Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Sajjad Ali VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan Asghar Ali Gill and Muhammad Aftab Janjua
CITATION: 2026 PCrLJ 1457 CASE: 2026L3051 TITLE: Sajjad Ali VS State Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan Asghar Ali Gill and Muhammad Aftab Janjua COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PCrLJ ============================================================
305 2026 P Cr. L J 1457 [Lahore] Before Abher Gul Khan, J Sajjad Ali ---Appellant Versus The State
and another---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 67614 of 2021 and Criminal Revision No. 44600 of 2023, decided on 19th September, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging the FIR---Casting doubt over actual time of registration of the FIR---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Prosecution s stance was that the first police officer, who arrived at the scene after receipt of information regarding the incident, recorded the complainant s statement and dispatched it to the police station for formal registration of the FIR through a constable---In order to prove timely registration of the FIR, it was necessary for the prosecution to produce the said constable as a witness---However, he was neither listed as a prosecution witness nor summoned before the Court to verify the prosecution s version regarding dispatch of the complaint to the police station---Additionally, the Investigating Officer testified that he reached the crime scene at about 11:00/11:15 p.m. and prepared the inquest report, wherein the time of police receiving information was recorded as 9:30 p.m. on 21.02.2017---He further stated that the first police officer reached the spot at 10:05 p.m., i.e. within 35 minutes of the incident---Such discrepancy raised concerns, particularly in view of the delayed arrival of the Investigating Officer at the scene, suggesting possible foul play, including withholding of the roznamcha/daily diary and absence of private witnesses at the crime scene---Moreover, the post-mortem examination of the deceased s body was conducted at about 3:30 p.m. on 22.02.2017, reflecting a delay of nearly 18 hours---Said delay became even more significant considering that the Medical Officer received the relevant police papers at 3:15 p.m. on 22.02.2017---No plausible explanation for that delay was available---Said unexplained delay cast a significant shadow on the actual time of registration of the FIR and undermined the prosecution s claim of prompt reporting---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa 2017 SCMR 54 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution narrative doubtful---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---As per the prosecution narrative, three eyewitnesses, while purportedly in search of the deceased, entered the godown and discovered his corpse soaked in blood---From that sequence of events, it became manifest that the deceased had already succumbed to the fatal injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellant before the arrival of the said witnesses---Prosecution contended that the witnesses became apprised of the occurrence through the appellant himself, who allegedly confessed at the scene to having slain the deceased owing to a monetary dispute involving a sum of Rs. 600,000/----From the narration of the said facts, it became evident that the version presented by the prosecution did not appeal to a prudent judicial mind---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Conduct attributed to accused improbable and unnatural---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Appellant allegedly confessed that he had taught a lesson to the deceased for demanding Rs. 600,000/----Such conduct, as attributed to the appellant by the prosecution, appeared highly improbable and unnatural---Ordinarily, an accused would flee from the crime scene to avoid being apprehended or creating evidence against himself, rather than remain there and confess to bystanders---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in arresting the accused---Raising significant doubts about credibility of the prosecution s version of events---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Prosecution claimed that, when a witness attempted to intervene, the appellant inflicted injuries on his own neck, after which he was taken to the hospital for medical treatment--- However, the Medical Officer, who examined the appellant and issued his medico-legal certificate, testified that the injured appellant was brought before him on 21.02.2017 at 10:28 p.m. by a constable and that the medical examination was conducted immediately thereafter---Brief history provided by the appellant mentioned that a fight had occurred at about 7:00 p.m. on the same date---Said sequence of events clearly indicated that the police were aware of the injuries sustained by the appellant---Nevertheless, the Investigating Officer failed to obtain the hospital treatment record of the injured appellant---Said lapse was candidly admitted by the Investigating Officer during cross-examination---However, the fact that the appellant was shown to have been arrested on 22.03.2017 cast serious doubt on the entire prosecution case---If the police officials were already aware of the injuries sustained by the appellant and had themselves shifted him to the hospital for medical treatment, it remained unclear why he was not taken into custody at that time---Delayed arrest, despite prior knowledge of the appellant s involvement and medical condition, raised significant questions regarding the credibility of the prosecution s version of events---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant and witness at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Absence of the complainant and an