Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1844
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-03-10
Parties: The State, Abdul Rasheed vs Abdul Rasheed, The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-03-10, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1844. In this matter between The State, Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Rasheed, 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 2025LHC1844
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, Ch. Sultan Mahmood Title: The State, Abdul Rasheed vs Abdul Rasheed, The State Case No.: Murder Reference No.36 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 655-J of 2022 Date of Judgment:2025-03-10 Reported As: 2025 LHC 1844 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. -Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed (convict) was tried alongwith Abdul Majeed and Umar Daraz (since acquitted), the co-accused of the convict by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran in case F.I.R No. 137 of 2019 dated 06.06.2019 registered in respect of offences under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C. at the Police Station Jallah Arain District Lodhran for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Sardar Muhammad son of Sultan Ali (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 14.03.2020, convicted Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed : Death under section 302(b) PPC as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Sardar Muhammad son of Sultan Ali (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.300,000/- as compensation under section 544- A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; 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 dead. Abdul Majeed and Umar Daraz, the co-accused of the convict, were however acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No.655-J of 2022 through Jail assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.36 of 2022 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul
---
## Page 2
Majeed. We intend to decide the Criminal Appeal No. 655-J of 2022 and the Murder Reference No.36 of 2022 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Muhammad Islam (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:- "Stated that 05.06.2019, I came to see my real brother Sardar Muhammad to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitar, at Chak No.384/WB. My paternal cousin namely Mst. Zarina Bibi was married with Umar Draz s/o Abul Majeed about 08/09 years ago. On 05.06.2019, at about 08:00 p.m, I alongwith Sardar Muhammad s/o Sultan Ali, Ghulam Ali s/o Muhammad Akram went to the house of our sister Mst. Zarina Bibi, we took meal with Abdul Majeed s/o Allah Yar, Abdul Rasheed s/o Abdul Majeed, Umar Draz s/o Abdul Majeed. After taking the meal, we were sitting together and we complained to Abdul Majeed that his sons Umar Draz and Abdul Rasheed used to beat our sister Mst. Zarina Bibi, upon which some hard words were exchanged between us. On the noise, PW Abdul Malik s/o Muhammad Akram attracted the spot. Being annoyed, Abdul Rasheed took a pistol from the adjacent room and made a pistol shot straight upon Sardar Muhammad with the intention of murder, which hit upon his right side of neck and he fell down. Abdul Majeed and Umar Draz raised lalkara and asked Abdul Rasheed that the remaining three should not be spared. Abdul Rasheed accused made straight firing on us but we luckily saved. Accused persons fled away on motorcycle while extending threats. We were taking injured Sardar Muhammad to Nishtar Hospital Multan but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs Ghulam Ali, Abdul Malik and myself. Motive behind the occurrence is that accused persons Umar Draz and Abdul Rasheed used to beat our sister Mst. Zarina Bibi and we forbade them and complained to accused Abdul Majeed. All the three accused with their common intention murdered Sardar Muhammad and with the intention to murder made straight firing upon me and PWs Ghulam Ali and Abdul Malik. I submitted application Ex. PA for registration of FIR. Ex.PA which is duly thumb marked and signed by me. My signature on Ex. PA is Ex.PA/1. On 06.06.2019, I.O of this case visited the place of occurrence, collected the blood stained earth and crime empties from the place of occurrence. I.O." 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 23.10.2019, 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 nine witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) . Ghulam Abbas draftsman (PW-3) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PD). Saeed Hussain 80/HC (PW-6) stated that on 06.06.2019, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. and on the same day Investigating Officer of the case of the case handed over to him one sealed parcel said to contain blood stained earth and one sealed parcel said to contain empty shells of the bullets and on 10.06.2019, he handed over both the sealed parcels to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Collection Centre, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Multan and on 01.07.2019, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain a pistol and on 03.07.2019, he handed over the said sealed parcel to the Investigating Officer of the case for its onward transmission to the office of the Collection Centre, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Multan. Muhammad Bilal 629/C (PW-7) stated that on 01.07.2019, the appellant got recovered the Pistol (P-5) and on 05.07.2019, the appellant got recovered the motorcycle (P-7). Zahid Hussain 314/C (PW-8) stated that on 05.06.2019, 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
---
## Page 3
body of the deceased. Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, investigated the case from 06.06.2019 till 10.07.2019, arrested the appellant on 23.06.2019, 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. Zain ul Abidin (PW-4) examined, who on 06.06.2019 was posted as Medical Officer at RHC Makhdoom Aali and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Sardar Muhammad son of Sultan Ali (deceased). Dr. Zain ul Abidin (PW-4) on examining the dead body of Sardar Muhammad son of Sultan Ali (deceased) observed as under:- "DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES. 1. A wound measuring 1.5cm x 1cm on right side of back side of neck 04 cm below the right occipital protuberance 03cm lateral to mid-line(inverted margin), blackening small hole 05cm below the right mastoid process of maxilla bone(entrance point). 2. A wound measuring 2.5cm x 1.5cm on anterior side of neck, large hole (outward margins) red in colour(exit point). 3. A bruise measuring 03cm x 1.5cm on left shoulder joint near a acromoclavicular joint through and through firearm injury. --------------- FINAL OPINION. In my opinion after careful postmortem, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock (bleed) due to firearm injury, rapture the main jugular vein Artery neck vessel present in neck." 7. On 30.01.2020, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Ajmal 677/C and Muhammad Amin 1028/C as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PN and Exh.PN/1). 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed 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. The appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed 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, Lodhran convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed, 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 appellant 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 appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the recoveries of the Pistol (P-5) and the motorcycle (P-7) from the appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed were full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and were the result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant 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 and 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 and the learned counsel
