Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2006
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2006. In this matter between the Petitioner 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: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice) DECISION DATE: 16-03-2026 TAGLINE: When there is no material available on the record to show that original copy of the document has been lost and any order qua reconstruction of record from the competent authority is also not available, then mere production of photocopy of said document is of no legal value and cannot be read in evidence. CASE DETAILS: Jail Appeal 14716/23 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38.
JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No.37 of 2023 (The State versus Muhammad Sabir)
Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023 (Muhammad Sabir versus The State, etc.)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 16.03.2026. Appellant by: M/s Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Barrister Muhammad Ali Bhoon, and Barrister Muhammad Afzal Sraa, Advocates. State by: Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General, along with Mudassar, Inspector, and Mehboob, S.I. Complainant by: M/s Naveed Ahmad Khawaja and Shahid Asghar Bisria, Advocates, with the brother of the complainant, namely, Iftikhar Ahmad. ---------------------- AALIA NEELUM, C.J:- Muhammad Sabir son of Lehrasib, Caste Gujjar, resident of Barnali, Police Station Khurrianwala, District Gujrat -the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide judgment dated 06.02.2023 in case FIR No.58 of 1998, dated 24.03.1998, offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, 201 of P.P.C, registered at the police station, Wahdat Colony, District Lahore, whereby the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 (b) PPC and sentenced to Death as Tazir for committing Qatl -e-Amd of Inayat Meeran, with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - as envisaged under section 544-A of Cr.P.C, and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06 -months S.I. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201 of P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years, with the direction to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and, in case of default thereof, undergo 02 months S.I. M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
2 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Muhammad Sabir, the appellant, has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing Cri minal Appeal No.14716-J of 2023. The trial court also sent M.R. No.37 of 2023 (The State vs. Muhammad Sabir) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Muhammad Sabir. Both matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution's story, as alleged in the F.I.R (Ex. PD) lodged on the statement of Nisar Jillani (the complainant died during trial), is that on 24.03.1998, the complainant (died during trial) came to meet his bro ther Inayat Meeran (since dead), who was working in the Punjab Assembly. After getting free from the office, the complainant (died during trial), along with Zafar Patwari, came to his house situated at 41 -A, Wahdat Colony, Lahore, and they were sitting in the courtyard of the house. When Inayat Meeran offered Maghrib prayer, meanwhile, a knock at the door was made, and Inayat Meeran, after opening the door, made the guests sit in the drawing room of the house. After some time, the noise of an altercation ar ose. Complainant (died during trial), Zafar Iqbal (PW-11), and Farkhanda Bibi (PW-1) went inside the room and saw that the accused Sabir was holding a pistol in his hand, who pointed the same towards Inayat Meeran. The accused Sabir fired a shot that hit I nayat Meeran on the chest at the front, and he fell. Sabir ran out of the room, and the complainant followed him out. Liaquat Topa, armed with a Kalashnikov, was standing near the door, who threatened him that if he came forward, he would also be killed. Out of fear, the complainant stood in the doorway. Liaquat Topa and Sabir ran away. A white car was parked at short distance away, and two-armed persons he could identify who were sitting in it; they escaped. The motive for the murder is that Nazir's co -accused father was killed by the complainant’s paternal cousin, Pir Muhammad. Inayat Meeran followed the case and secured Pir Muhammad's acquittal from the High Court. Furthermore, since then, Nazir, the co -accused, has been trying to get Inayat Meera killed. For the past six/seven days, they have been receiving news from different sources. Nazir from London consulted Sabir and others about the murder of Inayat Meera. Nazir Ahmed and Muhammad Iqbal provided information about the abetment. Action should be taken. M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
