuring 04 X 01 cm on left side of face, 06 cm blow (sic) left eyelid and 01 cm above left upper lip with bone exposed. 2. Swelling 04 X 01 cm on left side of upper anterior chest at about clavicle region." 7. On 21.02.2022, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the Ahmed Khan, Ghulam Ashiq son of Ghulam Khan, Muhammad Younas 628/C, Azhar Ali son of Sher Dil, Lal Khan son of Ghulam Sarwar, Ibrar Ali son of Meer Afzal, Bakht Ali son of Asghar Ali, Barkat Ali son of Sohbat Khan as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. P.AA. and Exh. P.Z). 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellants namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada , Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, they replied that they had been involved in the case falsely and were innocent. The appellants namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada , Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and Kamran Ali son of Shahzada , opted not to get themselves examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 9. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan Abdaal, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants precisely was that the 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 appellants further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the recovery of the Sickle (P-10) from the appellant namely Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and the recovery of the Gun 12- bore (P-4) from the appellant namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada and the recovery of the Danda (P-3) from the appellant namely Kamran Ali son of Shahzada were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and were result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the appellants had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellants 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 along with the learned counsel for the complainant, contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada, whereas the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) was also injured at the hands of the appellants. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the recovery of the Sickle (P-10) from the appellant namely Mazhar Ali son of Shahzada and the
---
## Page 5
recovery of the Gun 12-bore (P-4) from the appellant namely Liaquat Ali son of Shahzada and the recovery of the Soti (P-8) from the appellant namely Kamran Ali son of Shahzada also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offenders with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeals. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance. 13. The ocular account of the case was furnished by the prosecution witnesses Sohbat Khan (PW-11) and Najabat Ali (PW-12). The prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) claimed that he was injured during the occurrence however the stamp of injuries on the person of a witness may be proof of his presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, however the same can never guarantee a truthful deposition. Injuries statedly received by a witness during an incident do not warrant acceptance of his evidence without scrutiny. At the most, such traumas can be taken as an indication of his presence on the spot, but still his evidence is to be scrutinized on the benchmark of principles laid down for the appraisal of evidence. It is not a given that a witness who suffered injuries during the occurrence will depose nothing but the truth. Even otherwise, it is not the simple presence of a witness at the crime scene but his credibility which makes him a reliable witness. It has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan repeatedly that the facts which an injured witness narrates are not to be implicitly accepted rather, they are to be attested and appraised on the principles applied for the appreciation of evidence of any prosecution witness regardless of him being injured or not. Guidance is sought from the principle enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazir Ahmad vs. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCM R 527) where at page 534 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold as under: "It is settled law that injuries of P.W. are only indication of his presence at the spot but are not affirmative proof of his credibility and truth". Guidance is also sought from the principle enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Amin Ali and another Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 323) where the august Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that presence of injuries does not stamp a witness to be a truthful one and observed as under :-. "12. Certainly, the presence of the injured witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident, but the question is as to whether they are truthful witnesses or otherwise, because merely the injuries on the persons of P.Ws. would not stamp them truthful witnesses. It has been held in the case of Said Ahmed supra as under:- - "It is correct that the two eye-witnesses are injured and the injuries on their persons do indicate that they were not self-suffered. But that by itself would not s h o w that they had, in view of the aforenoted circumstances, told the truth in the Court about the occurrence; particularly, also the role of the deceased and the eye-witnesses. It cannot be ignored that these two witnesses are closely related to the deceased, while the two other eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. namely, Abdur Rashid and Riasat were not examined at the trial. This further shows that the injured eyewitnesses wanted to withhold the material aspects of the case from the Court and the prosecution was apprehensive that if independent witnesses are examined, their depositions might support the plea of the accused." In the case of Mehmood Hayat supra at page 1417, it has been observed as under:--
---
