Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 3
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Criminal Appeal 3/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - rafique (Appellant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 3. In this matter between Criminal Appeal 3/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - rafique (Appellant) and the Respondent, 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.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Criminal Appeal 3/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2025 SHC HYD 1866 PARTIES: rafique (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 11-JUL-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Criminal Appeal No.S-03 of 2025 (Rafique Rajput v. the State)
Appellants: Rafique S/o Naseer Rajput through Raja Hans Raj Naurang, Advocate. Respondent: The State through Mr. Siraj Ahmed Bijrani, A.P.G Sindh. Date of Hearing: 12-05-2025 Date of Decision: 11-07-2025
J U D G M E N T
Riazat Ali Sahar, J.: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14 -12-2024 passed by the learned II - Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 272 of 2023, whereby the appellant Rafique Rajput was convicted under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i) & 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”), and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and payment of Arsh and Daman (compensation) to the victims. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence before this Court. 2. The appellant was tried for attempted murder and causing hurt to his estranged wife and mother -in-law. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 24.01.2023 at about 10:00 p.m., the appellant, armed with a knife and accompanied by his mother (Mst. Naseem), maternal uncle (Bashir) and an unknown accomplice, forcibly entered the house of Mst. Reena (the appellant’s wife) in Noorani Basti, Hyderabad. The attack was motivated by a domestic dispute – Mst. Reena had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage due to the appellant’s alleged maltreatment and intoxicant habits, and
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
2 the appellant had issued threats to coerce her into withdrawing the suit. On the night in question, upon instigation by Bashir, the appellant launched a knife attack on Mst. Reena, stab bing her on the neck, back and arm. When Mst. Reena’s mother, Mst. Yasmeen, rushed over on hearing her cries, the appellant, again incited by Bashir, stabbed Mst. Yasmeen multiple times on different parts of her body. Believing both women to be fatally inj ured, the assailants fled the scene. 3. Despite their injuries, the two women managed to travel to Police Station Pinyari, Hyderabad the same night, where they reported the incident and obtained a police letter for medical treatment. They were then admitte d to Civil Hospital, Hyderabad. The next day (25.01.2023), after emergency medical care had been administered and medico -legal certificates were issued, the complainant (PW -1, Muhammad Rashid, who is Mst. Reena’s brother) formally lodged FI R No.10 of 2023 at P.S. Pinyari, nominating the appellant and his accomplices for the attack. The police carried out investigation, arrested the appellant, and recovered a blood -stained knife allegedly used in the offence. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the appella nt was sent to trial. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence, convicted the appellant as noted above. He now appeals, pleading innocence and false implication due to the matrimonial discord. 4. As this is an appellate Court, I have undertaken a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, as required by law, to arrive at an independent conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the appellant. The prosecution examined seven witnesses (PW -1 to PW-7), including the two injured victims, eyewi tnesses, a medico - legal officer, and police officials. The material aspects of their testimony are summarized and analyzed below. Complainant (PW -1 – Muhammad Rashid): He is the brother of Mst. Reena and the first informant. Although not an eyewitness to t he stabbing (he was away driving his
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