3 4. After the occurrence, the complainant reported the incident at the police station through his statement to Rana Abdul Sattar S.I (not produced), on the same day, i.e., 24.03.1998, based on which Ghias -ud-Din, DSP (PW -7) chalked out a formal FIR (Exh-PD). After registration of the case, the investigation of the case was conducted by Ashiq Ali, S.I. (PW -12), who arrested the accused persons, and having found them guilty, prepared a challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction while placing the names of all accused persons in Column No.3 of the challan. On 04.10.2021, the trial court formally charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses. 5. After the closure of pros ecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein neither he opted to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C., nor op ted to produce any evidence in his defence. In response to a particular question that why this case was against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition: - “Denied being incorrect and false. I am innocent having no concern whatsoever with the alleged occurrence and the whole story of the FIR is totally false, fabricated and fake. I have been made scapegoat in this case due to the previous enmity, grudge and litigation as being (Bhanja) of co -accused namely Nazir Ahmad son of Lal Khan, whose father was murdered by Atta Jillani, Pir Rehmat, Wilayat and Mehdi, the real cousins (Tayazad) of the complainant and the deceased namely Inayat Miran. I am a British National and living there for the last about 23 years app roximately and law abiding citizen and neither contravened any provision of law in Pakistan nor in European countries. Actually, the murder was committed by one Liaqat Topa who was having financial affairs with the deceased and the complainant party. The s aid Liaqat Topa was a hardened criminal, hired shooter and serial killer and the complainant party was very well aware of the fact regarding the murder of the deceased and they got the said Liaqat Topa murdered in a police encounter M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
4 managed by them in reve nge of the murder of the deceased Inayat Miran, but I along with co -accused Nazir Ahmad (my maternal uncle) have falsely been implicated just on the basis of previous enmity and grudge by the complainant party. The story of the case is totally false, all w itnesses were managed and planted against me, otherwise, I have no concern with the alleged occurrence. I myself voluntarily came to Pakistan and appeared before the concerned investigating officer regarding this case in good faith and with Bonafide intent ion just to prove my innocence and the ulterior motives and malafide of the complainant party and in this regard number of people along with their affidavits were produced before the I.O just to prove my innocence and stance but all in vain as the I.O. ref used to collect the evidence tendered by me regarding my innoc3ence as he was in connivance with the complainant party and falsely involved me. I was constrained to file a petition under section 22-A, 22-B of Cr.P.C titled Muhammad Sabir versus SHO and the Investigating Officer, police station, Wahdat Colony, Lahore before the learned Justice of Peace for the collection of proper and detailed evidence, record the version of mine, witnesses produced by me and to investigate the matter impartially and transpa rently pertaining to this case. I am totally innocent having no concern with the alleged occurrence and request this Honourable Court for the clean acquittal.”
6. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant’s conviction in the afore-stated terms. 7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learne d counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 8. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 24.03.1998 at 7:15 p.m. in Wahdat Colony, located within the jurisdiction of Wahdat Colony Police Station, District Lahor e, which is only two furlongs from the place of occurrence. The formal FIR (Ex.PD) was registered on 24.03.1998 at 7:40 p.m., based on a verbal statement (not on record) made by Ch. Nisar Jillani, M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
5 the complainant, at 7:30 p.m., before Rana Abdul Sattar, S.I. ( since dead ). According to the police proceedings incorporated at the bottom of the FIR, Rana Abdul Sattar, SI (since dead), along with police officers, was on patrol duty in the official vehicle at Bukhari Market when he received information about the incident and reached the spot. Chaudhry Nisar Jilani, the complainant (since dead), appeared before him and made the verbal statement (not on record), which was recorded, read out, and explained to him. Rana Abdul Sattar, SI (since dead), forwarded the Fard Biyan (not on record) through Shabbir Hussain, 8459/C (not cited as a witness) to the police station for the formal registration of the FIR. Relevant portion of FIR is hereby reproduced:- کاروا تت میں مع سعید احمد پولیس۔ اس وق 9956/C معراج د 13312/C شبیرین 8459/C بسلسلہ گشت بسواری گاڑی سرکاری نمبری4056/LOT بخاری مارکیٹ موجود ہوں وقوعہ کی اطلاع پ ا کر موقع پر پہنچا ہوں۔ چوہدری نثار جیلانی مستغیث نے میرے پیش ہو کر بیان پ الا تحری ر کرواپ ا جو ضبط تحری ر میں لاپ ا جا کر مذکورہ کو پڑھ کر سناپ ا و سمجھاپ ا گیا جس نے حت بیان ودد کو درتت سلیم کرتے ہوئے زی ر بیان ودد اپنے دستخط بحروف اردو کیے جنکی میں تصدیق کرپتا ہوں۔ بیان پ الا سے سر دتت صورت ج رم 101/302 141/141 رد بیان بغرض قائمی مقدمہ بدتت