---
## Page 4
for the complainant further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor further argued that the recoveries of the Pistol (P-5) and the motorcycle (P-7) from the appellant namely Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Majeed also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General and 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 offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellant. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, the learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 13. The whole prosecution case revolves around the statements of the eye witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2). The relationship of the said witnesses with each other and the deceased is on record. The deceased namely Sardar Muhammad son of Sultan Ali was the brother of Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and paternal cousin of Ghulam Ali (PW-2). It was also admitted by both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) that the place of occurrence was at a distance from the houses of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) and the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) was residing at the village Yaroo, Tehsil Mirpur Mathelo District Ghotki whereas the house of the prosecution witness namely Ghulam Ali (PW-2) was at a distance of 100 feet from the house where the occurrence took place. Muhammad Islam (PW-1) stated during cross-examination as under:- "Ghulam Ali and Abdul Malik PWs are my paternal cousins. Shaukat Pw is also my remote relatives. Zareena Bibi is daughter of my paternal uncle. I am labourer by profession. I live in a village Yaroo Tehsil Mirpur Mathelo District Ghotki. ---------------- I am residing in Sindh for last 30/35 years. My family also resides with me there." (emphasis supplied). Ghulam Ali (PW-2) during cross-examination admitted as under:- "My house is at a distance of 100 feet from the house of accused persons." With regard to the residence of the prosecution witness namely Ghulam Ali (PW-2), we have also perused the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PD) as prepared by Ghulam Abbas , Draftsman (PW3) and the rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PM) as prepared by Bashir Ahmad , SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, and find that neither the place of the residence of the witness namely Ghulam Ali (PW-2) nor any land owned and possessed by the witness namely Ghulam Ali (PW-2) are marked in the same. In view of the above mentioned facts, it can be validly held that the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) were "chance witnesses" and therefore were under a duty to explain and prove their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. A perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) reveals that both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) failed to provide any reason, consistent with the attending circumstances, due to which reason they left their houses at night and proceeded to the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) that they had gone to the house of Abdul Majeed (since acquitted), on the night of occurrence and took a meal with the appellant as well as Abdul Majeed and Umar Daraz (since acquitted), the co-accused of the
---
## Page 5
appellant and when they complained to Abdul Majeed (since acquitted) regarding the beating of Zareena Bibi by the appellant and Umar Daraz (since acquitted), the appellant got agitated and fired at the deceased. According to the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2), they had a meal at the place of occurrence, however, Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9) , the Investigating Officer of the case, during his visit at the place of occurrence did not find any articles which had been used by the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) prior to the occurrence, during their presence at the place of occurrence. Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, remained present at the place of occurrence for an extended period of time however neither took into possession any physical proof of the presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) at the place of occurrence nor mentioned the place where the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) had their meal. Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, during cross-examination,stated as under:- "I have not mentioned the place in rough site plan where accused, deceased and complainant had their meals" Ghulam Abbas, Draftsman (PW-3), also admitted during cross-examination, as under:- "I have also not shown in scaled site plan Exh.P-D the place where accused and deceased had their meals" In this manner, the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) that they had a meal at the place of occurrence just before the occurrence was not verified either by Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, or through any physical proof. 14. Most importantly, according to the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2), they had visited the house of Abdul Majeed (since acquitted) to complain to Abdul Majeed (since acquitted) regarding the beating of Zareena Bibi by the appellant and Umar Daraz (since acquitted), however, Zareena Bibi herself never appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case nor even the learned trial court to verify this claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) that they had gone to the house of Abdul Majeed (since acquitted), to complain about the beating of Zareena Bibi by the appellant and Umar Daraz (since acquitted). The prosecution witness namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination, as under:- "Zareena Bibi was also present in the house. Her statement was not recorded during investigation. Zareena Bibi was not produced before I/0 during investigation." ---------- Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Ghulam Ali (PW-2) admitted during cross-examination, as under:- "Zareena Bibi is my sister. Abdul Malik Pw is my brother. Zareena Bibi was not produced before the police during investigation of this case.. Zareena Bibi was also present in said house at the time of occurrence. No statement of Zareena Bibi was recorded by the police. No application was moved to police for recording statement of Zareena Bibi." Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9), the Investigating Officer of the case, also admitted during cross- examination as under:- "Zareena Bibi was not present when I visited the place of occurrence.I did not summon Zareena Bibi during investigation of this case. Complainant also did not produce Zareena Bibi for recording of her statement."(emphasis supplied). A perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) reveals that the reason given by them for their presence at the place of