3 rickshaw at the time), he corroborated the background motive and the immediate aftermath. He testified that about 6 -7 years ago, his sister Reena was married to the appellant, who often mistreated her under intoxication , prompting her to seek divorce. He confirmed that the appellant had been issuing threats to withdraw the divorce suit. On the night of 24.01.2023, PW -1 received a distress call from his injured sister informing him that the appellant had attacked her and their mother with a knife, and that they were at Civil Hospital. PW-1 rushed to the hospital and found both women badly wounded. He testified that Mst. Reena narrated the entire incident to him – that the appellant, accompanied by Bashir (maternal uncle), Mst. Naseem (appellant’s mother) and another man, had entered the house and, on Bashir’s instigation, stabbed the two women with intent to kill. PW -1 then went to the police station the next day to lodge the formal FIR. In cross -examination, PW-1 candidly admitted he was not present at the scene during the attack, but his testimony is important for corroborating the sequence of events immediately after the incident (the reporting and hospitalisation). Despite searching questions, nothing emerged in his cros s-examination to suggest any ill -will or motive on his part to falsely implicate the appellant, other than the obvious fact of the divorce dispute which, if anything, supports the prosecution rather than the defence. Eyewitness/victim (PW-2 – Mst. Reena): Mst. Reena is the star witness, being the primary victim and eyewitness. Her testimony provides a graphic account of the assault. She confirmed her troubled marriage with the appellant and the pending dissolution suit. Regarding the incident, she stated that at about 10:00 p.m. on 24.01.2023, while she was at her mother’s house, someone knocked at the outer door. She answered the door and saw the appellant (her husband) armed with a knife, accompanied by his uncle Bashir, his
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
4 mother Mst. Naseem, and one unk nown person. According to PW-2, Bashir immediately exhorted the appellant to kill her, upon which the appellant attacked: “accused Rafique caused me knife blows on my neck, on my back and on my arm”. She raised hue and cry, which attracted her mother to the scene. PW-2 further deposed that on seeing her mother, Bashir again instigated the appellant to harm her as well, whereupon the appellant “caused injuries to my mother on her different parts of body ”. The assailants then fled. PW -2 stated that she and he r mother, bleeding, took a rickshaw to the police station to report the matter and obtain a referral letter, and then proceeded to the hospital for treatment. She remained admitted for about one week, and her mother for about 15 days. She also identified i n court the knife (Article recovered) as the same weapon used by the appellant (though by the time of trial it was no longer blood-stained). PW-2’s cross -examination was aimed at pointing out minor inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her earlie r statement to police under Section 161 CrPC. It was highlighted that in her police statement she reportedly said it was her mother who opened the door, and that she hadn’t mentioned Bashir’s instigation at the door or the detail of going to the police station by rickshaw. She explained that the police may have mis -written who opened the door (clarifying that it was in fact herself, not her mother). She admitted not explicitly mentioning Bashir’s words of instigation in the 161 Cr.P.C statement, but maintai ned that the core fact of the appellant’s attack is consistently stated. These omissions in the preliminary statement are not material contradictions; they do not detract from her vivid firsthand account of the assault. Critically, the defence could not sh ake her testimony on the pivotal point that the appellant was the one who stabbed her and her mother. PW -2 remained steadfast that she had no purpose to falsely implicate her husband; to the
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
5 contrary, she was seeking to lawfully end the marriage and had be en terrorised by his threats. Despite rigorous cross - examination, her evidence emerged credible and cogent on all material particulars. Eyewitness/victim (PW -3 – Mst. Yasmeen): She is the mother of PW -2 and second injured eyewitness. Her account closely co rroborates that of her daughter with minor variations. She testified that on hearing Reena’s screams after the door was opened, she hurried to the door and witnessed the appellant “causing knife blows to my daughter Reena ”, while Bashir, Mst. Naseem and an unknown person stood by. PW -3 tried to rescue her daughter, upon which Bashir instigated the appellant to attack PW -3 as well. The appellant then “caused me knife blows on different parts of my body ”, after which the assailants fled. She confirmed going with Reena to the police station and then to the hospital, where she remained admitted for about 15 days. She too identified the appellant as the culprit and recognized the recovered knife in court. PW -3’s cross - examination revealed a minor discrepancy simi lar to PW -2’s: her 161 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that she (the mother) opened the door, which she clarified was incorrect – in fact her daughter opened it. She also hadn’t mentioned Bashir’s instigation in her police statement. These discrepancies were adequately explained or are of a trivial nature not impinging on her credibility. PW -3 further mentioned that after being stabbed she fell unconscious and only regained senses in the hospital, underlining the severity of the assault. The def ence suggestions that the appellant properly maintained Reena or that no incident occurred were firmly denied by PW -3. Her testimony is natural, unwavering and corroborative of PW -2 in all major aspects. Being an injured witness, her presence at the crime scene is beyond