ت پ پ ائی جا کر تحری ر ف شبیر ین 8459/C ارسال تھانہ ہے۔ مقدمہ درج مقدمہ سے اطلاع دی جائے اور سپیشل رپورٹ ہائے افسران مجاز کو ارسال کی جائیں میں موقع پر مصروف بہ تفتیش ہوں۔ دستخط انگری ری راپ ا عبدالستار SI تھانہ وحدت کالونی لاہور مور11-3-24 ازSI/A تت بوق7/30 بجے ش ام۔ Contrary to the above, Saeed Ahmad 9956/C, while appearing as PW-5, deposed during cross-examination that before proceeding to the place of occurrence, he was present outside the police station on patrolling duty , and they reached the place of occurrence on foot . Saeed Ahmad 9956/C, while appearing as PW -5, deposed during cross-examination as under:- “Before proceeding to the place of occurrence, I was present outside the police station on patrolling duty. --------------- We reached the place of occurrence on foot. We were not on official vehicle.” As per the proceedings taken in the police station, it appears that upon receiving the complaint from Shabbir Hussain 8459/C (not cited as a witness), Ghais -ud- Din, D.S.P. (PW -7, then S.I.), prepared the FIR (Ex.PD) and admitted that the M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
6 complaint is not available on record. Ghais-ud-Din D.S.P admitted during cross- examination that:- “It is correct that complaint is not available in the file on the basis of which I chalked out formal FIR. No note given by me on the said complaint is available in the record.” During the examination-in-chief of Ghais -ud-Din D.S.P (PW -7), the defence has raised an objection that the original FIR chalked out by the prosecution witness is not available on the record, and an attested copy of the FIR cannot be exhibited. The objection of the learned defence counsel was repelled by the trial court while observing that an attested copy of the FIR is available in the file for the reason that the file was reconstructed under the order of the competent authority after the loss of the original record. However, upon review of the record, no order from the competent authority to reconstruct it has been found. A photocopy of the FIR is marked as Ex. PD. We examined the FIR (Ex.PD), which is not attested; it has only the stamp of police station without certificate. The mere imposition of a stamp on a document does not make it an attested document . It is not mentioned as a true copy of FIR (original not available on record) prepared in connection with the incident. A photocopy of a document is totally inadmissible in law as it is not secondary evidence. Apparently, the prosecution is unaware of the significance of a court's rejection of such a copy of a public document . Therefore, this FIR , which is treated as unauthenticated and marked as Ex. PD lacks its legal validity/sanctity, hence of no avail to the prosecution . It goes without saying that original copy of the FIR always remains available for the period of 60 years in the police station but same has also not been produced in this case and any reason whatsoever regarding non production of the same has also not been brought on the record by the prosecution, which further raises eyebrows on the subject. It is also notable that the occurrence took place at 07:15 p.m. on 24.03.1998, and the distance bet ween the police station and the place of the occurrence was two furlongs. The police reached the place of the occurrence, and further proceedings occurred there, as described at the bottom of FIR (Ex.PD) registered o n the verbal complaint made by Ch. Nisar Jillani (who has M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
7 since passed away) to Abdul Sattar S.I. (also de ad) at 07:30 p.m. on the same day. The dead body of Inayat Meeran reached the mortuary of K.E. Medical University, Lahore, at 1:15 a.m. on 25.03.1998. During the trial, the learned DDPP made an oral request to examine Zia-ud-Din Chishti, a draftsman, and Saeed Ahmad/C as secondary evidence of Hameed-ud-Din Chishti and Abdul Sattar S.I. (both since dead ). Notice was given to the defence, and they raised no objection, allowing both to be prod uced as secondary evidence. Saeed Ahmad 9956/C appeared as PW -14. He appeared twice in the witness box; first, as PW -5, when he testified that on 24.03.1998, he, along with Miraj Din constable (who was later given up as PW) and Abdul Sattar S.I., went to the place of the incident, where Abdul Sattar S.I. handed over the dead body of Inayat Meeran along with relevant papers for deposit in the dead house. Later, Saeed Ahmad, 9956/C, was produced as PW-14 in secondary evidence for Abdul Sattar, S.I. During cross-examination, Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-14) stated as follows: “It is not in my knowledge that on said date Abdul Sattar SI