Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1892
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-03-13
Parties: The State, Saadat Hussain vs Saadat Hussain, The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-03-13, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1892. In this matter between The State, Saadat Hussain and Saadat Hussain, The State, 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 2025LHC1892
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, Ch. Sultan Mahmood Title: The State, Saadat Hussain vs Saadat Hussain, The State Case No.: Murder Reference No.07 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 105-J of 2023 Date of Judgment:2025-03-13 Reported As: 2025 LHC 1892 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. - Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz (convict) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Minchinabad in case F.I.R. No. 655 of 2021 dated 13.10.2021 registered at Police Station Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar in respect of offences under sections 302,325 and 109 P.P.C. and under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance XX of 1965) for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Iqra Bibi daughter of Muhammad Usman (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 28.02.2023, convicted Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz: - i) Death under section 302(b) PPC as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Iqra Bibi daughter of Muhammad Usman (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.200,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased,and directed to pay fine of Rs.200,000/- in case of default thereof, the convict was directed to undergo further one year of simple imprisonment. ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under section 325 P.P.C. and directed to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, the convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of further one month. iii) Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance XX of 1965) and directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of further three months The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead.
---
## Page 2
All the sentences awarded to the convict were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court. The benefit provided under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was also extended to the convict by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz (convict) lodged Criminal appeal No.105-J of 2023 through jail assailing his conviction and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.07 of 2023 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 105-J of 2023 and Murder Reference No.07 of 2023 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Muhammad Usman (PW- 2), the complainant of the case, are as under: - "Stated that on 13th of 10th month of previous year at 9.00 am I was present at home, Muhammad Tariq and Ishfaq PWs were also present with me. Sadat Hussain accused, present in court, who was my son-in-law and married with my daughter Iqra Bibi deceased of this case, entered in our house while scaling over the wall. We saw him and he came to my daughter who was present at the courtyard of the house and they started quarreling and went inside the room. The PWs asked me to intercept but I told them that they were husband and wife and they might be going to finish their dispute. In our presence, Sadat Hussain and daughter went inside the room and we heard hue cry of Iqra Bibi and rushed towards room, while door of the room was bolted from inside. We saw from open window of the room, Sadat Hussain accused made fire with pistol at Iqra Bibi which landed on her left shoulder. He made second fire which hit in the middle of chest of Iqra Bibi. We cut the lattices (Jali) and we saw that Sadat Hussain tried to fire at his right temporal but the fire missed. He threw the pistol and picked up scissor and inflicted two blows on his abdomen and fell down on the ground. We entered the room and attended Iqra Bibi and Sadat Hussain accused. Muhammad Tariq PW called rescue 1122 and Iqra Bibi as well as accused Sadat Hussain were shifted to Hospital. On reaching the hospital, Iqra Bibi succumbed to the injuries. Motive behind the occurrence was that Iqra Bibi was married with accused Sadat Hussain two years prior to the occurrence and she was living with Sadat Hussain in Chak No.1/1-R Teshil Haroonabad She was ousted from the house and she came to my house some weeks prior to the occurrence. Police came at hospital and I got drafted application Exh. P-B which was thumb- marked by me. After registration of case, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Ashraf PWs disclosed before me that prior to occurrence of murder of Iqra Bibi, Rani Bibi and Sarfraz accused persons (parents of Sedat Husasain accused) were hatching conspiracy in the house of Amina Bibi their daughter, falling near my house. Rani Bibi and Sarfraz were compelling Sadat Hussain accused to kill Iqra Bibi since she used to go to house of her parents oftently." 4. After the formal investigation of the case, the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court, wherein the accused was sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 01.12.2021, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, got statements of as many as fourteen witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3). Tanzila Abdullah 1729/LC (PW-1) stated that on 13.10.2021, she 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. Amjad Rasheed 1470/C (PW-4) stated that he took the written application (Exh.PB) to the police station. Muhammad Khan (PW-5) stated that on 13.10.2021, he identified the dead body of the deceased. Abdul Ali, ASI (PW-10) stated that on 13.10.2021, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PB/1).