eyewitness at the spot could be verified from the fact that, according to the inquest report, the deceased was identified by two other witnesses---In that way, the narration of events deposed to by the said witnesses fell to the ground---Non-identification of the dead body by the complainant and an eyewitness led the Court to conclude that, had they been present at the place of occurrence, they would have definitely identified him, and that aspect rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State 2024 SCMR 1449 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Failure to produce crucial witnesses for giving evidence---Effect---Adverse presumption against the prosecution case---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Incident was alleged to have occurred inside the godown of one MS ---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that the distance between the place of occurrence and her residence was approximately five minutes by motorbike---However, despite examination of the entire record, there was no reference to the mode of conveyance used by the complainant and the two other witnesses to reach the scene of the incident---Furthermore, the owner of the godown, MS , was neither presented before the Investigating Officer nor produced during the trial---Admittedly, the individuals who were present at the time of the incident, as well as those who arrived afterwards, were not joined in the investigation---Said fact was candidly acknowledged by an eyewitness---Failure to produce such crucial witnesses compelled the Court to conclude that, had they been examined at the trial, their testimonies would likely not have supported the prosecution s case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Call data record not produced---Consequential---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---According to the prosecution case, the deceased was owed Rs. 600,000/- by the appellant---Allegedly, on the day of the incident, the appellant made a phone call to the deceased at about 5:00 p.m., summoning him to Bakar Mandi, and the deceased went there to collect the money---Said information was reportedly conveyed to the complainant---However, that aspect did not support the prosecution version, as the specific location where the deceased was allegedly called was not mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant before the Court---Moreover, if such a telephonic call had actually been made by the appellant, it could easily have been substantiated through the call data record of both the deceased and the appellant, yet the prosecution failed to produce such record---None of the key witnesses could even provide the mobile number of the deceased on which he allegedly received the appellant s call---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Effect---Prosecution case remaining unsubstantiated---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Regarding the alleged amount of Rs. 600,000/-, said to be the motive for the occurrence, the FIR stated that the deceased went to recover that sum from the appellant---Importantly, the complainant party failed to produce any evidence, such as a receipt or testimony of a witness, demonstrating that the amount had ever been given to the appellant---Therefore, the main allegation on which the entire prosecution case hinged remained unsubstantiated and collapsed---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by witnesses---Undermining their reliability---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Complainant stated that the deceased had received a telephone call from the appellant, after which her husband left, saying that he would return shortly---Complainant also claimed that, upon reaching the scene of the incident along with other prosecution witnesses, they found the deceased s body lying in the courtyard soaked in blood and that her brother-in-law made calls to 15 and 1122---However, those assertions were contradicted on confrontation, as no such details were recorded in her previous statement---Similarly, an eyewitness, during cross-examination, stated that he had informed the police that the accused had inflicted an injury on his own neck with his own churri---However, on confrontation with his recorded police statement, it became clear that no such assertion had been made therein---Such material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and an eyewitness significantly undermined their reliability and rendered their evidence unworthy of credence--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 662 rel. (j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon inconsequential---Accused was charged with committing the murder of the husband of the complainant by inflicting churri blows---Appellant was allegedly arrested on 16.03.2017 by the Investigating Officer---During interrogation on 23.03.2017, the appellant was said to have made a disclosure leading to the recovery of a blood-stained churri, which was taken into possession through a recovery memo---However, it was noticed that, as per the prosecution s own case, the appellant was shifted to hospital by the prosecution witnesses in an injured condition and the blood-stained churri was not with him---The Investigating Officer, during cross-examination, also admitted that the weapon of offence, i.e. churri, was not sent to the Forensic Science Agency for examination of fingerprints thereon---Although the Forensic Science Agency report confirmed that the churri was stained with human blood, the prosecution ought to have established blood-group matching between the blood found on the churri and the blood-stained earth collected from the crime scene because, according to the prosecution version, the appellant had also caused injuries to himself with the same churri---Such matching would have demonstrated that both samples originated from the same source---In the absence of that link, the recovery did not advance the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486 rel. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If any doubt arises in the prosecution case, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused without the necessity of scrutinising the defence case. Azhar Iqbal v. The State 2013 SCMR 383 rel. Asghar Ali Gill and Muhammad Aftab Janjua for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Sardar Zulfqar Umer Khan Thaheem for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 19th September, 2025. Judgment Abher Gul Khan, J .--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.67614 of 2021 filed by the appellant Sajjad Ali under Section 410 Cr.P.C. and Criminal Revision No.44600 of 2023 filed by the complainant Robina Kausar in terms of Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant Sajjad Ali. In both these matters, the legality of the judgment dated 30.09.2021 is under challenge, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge MCTC, Lahore, upon conclusion of the trial in case FIR No.266/2017 dated 21.02.2017 registered under Section 302 P.P.C at Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore convicted and sentenced the appellant, Sajjad Ali, as follows:- Under Section 302(b) P.P.C to suffer imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased, Faqir Hussain which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 06-months. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C., however, was extended to the appellant. 2. Succinctly stated the version of the prosecution's case as stated by the complainant, Mst. Robina Bibi (PW.1) in FIR (Exh.PH) is that she is residing at Babu Sabu Bund Road, Lahore and her husband, Faqir Hussain, had returned from Dubai two years prior and started a business of rickshaws. He was owed Rs.600,000 by the accused, Sajjad Ali. On 21.02.2017, at about 5:00 p.m., a neighbourer, Mehar Khadim Hussain, passed away, and the husband of the complainant namely, Faqir Hussain deceased was busy with his funeral arrangements. At 7:00 p.m., Faqir Hussain deceased called the complainant Robina Bibi, informing her that accused Sajjad Ali had asked him to come to Bakar Mandi to collect his money. Faqir Hussain left for the location but did not return. Being worried, the complainant, along with her brothers-in-law, Munir Hussain (PW.2) and Shabbir Hussain (given up PW), went to Bakar Mandi, and found a crowd gathered outside Muhammad Shakeel's godown. Inside, they saw Faqir Hussain s blood-soaked dead body and accused Sajjad Ali standing nearby holding a chhurri (knife). When questioned, accused Sajjad confessed that he had killed the deceased Faqir Hussain for demanding his money back and threatened the complainant and witnesses with the same fate. As Munir Hussain (PW.2) tried to apprehend him, accused Sajjad injured himself with the chhurri , but with help from locals, he was subdued and taken to Jinnah Hospital. The motive behind the murder was the financial dispute over Rs.600,000/-. 3. On 21.02.2017, Muhammad Rafique ASI (PW.7), along with other police officials, arrived at the scene of the incident upon receiving information about the occurrence. At the spot, the complainant, Robina Bibi (PW.1), appeared before him and got recorded her statement (Exh.PA), which was then sent to the police station through Constable Muhammad Shahzad for the registration of a formal FIR. Upon receiving the complaint (Exh.PA), Shakeel Ahmad ASI (PW.8) formally registered the FIR (Exh.PH). Subsequently, the investigation was assigned to Muhammad Arshad Toor SI (PW.11), who on the same day (21.02.2017), visited the crime scene, prepared a rough site plan (Exh.PL), and collected blood-stained earth using cotton, which was secured vide memo Exh.PB. He further prepared the injury statement (Exh.PM), inquest report (Exh.PN), application for issuance of a docket (Exh.PP), and the application for postmortem examination (Exh.PQ). Later, on 16.03.2017, the appellant Sajjad Ali was arrested. On 23.03.2017, he made a disclosure, leading to the recovery of a chhuri (P.1), which was seized and taken into possession through memo Exh.PC. After completing all necessary legal formalities, the investigating officer submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. To prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution produced a total of 11 witnesses. Among them, Robina Bibi (PW.1), the complainant, and Munir Hussain (PW.2) appeared in the witness box and stated that when they arrived at the crime scene they found the dead body soaked in blood and the appellant was standing nearby the dead body along with blood stained Chhurri. Medical evidence was provided by Dr. Muhammad Akmal Kareem (PW.9) and Dr. Ghulam Ghazi (PW.10). The investigation was carried out by Muhammad Arshad Toor SI (PW.11). The remaining witnesses were primarily formal in nature and performed procedural roles to aid and support the investigation.. 5. On 22.02.2017 Dr.Muhammad Akmal Kareem (PW.9) conducted the autopsy of Faqir Hussain (deceased) and noted the following injuries:- (1). An incised wound 15 cm x 3 cm on back of head on right side, 3 cm from right ear, 8 cm above nape of neck, 5 cm below occipital proturberance. It was extending into cranial cavity. On exploration, soft tissue of scalp was cut along with fracture of skull and atlas vertebra and damage to brain matter i.e. medulla oblongata and midbrain. (2). An abraded area measuring 32 cm x 18 cm, 3 cm present on the neck. According to the doctor's opinion, injury No.1 was inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon, while injury No.2 resulted from a blunt force. The cause of death was determined to be brain damage and a skull fracture caused by injury No.1, which led to coma and subsequently death. The doctor further stated that the injuries and death occurred almost immediately, and the postmortem examination was carried out within 17 to 24 hours of death. Dr.Ghulam Ghazi (PW.1) conducted the medico legal examination of the appellant Sajjad Ali on 21.02.2017 and observed the following injuries:-