was already dead. Today I came to know that Abdul Sattar SI had died after perusing the case file.” He (PW -14) produced the inquest r eport of Inayat Meeran -deceased (Ex.PG), injury statement (Ex.PH), application for postmortem examination (Ex.PJ) , and also placed on the record memo of recovery (Ex.PC) whereby the last worn clothes were taken into possession handed over by him (PW -14) to Abdul Sattar SI. (since dead). Saeed Ahmad 9956/C while appearing as PW-5 deposed during cross-examination that:- “I reached the place of occurrence alongwith the I.O at about 07:30 p.m. Before proceeding to the place of occurrence, I was present outside the police station on patrolling duty.” He (PW -5) also deposed during cross -examination that they reached the place of occurrence at about 08:00/08:15 p.m. Self-contradictory statements have been made by Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW -5) during cross - examination by stating that he, along with I.O., reached the place of occurrence M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
8 at 07:30 p.m. After that , he stated that they reached the place of occurrence at 08:00/08:15 p.m. On perusal of the inquest report (Ex.PG), in column No.3 of the time and date of receivi ng information of death , it is mentioned that “07:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998.” It is the case of the prosecution that Inayat Meeran offered Maghrib prayer; after that, the door was knocked on, and the incident took place. In March, the time of Maghrib was from 06:15 p.m. to 06:45 p.m., whereas, as per police documents, i.e., the inquest report (Ex.PG), information of death was received at 07:00 p.m. by Abdul Sattar, SI. (since dead). In the column of death in the post -mortem examination report, the time and date of death were mentioned as per police papers at 7 p.m. on 24.03.1998. Zafar Iqbal (PW-11)-the eye witness deposed during cross-examination that:- “Nisar Jillani rushed to the police station and at a distance of some furlongs police met him and he informed the police regarding the occurrence on which police came at the spot.” Whereas the police proceedings incorporated at the end of FIR (Ex.PD) reveal that on receiving the information of the incident at Bukhari Market, Abdul Sattar S.I. (since dead) reach ed the place of occurrence, where Ch. Nisar Jillani, the complainant (since dead), met the I.O and got his statement recorded. As per the documentary evidence, i.e., FIR (Ex.PD), the statement was made at 07:30 p.m. on 24.03.1998 and the same was referred to the police station for registration of FIR, which was chalked out at 07:40 p.m. Whereas, inquest report (Ex.PG) contained particles of FIR, revealing that information of death was received at 07:00 p.m. The column relating to a brief history of the case reveals that the verbal statement of the complainant, Fard Biyan, was prepared and referred to the police station through Shabbir Hussain 8459/C for registration of the FIR. Injury statement of the dead body of Inayat Meeran for postmortem examination was prepared, and the dead body was sent through Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW -5) and Miraj Din 13312/C alongwith witnesses for identification of the dead body, to the dead house on 24.03.1998 . The scanned copy of the relevant portion of the inquest report (Ex.PG) is as follows: - M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
9
It suggests that after sending the alleged verbal complaint to the police station through Shabbir Hussain 8459/C, injury statement and application for postmortem examination were prepared, and the dead body was sent to the dead house for postmortem examination in the custody of Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-5) and Miraj Din 13312/C alongwith witnesses. Till then, FIR was not registered. It is also not specifically mentioned which hospital the dead body was sent to . Even Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW -5) is also unable to state how he shifted the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital. Hafiz Muhammad Shafique (PW -3), who was the witness to the identification of the dead body, has not deposed that he identified the dead body. The examinati on- in-chief of Hafiz Muhammad Shafique (PW-3) is as under:- “On 24.03.1998, I reached at place of occurrence after receiving information where I.O collected blood through cotton, made into sealed parcel and took into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB, at tested by me and Manzoor PW.” No witness identified the dead body . It is also noted that Saeed Ahmad 9956/C , while appearing as PW -5, deposed during cross -examination that:- “After taking dead body we firstly went to the dead house. Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore does not fall on the way to hospital from the place of occurrence. We reached the place of occurrence at about 08:00/08:15 p.m -- --------- Abdul Sattar SI and Miraj Din/C were accompanying me. It took 30 to 40 minutes to reach the hospital from the place of occurrence.” M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