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
6 dispute, and the straightforward manner in which she recounted the ordeal inspires confidence. Medical evidence (PW -4 – Dr. Yasmeen Rashid, Woman Medico-Legal Officer): The medical officer’s testimony provides impartial confirmation of the nature and location of the injuries sustained by both victims, which dovetails with the ocular account. PW -4 testified that she examined Mst. Yasmeen (PW -3) at Liaquat University Hospital (Civil Hospital) Hyderabad on 24.01.2023, soon after the incident. She noted five incised wounds on Mst. Yasmeen’s person, detailing their measurements and locations: (1) a 10 cm x 1.5 cm skin-deep incised wound on the left temporal region of the head/face (extending to the upper jaw/cheek), (2) a 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm skin -deep incised wound on the right cheek, (3) a 3.5 cm x 0.8 cm skin -deep incised wound below the right clavicle (upper chest), (4) a 3 cm x 1 cm skin -deep incised wound on the back of left side of chest, and (5) a 3 cm x 0.5 cm skin -deep incised wound on the bac k of right side of chest. All injuries were fresh, caused by a sharp cutting weapon (consistent with a knife). After requisite X -rays to rule out fractures or internal trauma, PW -4 issued the final Medico -Legal Certificate (MLC) for Mst. Yasmeen, classifyi ng Injuries #1 and #2 as “Shajjah -i-Khafifah” (simple head/face injuries) punishable under Section 337-A(i) PPC, and i njuries #3, #4, #5 as “Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah” (simple incised wounds on body causing bleeding) under Section 337-F(i) PPC. PW-4 similarly examined Mst. Reena (PW -2) and documented five incised wounds on her body: (1) a 10 cm x 1.5 cm wound on the right side of the neck, bone deep with the bone exposed (extending from the area behind the right ear to the mid - neck), (2) a 2.5 cm x 0.8 cm skin -deep incised wound at the base of the right side of neck, (3) a 3.5 cm x 1 cm skin -deep incised wound on the back of the right shoulder, (4) a 2.5 cm x
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
7 1 cm skin -deep incised wound on the back of the left clavicle region, and (5) a 10 cm x 2 .5 cm deep incised wound on the mid of right forearm involving the underlying muscle. All these injuries were fresh and caused by a sharp cutting weapon. After radiological examination (which showed no bone fracture or internal organ damage), the doctor is sued Mst. Reena’s final MLC, categorizing injury #1 (the neck wound with bone exposed) as “Shajjah -i-Mudihah” (a head/face/neck injury exposing bone) under Section 337 -A(ii) PPC. Injuries #2, #3, #4 were certified as Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah under Section 337 -F(i) PPC, and Injury #5 (deep forearm wound involving muscle) as “Ghayr Jaifah Badi’ah” under Section 337 -F(ii) PPC. The medical evidence thus objectively supports the prosecution narrative: multiple knife wounds were inflicted on both victims, including o ne grievous wound on a vital area (neck) of Mst. Reena. The locations (neck, face, chest, arm) align with the victims’ account of being stabbed on necks and various parts of the body. The weapon used was undoubtedly a sharp blade, consistent with a knife. Had prompt medical attention not been given, the neck wound in particular could have proved fatal. PW -4 also produced contemporaneous medical documents (police letter, provisional and final MLCs) which were exhibited in evidence. In cross -examination, the defence pointed out an overwriting on the date in the provisional MLC; PW -4 explained she had corrected the date and initialed it. It was also brought out that she did not personally see a police officer preparing an injury memo at the hospital and that th e injured were brought by relatives, not police. These are minor procedural aspects and do not cast any doubt on the veracity of the medical findings. The defence’s suggestion that the medical certificates were “fake” was firmly denied by the lady doctor, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support such an allegation. The medical evidence, being res inter alios acta,
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
