Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 585
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-02-11
Parties: Ali Akbar, etc, Muhammad Yousaf vs The State, etc, Ali Akbar, etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-02-11, officially reported as 2025 LHC 585. In this matter between Ali Akbar, etc, Muhammad Yousaf and The State, etc, Ali Akbar, etc, 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 2025LHC585
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Aalia Neelum Title: Ali Akbar, etc, Muhammad Yousaf vs The State, etc, Ali Akbar, etc Case No.: Crl. Appeal No.31052 of 2023, Crl. Rev. No.43674 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2025-02-11 Reported As: 2025 LHC 585, 2025 MLD 818, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 326 Result: Appeal Accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT AALIA NEELUM, CHIEF JUSTICE: - (1) Ali Akbar son of Manzoor Ahmed, (2) Hafiz Muhammad Arshad son of Allah Ditta, (3) Amir Ali son of Bashir Ahmed and (4) Allah Ditta son of Malla, all Dhudhi by caste, residents of Chak Hota, Tehsil & District Pakpattan, the appellants, through this appeal have assailed their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan vide judgment dated 31.03.2023 in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 324, 337- D, 337- A(iii), 148, 149 PPC P.S. Kalyana, District Pakpattan titled "Muhammad Yousaf vs. Ali Akbar, etc." arising out of case FIR No.55/2020 dated 04.03.2020 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 PPC at P.S. Kalyana, District Pakpattan whereby the trial court convicted the appellants as under:- Appellant No.1-Ali Akbar was convicted under section 302 (b) PPC for committing 'Qatl-i-Amd' of Muhammad Ali-deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir. The appellant was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased u/s 544-A Cr.P.C. In case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo six months imprisonment. Appellant No.2-Hafiz Muhammad Arshad was convicted under section 324 PPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07-years alongwith a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and, in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo five months simple imprisonment. Appellant No.3-Amir Ali was convicted under section 324 PPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years along with a fine of Rs.3,00,000/ - and, in case of default in payment thereof, to five months imprisonment.
---
## Page 2
Appellant No.4-Allah Ditta was convicted under section 324 PPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years along with a fine of Rs.3,00,000/ - and, in case of default in payment thereof, five months of imprisonment. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was also extended in favour of the appellants. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants-Ali Akbar, Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, Amir Ali, and Allah Ditta, have assailed their conviction by filing instant Criminal Appeal No.31052 of 2023, whereas the complainant, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023, preferred a Criminal Revision No.43674 of 2023 for enhancement of sentence awarded to respondents No.1 to 4/appellants. As both matters arise from the same judgment, they are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution story, as narrated by Muhammad Yousaf (PW 1), in the private complaint (Ex. PA), is that the complainant's son, Muhammad Ali ran a shop for the repair of motorcycles; on 04.03.2020, the complainant (PW-1) alongwith Haji Muhammad Yasin (given up PW), Muhammad Yar (given up PW) and Allah Rakha (PW-2), was gossiping while sitting at the house; at about 08:00 p.m., Hafiz Muhammad Arshad (the appellant No.2), called the complainant's son from the house for repairing the motorcycle, whereupon, Muhammad Ali (the deceased) opened the shop; the complainant alongwith PWs Haji Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Yar, and Allah Rakha also came at the shop of Muhammad Ali, where the electric bulb was lightening. Meanwhile, Ali Akbar (appellant No.1) armed with a dagger, Asghar, Muhammad Anwar, Manzoor Ahmad, Amir Ali (appellant No.3), Allah Ditta (appellant No.4), Jahangir alias Jangoo Shah with six unknown persons duly armed with daggers came there. Manzoor Ahmad (co-accused since acquitted) raised lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Ali for steeling wood, whereupon, Ali Akbar (the appellant No.1) inflicted dagger blow on the left side of chest of Muhammad Ali; Asghar Ali inflicted dagger blow on the left side of rib of complainant's son, Muhammad Ali; Anwar inflicted dagger blow on the chest of complainant's son; Hafiz Muhammad Arshad (the appellant No.2) inflicted dagger blow under left armpit of complainant's son; Amir (the appellant No.3) inflicted dagger blow on left rib of complainant's son; Allah Ditta (the appellant No.4) inflicted dagger blow on the left side of belly of complainant's son; Jahangir inflicted dagger blow on the right arm of the complainant's son; Manzoor Ahmad inflicted