10 As per the deposition of Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (P -5), it consumes 30/40 minutes to reach the hospital. Whereas the postmortem report (Ex.PE) of Inayat Meeran, the deceased, reveals that the dead body was received in the department at 01:15 a.m. on 25.03.1998, and this fact has been mentioned in column No. V “Muscles, Bones, Joints, and before Column No.VI “Remarks by Medical Officer”. As per the opinion of the doctor, the probable time elapsed between death and postmortem was 6 to 10 hours, which suggests that the incident took place between 06:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998. If the dead body was handed over at the place of occurrence to Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-5) with Miraj Din 13312/C at 07:30 p.m. or 08:00/08:15 p.m., it has to be received in the dead house before 09:00 p.m. on 24.03.1998. Whereas the documents reveal that the dead body was received in the department on 25.03.1998 at 01:15 a.m. and postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Inayat Meeran at 04:00 a.m, for which the prosecution has rendered no plausible explanation. The recovery memo of the last worn clothes (Ex.PC) produced by Saeed Ahmad 9956/C (PW-14) and Miraj Din/C (given up PW) reveals that after writing “بنامthe place was left blank. It suggests that until the receipt of the last worn clothes on 25.03.1998 and the preparation of the memo of the last worn clothes, the accused was not known to the prosecution. Even the column for the date and time of prep aration of the inquest report (Ex.PG) was left blank. In the above circumstances, it appears that the FIR was not registered when it was stated to have been, and the prosecution's story is doubtful. 9. There is another aspect of the case that throws a cloud of doubt on the prosecution story. F arkhanda Yasmeen (PW -1), widow and eye witness of the incident, deposed that on 24.03.1998, she alongwith her husband Ch. Inayat Meeran was present in their house; Nisar Ahmad Jilani (since dead) -the complainant and Zafar Iqbal Patwari came there; they were sitting, and in the meanwhile, after Maghrib prayer, the bell of the door rang and Ch. Inayat opened the door; he alongwith one person, went to the drawing room; she was in the kitchen, and guests were sitting in the courtyard. On perusal of un-scaled site plan (Ex.PL), it reveals that before the incident, the deceased, the complainant and witnesses were present at point “F”, which is courtyard at the southern side M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
11 of the quarter, whereas at the end of the quarter f acing north, there was a door opening in the street, which is adjacent to drawing room, where the alleged incident took place. Farkhanda Yasmeen (PW -1) admitted during cross - examination that she had not mentioned in her statement that guests were sitting in the courtyard. In this regard, she (PW-1) deposed during cross-examination as under:- “I had not mentioned in my statement before police that guest were sitting in courtyard.” In addition, Farkhanda Yasmeen (PW-1) also deposed about the surroundings of the house, contrary to the site plan . She (PW -1) deposed during cross - examination that:- “Main gate of our house was located towards Eastern side while small door was on Western side. Coming from Small door side courtyard was located after passing two rooms at the end on backside of house.” According to the scaled site plan (Exh.PF), the main gate is on the southern side, while the small gate is on the northern side , just behind the house. There are no gates to the quarter on the east and west sides. Quarter No. 42 -A is on the eastern side, while there is an open paved road on the western side, 12 feet wide. While Farkhunda Yasmeen (PW-1) deposed during cross -examination that she had been living in the same quarter since her marriage. She deposed that, “I was married with Inayat Meeran in 1980. I am residing at Lahore after my marriage.” If she was living in the same quarter and occasionally had to go to her village, then she should have had a correct knowledge of the surroundings of the quarter. This indicates that the deposition of Farkhunda Yasmeen (PW-1) is doubtful, casting doubt on her presence at the spot. Even Farkhanda Yasmeen (PW-1) and Zafar Iqbal (PW-11) tried to conceal their relationship with each other. Farkhanda Yasmeen (PW -1) deposed during cross-examination that she was not aware that her husband was having any relationship with Zafar Iqbal (PW -11). However, she (PW-1) stated that she had family ties with others. Although the defence brought on the record through cross-examination that Zafar Iqbal (PW-11) was a close relative of the deceased M.R. No.37 of 2023 Crl. Appeal No.14716-J of 2023
12 Inayat Meeran. Farkhanda Yasmeen (PW -1) deposed during cross…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.