---
## Page 3
Muhammad Din Abid draftsman (PW-13) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PN). Muhammad Ayyub, SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of the case, investigated the case from 13.10.2021 till 24.11.2021, arrested the appellant in this case on 19.10.2021 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. The prosecution also got Dr. Chaman Shafique (PW-9) examined, who on 13.10.2021 was posted as Woman Medical Officer at the THQ Hospital, Minchinabad and on the same day conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Dr. Chaman Shafique (PW-9) after conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased namely Mst. Iqra Bibi daughter of Muhammad Usman, observed and opined as under: - "i) An oval shaped lacerated wound (entry wound) 02 X 02 cm skin and muscle deep, margins were inverted with blackening and burning on front of left side of chest. Below left clavicle making track from the second intercostal space in words the chest and exit was with everted margins size about 02/21/2 cm on the back of chest 5-6 intercostal space, blood oozing present. ii) An oval shape lacerated wound (entry wound) 11/2 X 11/2 cm skin and muscle deep. Margins were inverted with blackening just below left lateral aspect of xiphisternum joint making a track in abdominal cavity (exit wound) on the back of trunk near to the vertebral column. Its margins were everted about 2 X 2 cm blood oozing from the wound was present. .............. In my opinion injury No.1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature by causing cardiogenic and hypovolemic shock and ultimately death. These injuries were caused by fire arm and were an anti-mortem in nature. Probable duration between injuries and death was within half and hour and between death and postmortem was within four hours." The prosecution also got Dr. Muhammad Abu Bakar (PW-8) examined, who on 13.10.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at the THQ Hospital, Minchinabd and on the same day conducted the medical examination of the appellant namely Saadat Hussain. Dr. Muhammad Abu Bakar (PW-8) on examining the appellant namely Saadat Hussain observed as under: - "Description of Injuries: 1. A 3 x 2 cm sharp wound mid between umbilicus and xiphisternal angle, deep to skin and muscle. 2. A 2 x 1 cm sharp incised wound, 5 cm lateral to first injury, deep to skin." 7. On 14.06.2022, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ishfaq as being unnecessary. On 18.01.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Asghar as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PL and Exh.PM ). 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you, he replied that he had been involved in the case falsely and was innocent and that on the day of the occurrence he found his wife gasping for life after having being fired at and got desperate and injured himself. The appellant namely Saadat Hussain son of Sarfraz opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 9. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Minchinabad, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the whole case was fabricated and false. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible and relevant evidence to prove the same. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) were not worthy of any
---
## Page 4
reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the recoveries were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value and were the result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3). The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the recovery of the Pistol (P-4) and the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PM) also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General prayed for the rejection of the appeal. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance have perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 13. The whole prosecution case orbits around the statements of the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW3). The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) were related to the deceased and their relationship is admitted. Mst. Iqra Bibi (deceased) was the daughter of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and the paternal cousin of Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) . The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has stated that as the occurrence took place inside the house of the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Usman (PW-2), therefore, the presence of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) inside his house at the time of occurrence could not be doubted. Though, the occurrence took place inside the house of Muhammad Usman (PW-2), however, only that fact alone cannot be equated with a truthful deposition by Muhammad Usman. Only the fact that the occurrence took place inside the house of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) does not warrant acceptance of his evidence without scrutiny and his evidence is to be scrutinized on the benchmark of principles laid down for the appraisal of evidence. It is not a given that because Muhammad Usman (PW-2) was the resident of the house where the occurrence took place, therefore, he deposed 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 and the statement of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) cannot be implicitly accepted rather, is to be attested and appraised on the principles applied for the appreciation of evidence. The appraisal of the statement of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) proves that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the same took place. We have noted with grave concern that despite alleging that the appellant had trespassed into the house where the occurrence took place, while armed with a pistol and after scaling over the wall, still Muhammad Usman (PW-2) let the appellant go inside the room along with the deceased and did not at all stop him. Muhammad Usman (PW-2), in his statement recorded by the learned trial court, stated as under:- "Sadat Hussain accused, present in court, who was my son-in-law and married with my daughter Iqra Bibi deceased of this case, entered in our house while scaling over the wall. We saw him and he came to my daughter who was present at the courtyard of the house and they started quarreling and went inside the room. The PWs asked me to intercept but I told them that they were husband and wife and they might be going to finish their dispute." (emphasis supplied) Similarly, Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) also stated that despite the fact that they asked Muhammad Usman (PW-2) not to let the appellant go inside the room along with the deceased as the appellant had trespassed into the house while scaling over the wall and was also armed with a
---
## Page 5
pistol, however, Muhammad Usman (PW-2) did not take the advice of Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) and allowed the appellant to go inside the room along with the deceased. In his statement before the learned trial court, Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) got recorded as under:- "Accused Sadat Hussain entered in our house while scaling over the wall. We saw him and he came to Iqra Bibi deceased who was present in the courtyard and they started quarreling and went inside the room. We asked the complainant to intercept but he told us that they were husband and wife, they might be going to finish their dispute."(emphasis supplied) This conduct of Muhammad Usma n (PW-2) that he let the appellant, who allegedly had trespassed inside the house of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) while armed with a pistol, to accompany the deceased inside the room where she was subsequently fired at and the conduct of Muhammad Usman (PW-2) that he did not even take the advice of the other witness of not letting the appellant accompany the deceased inside the room, where the occurrence took place or even to stop the appellant, who at that time was , according to the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3), quarreling with the deceased , makes it abundantly clear that Muhammad Usman (PW-2) was not present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, otherwise he would not have let the appellant accompany the deceased to the room where the occurrence took place ,specially in the circumstances when the appellant had allegedly trespassed into the house of Muhammad Usman (PW-2), while armed with a pistol and was also quarreling with the deceased. We have noted with grave concern and disquiet that the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) made no effort either to stop the appellant who was quarreling with the deceased, but rather let the appellant accompany the deceased to the room where the occurrence took place. The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) did not even move a limb to protect their near and dear one rather actively allowed the appellant to take the deceased inside the room of the occurrence. It is vexing to imagine that in what circumstances the accused succeeded in taking the deceased inside the room where the occurrence took place in the presence of the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3). The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) kept watching the accused and did not interfere at all, rather, as mentioned above, they actively allowed the taking of the deceased inside the room by the appellant. No person with ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would have acted in the manner in which they did. The allowance of the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) speaks loudly that if the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW- 2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) had been present, they would have definitely intervened and prevented the assailant from taking the deceased inside the room especially when according to the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) the appellant had trespassed into the house by scaling over the wall, was armed with a pistol and was also quarreling with the deceased before he was allowed to take the deceased inside the room where the occurrence took place. It only proves that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailant and no one was there to save her. Such behaviour, on the part of the witnesses, runs counter to natural human conduct and behaviour. We thus, trust the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that the conduct of the witnesses, as deposed by them, was opposed to the common course of natural events, human conduct and that the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) had not witnessed the occurrence and were not even present at the time of occurrence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases of "Zulifqar Ali v. The State" (2021 SCMR 1373) ,Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315) ,"Shahzad Tanveer v. The State" (2012 SCMR 172) and "Liaquat Ali v. The State" (2008 SCMR 95) .