dagger blow on the left rib of the complainant's son, Muhammad Ali; the complainant (PW-1) stepped forward for separating them, then Jahangir inflicted dagger blow on the right side of belly of the complainant; out of six unknown persons, Abid Hussain (whose name was later on disclosed) also inflicted dagger blow on the left side of nose and left cheeks of the complainant's son, when he was in falling condition; Amir Ali (the appellant No.3) inflicted dagger blow near the left knee of the complainant, whereas Allah Ditta (the appellant No.4) inflicted dagger blow on the right knee of the complainant. After sustaining severe injuries, the complainant and his son fell. Upon rising noise, PWs Allah Rakha (PW-2) and Muhammad Yar (given up PW) came, who saw the occurrence alongwith the complainant in the light of an electric bulb. The accused persons, after raising lalkara and brandishing weapons, fled away from the spot. The witnesses were shifting the complainant and his son Muhammad Ali for their medical treatment to Arifwala when Muhammad Ali succumbed to the injuries on the way, while the complainant was referred to Sahiwal, where he remained under treatment. The motive behind the occurrence was that Ali Akbar (appellant No.1) and his co-accused had the suspicion that the deceased Muhammad Ali had illicit relations with Mst. Sonia Bibi, daughter of Ali Akbar (appellant No.1). So, the accused, on the pretext of theft of wood, attacked with planning and killed Muhammad Ali and injured the complainant. 4. Upon receiving the information of the occurrence, Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6) reached the place of occurrence, where Haji Muhammad Yasin (given up PW), got recorded his statement (Ex.CW-5/A), which was reduced to writing and read over to Muhammad Yasin (given up PW), who put his
---
## Page 3
signatures on the same; after that, on completion of police karwai (proceedings), Faisal Hussain, S.I. (CW-6) sent the same to the Police Station through Muhammad Mansha 323/C (not cited as a witness), after that formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW-5/B) was chalked out by Abdul Ghaffar A.S.I (CW-5). 5. After registration of the case, the investigation of the case was conducted by Faisal Hussain S.I (CW-6)-the investigating officer, and after that, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Tufail Ex.S.I (CW-8), who found the accused/appellants guilty, prepared a report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Being dissatisfied with the result of the investigation, as the investigating officer being in league with the accused did not investigate the matter properly, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant/injured was constrained to file a private complaint (Ex. PA), and after recording the cursory evidence of the complainant and having perused the record, all the accused persons were found connected with the commission of the offence, so they were summoned to face the charge. After that, the trial court formally charge sheeted the appellants on 29.08.2022, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of his version, the complainant produced as many as two (02) witnesses, whereas the rest were summoned as court witnesses, i.e., C.W-1 to C.W-10. 6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein they neither opted to appear as their own witnesses in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in their defence. In response to a particular question that why this case was against them and why the PWs had deposed against them, Ali Akbar-the appellant, made the following deposition: - "I and my co-accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. We have been falsely implicated in this case due to political friction. The deceased Muhammad Ali was a bad character man and he has illicit relation with the different women of the area so he used to sleep in his shop where his some unknown enemy attacked upon him and caused him injuries. Firstly, Muhammad Yaseen got registered a false case against me and my co-accused in form of FIR who is the maternal uncle of deceased as complainant disclosed before him the false and concocted facts of the occurrence. When the complainant of case/FIR came to know that we were falsely involved in this case he refused to support the version of FIR so complainant Muhammad Yousaf filed this private complaint. Muhammad Yousaf complainant was not present at the spot and he got issued a fake medical from the THQ Hospital Arifwala whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the territorial limits of DHQ Hospital Pakpattan. Muhammad Yousaf complainant has personal relationship with the doctor Saqib and he also put some political pressure upon the doctors in this regard. In fact, there are two political parties in our village Hota. PTI party leads by one Jalal Akbar Hotiana and I alongwith my co-accused and our families used to support the above said political figure whereas Mr. Naseem Mahmood Hotiyana leads to the parties PDM in our area and complainant party used to support him and is under his influence. I affixed a board of PTI