## Page 6
"10. There is no cavil with the proposition laid down in the case of Zaab Din and another v. The State (PLD 1986 Peshawar 188) that merely because the P.Ws. had stamp of firearm injuries on their person was not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on their testimony." In the case of Mehmood Ahmed supra, this Court at page 7 observed as under: "For an injured witness whose presence at the occurrence is not disputed it can safely be concluded that he had witnessed the incident. But the facts he narrates are not to be implicitly accepted merely because he is an injured witness. His testimony is to be tested and appraised on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness." 13. From the above evidence of the P. Ws., they do not appear to be truthful witnesses; therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their evidence." With this principle of appreciation of evidence in our minds that an injured witness cannot be presumed to be also a truthful witness, we have proceeded to examine the statement of the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) who had claimed that he was injured during the incident. We have noticed that despite the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Sohbat Khan (PW-11) and Najabat Ali (PW-12) that Najabat Ali (PW-12) was also injured during the occurrence ,no effort was made to get the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) medically examined before the arrival of Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16) at the place of occurrence. Additionally according to Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16), the Investigating Officer of the case , Najabat Ali (PW-12) was sent to the hospital after an hour of the arrival of Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16), the Investigating Officer of the case at the place of the occurrence . It is even otherwise not believable that the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) kept bleeding at the place of occurrence awaiting the arrival of the police for as many as two hours and twenty minutes without him being taken to any hospital and was not sent to the hospital for another hour even after the arrival of the police at the place of the incident. Amir Shahzad 1235/C (PW10) stated during cross-examination, as under:- " The injured was handed over to me from the spot at about 09:00 p.m. I reached at the place of occurrence at about 08:50/55.p.m. alongwith IO from Police Station City Hassan Abdal." (emphasis supplied) Similarly, Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16) also stated during cross-examination , as under:- "I sent the dead body to THQ Hospital, Hassan Abdal after 01 hour and 30 minutes from my arrival at the place of occurrence. The injured was sent to THQ Hospital, Hassan Abdal about 10 to 15 minutes earlier. I did not record statement of injured Najabat at the place of occurrence " (emphasis supplied) Had Najabat Ali (PW-12) been injured during the incident, then there did not exist any possibility that he would not have been taken to the hospital for as many as two hours and twenty minutes till the arrival of the police at the place of the occurrence and would have been held at the spot for another hour even after the arrival of Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16) ,the Investigating Officer of the case,at the place of occurrence. Moreover, had Najabat Ali (PW-12) been present in an injured condition, then Zulfiqar Khan, SI (PW-16),the Investigating Officer of the case would have recorded his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 at the place of the occurrence but it was not. The claim of Najabat Ali (PW-12) being injured during the occurrence is also falsified by the fact that despite the claim of Najabat Ali (PW-12) that he fell after suffering from the injuries and remained present at the place of the occurrence for more than two hours and twenty minutes, no blood stained earth related to the falling of the blood of Najabat Ali (PW- 12) was taken into possession by Zulfiqar Ali (PW-16), the Investigating Officer of the case from the place of the occurrence . It is also a fact that not even the clothes of Najabat Ali (PW-12), which in the circumstances must have been stained with blood , were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case. All these facts of the prosecution case create a huge doubt with regard to the claim of the prosecution that Najabat Ali (PW-12) was injured during the incident.
---
## Page 7
14. We have noticed that the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12), while getting his statement recorded before the learned trial court, never stated that he was taken to the hospital after the occurrence or that any Medical Officer had examined him after the occurrence. For reference, the examination in chief of the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) as recorded by the learned trial court is being reproduced under:- " Stated that on 15.08.2018, at about 06:30 p.m., my cousin Shafqat Ali son of Sohbat Khan was grazing cattle near Haidri Masjid at a distance about 20 paces from his house. Meanwhile, suddenly, accused persons Shahzad alias Shada armed with Sota, Mazhar armed with sickle, Kamran armed with Sota, Basit son of Ishtiaq empty handed emerged there. Accused Shahzad alias Shada raised Lalkara to his co- accused persons to teach lesson to Shafqat for making litigation with Nasir Khan Tahir Khaili upon which accused persons started beating Shafqat Ali my cousin, who raised hue and cry, hearing which I rushed to rescue Shafqat Ali from the hands of accused persons. Accused Mazhar Ali made a sickle blow which hit me on left side of my face. I fell injured upon which Kamran accused made a Sota blow which hit on lower side of my left shoulder towards chest. Hearing our noise, Sohbat Khan, my Chacha Asghar Ali since deceased, Najab Ali and Barkat Ali PWs, came out from their house. Meanwhile, Liaqat armed with. 12 bore gun, alongwith Shahzad alias Shada, Mazhar, Kamran, Basit son of Ishtiaq while armed with their respective weapons mentioned above rushed towards Sohbat Khan etc while accused Shahzad alias Shada again raised Lalkara upon which Liaqat made fire which hit my chacha Asghar Ali on his right temporal region of his head, who fell injured and succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons while raising Lalkaras fled away from the place of occurrence. I joined the investigation and police recorded my statement." (emphasis supplied) The learned Deputy Prosecutor General is unable to explain as to why the prosecution witness namely Najabat Ali (PW-12) himself never claimed that he was taken to the hospital or that he was medically examined or that any Medico Legal Examination Certificate was issued with regard to his examination. When Najabat Ali (PW-12) himself never…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.