---
## Page 6
14. We have also noted that according to the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3), after the appellant had taken the deceased inside the room where the occurrence took place, he locked the door of the said room and therefore, the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) had to cut the lattices of the window of the said room and thereafter witnessed the incident. Muhammad Usman (PW-2) in his statement before the learned trial court, stated as under:- "In our presence, Sadat Hussain and my daughter went inside the room and we heard hue cry of Iqra Bibi and rushed towards room, while door of the room was bolted from inside."(emphasis supplied) In his statement recorded by the learned trial court, Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) also claimed as under:- "In our presence, Sadat Hussain and Iqra went inside the room and we heard noise of Iqra Bibi and rushed towards room while door of the room was bolted from inside. " (emphasis supplied) During cross-examination, Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) claimed as under:- "We did not try break open the door of room of occurecne after the occurrence.Volunteered it was bolted from inside. The door of the room was made of wood. " (emphasis supplied) The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) also claimed that they had cut the lattices of the window of the said room and thereafter entered the room through the said cut hole in the window. During cross-examination Muhammad Usman (PW-2) claimed as under:- "We entered the room after the occurrence by breaking open the window. We had cut the lattice (Jali) with help of sickle. We had entered the room through the hole by cutting lattices and the cut lattices was separted (sic) by us before we entered the room. I had shown and prodced (sic) that cut lattices before the police officer who visited the spot after the registration of case. The police had taken that cut lattices (Jali) in possession. Volunteered the police had not taken away that piece of lattices. The police had prepared memo of recovery of that piece of lattecies and also obtained my thumb-impression on the memo. ............. . The hole from which we all (Tariq and Ishfaq) entered the room after occurrence was about two or three feet wide. " (emphasis supplied) We have noted with grave concern that despite the claim of the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) that after the appellant had taken the deceased inside the room where the occurrence took place, he locked the door of the said room and therefore, the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW- 3) had to cut the lattices of the window of the said room and thereafter witnessed the incident, according to the statement of Muhammad Ayyub, SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of the case, neither the room where the incident took place had any door nor he observed any cut lattices of the window of the room, after cutting of which lattices the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) had claimed to have entered the said room. During cross-examination, Muhammad Ayyub (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of the case explained as under:- "I had correctly recorded in the inspection note on my first visit of the spot (place of occurrerice) that the room of occurrence had no door at all and the entrance was without any shutter whatsoever. --------------- The complainant party did not produce before me any broken piece of window or lattices at the spot. I myself, also did not take any above said pieces in possession-on my visit of the place of occurrence. I also did not notice any broken pieces of lattices at the spot. I prepared rough site
---
## Page 7
plan Exh.P-K correctly in accordance with inspection note and according to the facts. In this site plan Exh.P-K also I have observed that the enterance (sic) door of room of occurrence had no shutter whatsoever and nor given the width and hight of the enterance (sic) of that room." The above referred unchallenged statement of Muhammad Ayyub, SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of the case that the room where the incident took place had no door and he did not observe any cut lattices of the window of the room, after cutting of which lattices the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) had claimed to have entered the said room, lays bare the false claims of prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3). We are rather shocked at the impunity with which the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) made false statements. The fact that the room where the occurrence took place did not even have a door denudes the whole prosecution evidence against the appellant as being a pack of lies. The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW3) claimed that they could not enter the room as the door of the said room was locked from the inside, whereas the actual fact was that there was no door of the room where the incident took place. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) is proof of their absence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. 15. We have also noted with grave concern that it had not been recorded in the written application (Exh.PB) submitted by Muhammad Usman (PW-2), the complainant of the case, to Muhammad Ayyub, SI (PW-12) for the registration of the case that both the prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman (PW-2) and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) were present inside the house prior to the occurrence and during cross-examination, Muhammad Usman (PW-2) , the complainant of the case was confronted with this fact that he had not got recorded in his written application (Exh.PB) submitted by him to Muhammad Ayyub, SI (PW-12) that he and Muhammad Tariq (PW-3) were present inside the house and the learned trial court noted as under:- "I had got written in the application Exh.P-B that at 9.00 a.m I was present…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.