party in my house and agricultural land when the said board was saw by Naseem Hotiyana he show his disliking and anger and abuses were exchanged between me and Naseem Hotiyana. In the meanwhile, the instant occurrence took place and complainant party falsely implicated me and my relative co-accused in this case on the asking of Naseem Mahmood Hotiyana. We have not any ill-will or grudge with the complainant party. Hence, the complainant party introduced a false motive of theft of the wood in the FIR and thereafter they introduced another false motive of illicit relation of deceased with one Sonia Bibi. Both the motives are fake and concocted. My co-accused Hafiz Muhammad Arshad is a paralyzed person and his both legs are paralyzed due to polio and he can move very slowly with the help of his hands and he is unable to stand, so how he could cause injury to deceased who was young, healthy and strong man. The facts of the FIR were found not correct during the investigation so, my co-accused namely Anwar, Asghar and Manzoor were found innocent
---
## Page 4
during the investigation. All the PWs are closely related to the deceased and having political friction with us, hence, they have been falsely deposed against me and my co-accused." Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, Amir Ali, and Allah Ditta (appellants Nos. 2, 3, and 4) opted the detailed answer of their co-accused, Ali Akbar (appellant No.1). 7. 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 appellants' conviction in the afore-stated terms. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 9. As per the private complaint (Ex. PA), the incident took place on 04.03.2020, whereas this fact has not been mentioned in "Fard Biyan" (Ex. CW-5/A) and FIR (Ex. CW-5/B). Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1) is the injured complainant of a private complaint (Ex.PA) filed on 14.09.2021, after about 01 year and 06 months, and mentioned in the private complaint (Ex.PA) that during the investigation, the investigating officer declared Asghar, Anwar, and Manzoor innocent. Whereas Muhammad Yaseen (not cited as a witness in the private complaint), brother-in-law of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1) (wife's brother), got recorded his statement through Fard Bayyan (Ex. CW5/A) at 09:30 p.m. on 04.03.2020 to Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6)-investigating officer, upon which Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW- 6) investigating officer endorsed police proceedings and sent the same to police station Kalyana through Muhammad Mansha 323/C (not cited PW) and Abdul Ghaffar ASI (Ex. Moharrar) (CW-5) formally chalked the FIR (Ex. CW-5/B) at 10:10 p.m. on 04.03.2020. Abdul Ghaffar ASI (Ex. Moharrar) (CW-5) deposed during cross-examination that: - "I received the complaint Ex.CW-5/A at 10:10 p.m on 04.03.2020." Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6)-investigating officer deposed during the cross-examination that: - "I received the information of this occurrence at 08:15 p.m on 04.03.2020 when I was present police station Kalyana through Moharrar Abdul Ghaffar PW. The place of occurrence is at a distance of 16-KM from the police station and I reached there within 20-minutes after receiving the information. I don't know who informed the Moharrar about the occurrence. One Haji Muhammad Yasin got recorded his statement Ex.CW-5/A to me as complainant. We reached at the place of occurrence at 08:30 p.m and dead body of deceased was lying on the ground at the place of occurrence at the time of my arrival." Contrary to the above, Abdul Ghaffar ASI (Ex. Moharrar) (CW-5) deposed during cross-examination that: - "I did not receive any information regarding this occurrence prior to receiving the complaint Ex.CW-5/A." During examination-in-chief, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant deposed as under: - "The F.I.R. about this occurrence was got registered on the report of Haji Muhammad Yaseen PW but police did not carry out the investigation as per law and facts and declared Asghar, Anwar and Manzoor accused as innocent. Hence, I have filed instant private complaint Ex-PA which bears my thumb impression in order to seek justice." Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant mentioned the date of occurrence in the private complaint as 04.03.2020 at 08:00 p.m. However, he (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that: - "I got recorded in my statement Ex.DA that date of occurrence was 04.03.2020. Confronted with Ex.DA where date is not mentioned in any contents." He (PW-1)-the complainant also admitted that Haji Muhammad Yasin (given up PW) is the brother-in-law (wife's brother). However, he has not cited him as a witness. During cross- examination, he (PW-1)-the complainant, deposed as below: -
---