1. An incised wound sized 12 cm x 1 cm on left side of neck involving skin and subcutaneous tissues, 6 cm from left clavicle and 11 cm below left ear. 2. An incised wound sized 6 cm x 1 cm on front and left side of neck involving flesh just above the injury No.1 at its lateral edge. 3. An incised wound sized 4 cm x 1 cm on front and left side of neck 2 cm below injury No.2. According to the doctor the injuries were caused by sharp means. 6. After the prosecution evidence was concluded, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. In response to the question, "Why this case is against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" he made the following reply:- All the witnesses are inter se related with one another and are inimical towards me. That is why, they deposed against the real facts just to make me in scapegoat of the occurrence. I received three injuries on my neck and I was smeared with blood at the place of occurrence and I received injuries at the hand of actual accused persons namely Munir Hussain and Shabbir Hussain and I was shifted by my witnesses to the hospital empty handed. Subsequently, the local police and the I.O of this case visited the place of occurrence and the alleged place of occurrence remained in possession of the local police for many days after the alleged occurrence and at the time of spot inspection, nothing was recovered by the police and subsequently when I was arrested by the police, the I.O of this case made a fictitious recovery proceedings and planted a Chhurri upon me from the said place of occurrence. It is also pertinent to mention here that nothing has been shown in the site plan earlier and the room from which the recovery has been planted, was not locked and was open for local police, I.O and for the witnesses and for the complainant when they visited for the purpose of preparing site plan of the alleged occurrence. I.O of this case did not investigate the matter regarding the injuries received by me and he did not even receive my medical (MLC) from the concerned authorities and never questioned the real accused persons. The complainant party has failed to prove the motive part of the case as they are living their life from hand to mouth and they cannot afford to lend money to any other person and this motive part has been introduced with mala fide intention just to connect me with the alleged occurrence. The witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their statements just to bring in line with the prosecution case. I also filed a private complaint with the real facts of the case against the real accused persons. I am totally innocent in this case. In fact, I am the aggrieved/injured in this occurrence but the police after joining hands with the complainant party made me a scapegoat and also threatened my witnesses at the behest of the complainant party. I have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. I may very kindly be acquitted from this false case. The appellant opted not to get recorded a statement under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., but produced certain documents in his defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above, hence the instant criminal appeal and criminal revision. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. It is evident from the examination of the record that the instant case stems from an incident which occurred on 21.02.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. in a godown owned by Muhammad Shakeel, located at Bakar Mandi, about two kilometers from Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore. Allegedly, during the incident the appellant, Sajjad Ali, inflicted injuries with a chhuri (knife) on the deceased, Faqir Hussain, resulting in his death at the scene. As per the contents of the FIR (Exh.PH), when Robina Bibi (PW.1), Munir Hussain (PW.2), and Shabbir Hussain (given up PW) entered the godown, they found the dead body of Faqir Hussain lying there, while the appellant Sajjad Ali was standing nearby holding a chhuri . When Munir Hussain (PW.2) attempted to apprehend him, the appellant inflicted injuries upon his own neck with the chhuri.
Thereafter, Munir Hussain, with the help of other local residents, shifted him to Jinnah Hospital for medical treatment. 9. In light of the aforementioned facts, it has come to this Court s attention that the information regarding the incident was allegedly conveyed to the police at 10:05 p.m. on the night of occurrence by Robina Bibi (PW.1) through an oral statement/Fard Bian made to Muhammad Rafique, ASI (PW.7), upon his arrival at the crime scene. On the basis of this statement, the formal FIR (Exh.PH) was registered at 10:30 p.m. This would ostensibly suggest that the matter was reported to the police within about 35-minutes of the occurrence, giving an impression of prompt reporting. However, upon a careful review of the entire record, this Court is compelled to form a different opinion. It is the prosecution s stance that Muhammad Rafique, ASI (PW.7), was the first police officer who arrived at the scene after the receipt of information regarding the incident. He recorded the complainant s statement and dispatched it to the police station for formal FIR registration through Constable Shehzad. Accordingly, in order to prove the timely registration of the FIR, it was necessary for the prosecution to produce Constable Shehzad as a witness. However, not only was he not listed as a prosecution witness,…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.