8 cannot by itself identify the assailant, but it serves as strong corroborative evidence confirming that the victims were attacked in the ma nner described. The injuries documented are exactly what one would expect if two unarmed women were slashed with a knife – lending a ring of truth to the prosecution case. Recovery witness (PW -5 – Rashid Akhtar): PW-5 is a private witness (mashir) who atte sted several recovery and inspection memos during investigation. Though a relative of the victims by marriage (his wife is related to PW -2 and PW - 3), he resides in the same vicinity (Noorani Basti) and was regarded as a “respectable person” called upon by police to witness proceedings. He testified that: (a) on 24.01.2023, at P.S. Pinyari, ASI Habibullah (PW -6) prepared the memo of injuries of Mst. Reena and Mst. Yasmeen , in his and co - mashir Dilawar’s presence; (b) on 25.01.2023, ASI Ghulam Muhammad (PW -7) visited the place of incident (the house) on the complainant’s pointation and drew the site inspection memo, again in presence of PW -5 and Dilawar; (c) on 30.01.2023, the appellant was arrested by ASI Ghulam Muhammad from “Mustafa Park” on the complainant ’s pointation, under an arrest memo signed by PW -5 and the other mashir; and (d) on 01.02.2023, the recovery of a knife was effected by ASI Ghulam Muhammad, documented via a memo witnessed by PW -5 and Dilawar. PW -5 identified in court the various memos (si te inspection, arrest, recovery, injury memo) that bore his signatures. In cross-examination, PW-5 acknowledged his relation to the victims (which he had disclosed) and stated he learned of the incident after it had occurred (he did not witness the stabbin g itself). He admitted that he and his wife went to the hospital upon hearing of the incident, and that the police did not read out the memo contents to him line -by-line before he signed;
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
9 rather, his signatures/thumb impressions were obtained, some at the police station, and he was not called to the police station during the investigation except at the time of these formalities. He also stated that the knife was not recovered from the physical possession of the accused at the time of arrest, implying it was recovered later on the accused’s disclosure. He denied the suggestion that the proceedings were fabricated or that he was giving false evidence. The defence has cast doubt on PW -5’s independence due to his relationship and the somewhat perfunctory manner in which memos were attested. It is true that PW -5 is not a wholly disinterested witness; however, mashirs in our context are often acquaintances or local residents, and mere relationship with the victim does not disqualify a witness or make him per se untruthful. What is crucial is that PW -5’s testimony about the recovery of the weapon and other investigation steps remained unshaken and is corroborated by PW -7 (the investigating officer). Minor imperfections – such as him not recalling the exact contents o f documents or memos not being read out – do not demolish the substance of the evidence. This Court, therefore, finds that the recoveries and memos attested by PW -5 are credible, especially since no evidence of tampering or fabrication was brought out.
Initial Investigating Officer (PW -6 – ASI Habibullah Babar): PW-6 was the duty officer at P.S. Pinyari when the injured women first arrived on 24.01.2023. He testified that on that night, the complainant Muhammad Rashid (PW -1) came to the police station alon g with the two injured women (Mst. Reena and Mst. Yasmeen) and two witnesses (Rashid Akhtar PW-5 and Dilawar). PW -6 prepared the Mashirnama - e-Zaroorat-e-Mulaji (injury memo) for the two injured at the police station in presence of PW -5 and Dilawar, and iss ued the police letter for their medical examination at the hospital.
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
10 He further stated that on the next day, 25.01.2023, after receiving the medical certificates and a formal complaint disclosing a cogn izable offence, he registered FI R No.10 of 2023 under Sections 324, 114, 34 PPC (the sections were later updated to include the specific hurt sections). He identified the FIR (Ex.4/A), the police letter for medical (Ex.7/A), and the injury memo (Ex.8/D) on record as the same documents prepared/signed by him. The cross -examination of PW -6 was brief – he affirmed that he recorded the FIR verbatim as narrated by the complainant. No discrepancy was pointed out in the FIR lodging procedure. The prompt registration of the FIR by PW -6 on the morning of 25.01.2023, af ter the initial report on the night of 24.01.2023, indicates that there was no inordinate delay in setting the law into motion. The minor overnight gap is satisfactorily explained by the fact that priority was given to obtaining medical aid for the victims at night, with formal FIR being lodged once their condition stabilised and medico -legal forms were obtained. Such a brief delay, which is plausibly accounted for, does not cast any adverse inference on the prosecution case, especially when the occurrence itself was reported to police immediately (as evidenced by the issuance of the medical letter on 24.01.2023). Investigating Officer (PW -7 – ASI Ghulam Muhammad Solangi): PW-7 is the officer who took over as the Investigating Officer (“IO”) on 25.01.2023, after registration of the FIR. He conducted the bulk of the investigation. PW -7 deposed that on 25.01.2023, the case was entrusted to him and he immediately visited the scene of crime (the house at Noorani Basti) at 4:05 p.m. that day, per entry No.23 of th e police diary. He inspected the place in the presence of mashirs (PW-5 Rashid Akhtar and Dilawar) and prepared the si te inspection memo at 5:00 p.m. He noted the locale was a residential area and, as he stated in cross, it was “thickly