## Page 5
"Haji Yasin is brother of my wife got registered this case. I did not cite him as witness in my complaint case. It is correct that as he did not want to support our version hence I did not cite him as witness in this case." It is admitted fact that Haji Muhammad Yasin (not cited as a witness) reported the incident through "Fard Biyan" (Ex. CW-5/A), recorded by Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6)-the investigating officer. It is admitted that on the statement of Haji Muhammad Yasin (not cited as a witness), FIR was registered and was not supporting the case of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1) the complainant (complainant of private complaint). The statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, was recorded by Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6)-the investigating officer, after 05 days of the occurrence at the hospital. In this regard, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, deposed during cross-examination as under: - "I admitted in the hospital at 09:00 p.m. I don't know when police visited the place of occurrence and what police proceeded at the place of occurrence. I did not see the police on the day when I was shifted to hospital. I first time got recorded my statement after five days of the occurrence at Sahiwal hospital." Contrary to the deposition of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW- 6)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "I received the information of this occurrence at 08:15 p.m. on 04.03.2020 when I was present police station Kalyana through Moharrar Abdul Ghaffar PW. The place of occurrence is at a distance of 16-KM from the police station and I reached there within 20-minutes after receiving the information. One Haji Muhammad Yasin got recorded his statement Ex.CW-5/A to me as complainant. We reached at the place of occurrence at 08:30 p.m. and dead body of deceased was lying on the ground at the place of occurrence at the time of my arrival. Yousaf injured PW was also present at the place of occurrence at the time of my arrival. I did not record statement of Muhammad Yousaf, the alleged injured PW. Volunteered that he was in precarious condition, hence his statement was not recorded." Faisal Hussain S.I. (CW-6)-the investigating officer stated during cross-examination that he reached the place of occurrence at 08:30 p.m., and the dead body of the deceased was lying on the ground at the place of occurrence at the time of his arrival. While Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "As soon as we reached at THO Hospital Arifwala we got issued the Medical examination of Muhammad Yousaf deceased. We also shifted the dead body of Muhammad Ali deceased at THQ hospital Arifwala alongwith Muhammad Yousaf injured. We shifted both Muhammad Ali deceased and Muhammad Yousaf on the car of one Muhammad Yasin Joiya. We all the four PWs, deceased Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Yasin Joiya reached at THQ Arifwala in one car. I alongwith Yasin and Muhammad Yar took back the dead body of Muhammad Ali deceased at the place of occurrence from THQ Hospital Arifwala on the same car. The hands and clothes of myself, Yasin and Muhammad Yar PWs were smeared with blood of deceased and injured while we took care of them while we taking to the hospital. We handed over our blood stained clothes to police. We reached back at the place of occurrence alongwith dead body at 09:30 p.m." Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness has specifically deposed during cross-examination that they reached back at the place of occurrence alongwith dead body at 09:30 p.m. The above-said depositions of the PWs create doubt about the prosecution story. 10. As per the case of the prosecution, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief, that Haji Yasin (given up PW), Allah Rakha (PW-2), and Muhammad Yar witnessed the occurrence in the light of an electric bulb. These PWs took him and his son to the hospital, but his son Muhammad Ali succumbed to the injuries on the way, and he (PW-1) was
---
## Page 6
referred from Arifwala Hospital to Sahiwal Hospital for treatment. Whereas, during cross- examination, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, deposed as below: - "My relative Nadeem shifted me to THQ Hospital Arifwala and from where I was referred to DHQ Sahiwal." While taking somersault, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, further deposed during cross-examination that: - "I was shifted from the place of occurrence by Allah Rakha and Yasin complainant after 15/20 minutes of the occurrence on a car owned by one Yasin Joiya. Yasin was driving the car. We reached at THQ hospital Arifwala within 15/20 minutes. Within 15/20 minutes as I reached at THQ Arifwala my medical examination was conducted. My medical examination was conducted in the absence of police. I don't know when police visited the THQ Hospital Arifwala. I remained admitted at THQ Hospital Arifwala for 15/20 minutes. Thereafter, one relative Nadeem shifted me to DHQ hospital Sahiwal on ambulance." Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "I along with complainant Muhammad Yousaf, PWs Haji Yaseen and Muhammad Yar witnessed the entire occurrence in the light of electric bulb and after the occurrence accused persons fled away by extending threats to kill us and PWs by waving their daggers. We took the complainant and his son to hospital but Muhammad Ali succumbed to the injuries in the way while complainant was referred from Arifwala hospital to Sahiwal hospital for treatment." Contrary to the above, Dr. Saqib Ishaq M.O (CW-7), who conducted the medico-legal examination of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "It is stated that on 04.03.2020, I was posted as M.O at THQ Hospital Arifwala. On the same day, at about 09:15 P.M, I conducted medico legal examination of Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Sharif, caste Rehmani, aged 56- years, r/o Chak Hota, Pakpattan which was brought by Muhammad Tufail S.I." In the column of brief history, it was mentioned that the examinee gave a history of assault at about 07:30 p.m. on 04.03.2020, beaten with Khanjar. Cross-examination of Dr. Saqib Ishaq M.O (CW-7) was conducted by the learned counsel for the complainant, and the question put to the witness reveals that the prosecution admitted that Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant, was medically examined at the request of police. He (CW-7) deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that medical examination of Muhammad Yousaf injured PW was conducted on the request of police while in the relevant column name of Muhammad Tufail SI is mentioned." During the cross-examination conducted by the defence, Dr. Saqib Ishaq M.O (CW-7) deposed as under: - "I conducted medical examination of Muhammad Yousaf injured on docket of police but same is not available on the record. It is correct that said docket is not available on record/file nor my any endorsement is available as per record. No rapt number is mentioned regarding the said docket in record. It is incumbent upon a doctor to mention the rapt number in the relevant column but in this MLC same is not mentioned by me. It is correct that my endorsement is available on application Ex.CW-7/C regarding the Muhammad Yousaf injured. It is correct that said application was presented before me on 27.04.2020." The MLC of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1), the complainant, reveals that Muhammad Tufail S.I. brought the injured. In addition, through the application (Ex. CW-7/C), the investigating officer requested the issuance of an MLC, which Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1) received. All the above facts cast a cloud of doubt about the prosecution story. 11. There is another aspect of the case which makes the prosecution's case doubtful. Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: -
---
## Page 7
"First of all, Haji Yasin complainant of FIR, came to my house just for visit. He is my relative. Allah Rakha PW came in my house after 10/15 minutes after the arrival of Yasin, complainant." Whereas Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "First of all, I and Muhammad Yar reached in the house of Muhammad Yousaf PW prior to the occurrence. After 5/7 minutes of our arrival my brother Yasin, complainant of FIR, came in the house of Muhammad Yousaf PW. We remained present there for 15/20 minutes." The arrival sequence of PWs at the place of occurrence creates doubt about the presence of Allah Rakha (PW-2), the eyewitness, and Muhammad Yar (given-up PW being unnecessary). In addition, Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness deposed during cross-examination that: - "I used to live in a separate house. My house is situated at the backside of shop where the occurrence has taken place. It is correct that according to my NIC my permanent and present address is mentioned as Ashiq Abad Qaboola, Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan which is at a distance of 16/17 kilometers from the place of occurrence. The date of issuance of my NIC is mentioned as 02.04.2016." The above deposition made by Allah Rakha (PW-2) also creates doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence. Another fact, which also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful, is that Allah Rakha (PW-2)-the eye witness, deposed during cross-examination that they reached back at the place of occurrence alongwith dead body at 09:30 p.m. Whereas Tanveer Ahmad 663/C (CW- 3) deposed during cross-examination that: - "We received information of this occurrence at 08:00 p.m when I was on petrol duty alongwith Faisal Hussain SI at Adda Purana Thana which is at a distance of 2/3 KM from the place of occurrence. We reached at the place of occurrence at 08:15 p.m. The dead body was lying on the ground at that time. No injured person was present there at the time of our arrival The I.O recorded statement of three/four persons at the spot. We waited for ambulance and then shifted the dead body to DHQ Hospital Pakpattan. The dead body of deceased was handed over to me at 08:15 p.m. Thereafter I escorted the dead body to DHQ hospital Pakpattan at about 09:00 p.m." There are contradictions between the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the arrival of the police and the dispatch of a dead body to the hospital. In addition, Muhammad Yousaf (PW-1)- the complainant,…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.