---
## Page 6
occurrence was a concocted, invented and a false reason as the same was not even supported by Zareena Bibi, the sister of Ghulam Ali (PW-2) . In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) failed to prove their stated reason for leaving their residences on the night of occurrence and their subsequent presence at the place of occurrence. Both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) were badly exposed in this regard and the very foundation upon which the whole edifice of the prosecution case had been built, was shattered, resulting in the collapse of the whole prosecution case built upon the said fractured foundation. 15. Another aspect of the case noted by us with some gravity is the fact that both the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) admitted that it was dark at the time of occurrence, still none of the witnesses stated in their statements before the learned trial court that any source of light was present and lit at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, which allowed the witnesses to observe the occurrence. During the course of the investigation and even before the learned trial court, no source of light was ever produced in the light of which the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) had witnessed the occurrence. Moreover, though the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) candidly admitted that it was dark at the time of occurrence, however, made no effort to state that they had any source of light with them or that any source of light was available at the place of occurrence in the light of which they had seen the occurrence. Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9) , the Investigating Officer of the case, also did not observe or take into possession any source of light at the place of occurrence, in the light of which the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) could have witnessed the occurrence. During cross-examination, Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-9) , the Investigating Officer of the case, claimed as under:- "I have not mentioned source of light in rough site plan as I visited the place of occurrence in the day time. There were two thick trees in the house where occurrence took place " Ghulam Abbas, Draftsman (PW-3), also admitted during cross-examination that he had not identified any place in the scaled site plan (Exh.PD) where any source of light was available at the place of occurrence. Ghulam Abbas, Draftsman (PW-3), also admitted during cross-examination, as under:- "I have not mentioned blub i.e source of light in scaled site plan Exh.P-D." Moreover, it is an admitted part of the prosecution case that no source of any light was produced either before the Investigating Officer of the case or before the learned trial court, in the light of which source the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Islam (PW-1) and Ghulam Ali (PW-2) had witnessed the occurrence. The non-production of any light source, available and lit at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and the failure of the complainant of the case as well as the Investigating Officer of the case to produce the same before the learned trial court leads to only one conclusion and that being that no such source of light was available with the witnesses or available at the place of occurrence which could have enabled the eye witnesses to have identified the assailant and also spectate the role of the assailant as acted by him during the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses failed to establish the fact of the availability of any light source at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and in the absence of their ability to do so, we cannot presume the existence of such a light source. The absence of any light source has put the whole prosecution case in the murk. It was admitted by the witnesses themselves that it was a dark night and as the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the availability of any light source, their statements with regard to them identifying the assailant cannot be relied upon. The failure of the prosecution witnesses to prove the presence of any light source at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, has repercussions, entailing the failure of the prosecution
---
## Page 7
case. Reliance is placed on the case of "Gulfam and another v. The State" (2017 SCMR 1189) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "The occurrence in this case had taken place at about 11.45 p.m. during the fateful night and the source of light at the spot had never been established by the prosecution. It had been presumed by the courts below that as the occurrence had taken place at a medical store, therefore, some electric light must be available at the spot. The courts below ought to have realized that presumptions have very little scope in a criminal case unless such presumption is allowed by the law to be raised" Reliance is also placed on the case of "Hameed Gul v. Tahir and two others" (2006 SCMR 1628) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "Next is the identification of the accused on the spot. The torch in the light of which the accused were identified, was produced before the Investigating Officer sixteen days after the occurrence. The one Haid Akbar who produced the same before he Investigating Officer was never produced at the trial and hence there is no satisfactory evidence that the torch produced in the given circumstances was the same, available at the time of occurrence. It was never found on the spot along with other recoveries though there was no occasion for the injured and the deceased to have carried it along." Reliance is also placed on the case of "Basar Vs. Zulfiqar Ali and others" (2010 SCMR 1972) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "7. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the witnesses had identified the culprits on torch lights. The complainant and P.Ws. did not produce the torches before the police immediately but the same were produced after 10 days of the incident. 8. Considering all aspects of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt." Reliance is also placed on the case of "Azhar Mehmood and others v. The State" (2017 SCMR 135) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "It has straightaway been noticed by us that the occurrence in this case had taken place after dark and in the FIR no source of light at the spot had been mentioned by the complainant. Although in the site-plan of the place of occurrence availability of an electric bulb near the spot had been shown yet no such bulb had been secured by the investigating officer during the investigation of this case." Reliance is also placed on the case of "Arshad Khan v. The State" (2017 SCMR 564) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "The occurrence in this case had taken place before Fajar prayers at about 05.00 a.m. and according to the FIR the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.