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
11 populated”; however , no physical evidence (like blood or weapon) was recovered from the scene during inspection. PW-7 further testified that on 30.01.2023, acting on information from the complainant, he arrested the appellant Rafique Rajput from Mustafa Park, Hyderabad, in t he presence of the mashirs PW -5 and Dilawar. An arrest memo was made at the spot and duly signed by the mashirs, which PW-7 confirmed in evidence. The most significant part of PW - 7’s evidence is the recovery of the crime weapon. He stated that on 01.02.202 3, during interrogation, the appellant confessed his guilt and disclosed that he had hidden the knife used in the offence at the Panje Shah Dargah (shrine). Pursuant to this disclosure, PW -7 took the appellant, along with the mashirs, to the pointed spot. The appellant then led them to recover a knife hidden in the earth at the Dargah, which was stained with blood and had some hair stuck to it, and handed it over to PW -7. PW -7 prepared the recovery memo on the spot, witnessed by PW -5 and the other mashir. He measured the knife and found its length to be 14 inches. The recovered knife was produced in Court as case property and both PW -2 and PW -3 identified it to be the same type of knife used by the appellant (noting that by trial it was no longer visibly blo od-stained). PW -7 also deposed that during investigation he recorded statements of four independent persons from the neighborhood on 18.02.2023 (presumably to corroborate the fact of the victims being found injured and the appellant’s prior threats), and a fter completing the investigation, he submitted the charge -sheet against the appellant for trial. PW-7’s cross -examination mainly probed possible lapses in the investigation. He confirmed that the mashirs (PW -5 and Dilawar) were brought by the complainant and accompanied him; he did not know them personally before, but he asked
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
12 them to act as witnesses given the need for respectables. He asserted that he did read over the contents of the memos (site inspection, arrest, reco very) to the mashirs and took their signatures at the spot in each case, which slightly contradicts PW-5’s memory but not in a material way. PW -7 admitted that nothing was recovered from the house during the site inspection and that he did not seize the bl ood-stained clothes of the victims during investigation – a lapse, but not one that undermines the core evidence since the medical officer had directly observed and recorded the wounds. He further admitted that the knife was recovered about 6 days after th e arrest (the arrest on 30 .01.2023 recovery on 01.02 .2023 – actually 2 days after the incident; PW-7 may have misspoken the gap) and that the knife was not sent to any forensic laboratory for analysis. He also conceded that no blood samples of the injured were sent for DNA comparison to confirm if the blood on the knife matched the victims. Additionally, PW -7 acknowledged that he placed no specific identification mark on the knife, and that such knives are commonly available in the market. These investigative omissions, while not ideal, do not vitiate the prosecution case. Failure to send the recove red weapon for chemical or serological analysis is a negligence on the part of I.O ; however, it has been held that if the ocular account is strong and convincing, an un -tested recovery by itself does not dent the prosecution case. In fact, the superior Courts have observed that a weapon recovery uncorroborated by forensic report diminishes its corroborative value but is not per se fatal to the prosecution case. Here, even disregarding the recovery, the direct evidence of the victims is sufficient to maintain conviction. PW -7 maintained that the knife recovered was indeed the one the appellant led them to, and it was visibly blood-stained (with hair) at that time. The defence suggestion that the entire investigation was done at the police
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
13 station (fabricated on paper s) was denied by PW -7. Nothing significant was elicited to rebut the evidence that the appellant’s disclosure led to the discovery of the weapon – a fact admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat (corresponding to Section 27 of the Evidence Act). Finally, PW-7 produced certified copies of various daily diary entries to substantiate the timings of his actions (entries for scene visit, arrest, etc.), which lend further credence that the investigation proceeded in a timely and routine manner.
5. In his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations in toto. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity and the ongoing dispute…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.