Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1817
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: MUHAMMAD ATIF ETC. vs THE STATE ETC.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1817. In this matter between MUHAMMAD ATIF ETC. and THE STATE 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.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram) DECISION DATE: 20-01-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 62-24 ============================================================ Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 (The State Vs. Muhammad Atif)
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 (Muhammad Atif and another Vs. The State and another.)
Date of hearing: 20.01.2026
Appellant by:
Mr. Zeeshan Haider, Advocate. State by: Complainant by :
Mr. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General. Mr. Muhammad Umair Mohsin, Advocate.
JUDGMENT.
SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. – Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan (convicts) were tried along with Arif, Bilal, Ayyaz Farid, Waqas Farid and Ghulam Nabi, their co-accused, all since acquitted, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “Sikandar Ali Vs. Atif and seven others “ filed in respect of offences under sections 302,324,148 and 149 P.P.C. (related to the F.I.R. No. 310 of 2022 dated 10.07.2022 at the Police Station Dharanwala, District Bahawalnagar), for committing the Qatl- i-Amd of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef(deceased). The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 23.01.2024, convicted Muhammad Atif son of Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 2
Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan (convicts) and sentenced them as infra: Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid: Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef(deceased) and directed to pay Rs.200,000/ - as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and 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.
Jamal son of Daleel Khan:- Imprisonment for Life under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef(deceased) and directed to pay Rs.200,000/ - as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default thereof, the convict was directed to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was how ever, extended the benefit available under Section 382-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Arif, Bilal, Ayyaz Farid, Waqas Farid and Ghulam Nabi ,the co-accused of the convicts, were however, acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan(convicts) lodged Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2024 assailing their convictions and sentence s. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.02 of 2024 under section 374 Cr.P.C., seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 3
Appeal No. 62 of 2024 and Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Sikandar Ali (PW-1), the complainant of the case are as under:- “ It is stated that I run a general store with the name of Pehnawa store at Dahranwal a Chishtian. On 10.07 2022, at about 06.00 PM I alongwith my cousin Shahid Lateef, Muhammad Waheed Arshad and Muhammad Irfan were going on Shehzore Dala bearing No. MLM - 4564 to load animal hides and skins of Eid -ul-Adha at Dahranwala. When we reached near Government High School Chak No. 167/Murad Chishtian all of sudden the accused persons while riding three motorcycles came in front of our Dala stopped us. All the accused persons while boarding their respective motorcycles gathered at the left side of our Dala, said accused persons namely-Muhammad Atif armed with Pistol, Muhammad Arif armed with pistol, Muhammad Jamal armed with Pistol, Muhammad Bilal, Ghulam Nabi, Ayaz Farid, Waqas Fareed (present in court) and two unknown accused persons empty handed. All the accused persons raised Lalkara to Hafiz Shahid Lateef (deceased) that they will taught a lesson today to him for supporting Furqan Arshad. Accused Muhammad Atif made pistol fire shot which landed upon left arm of Hafiz Shahid Lateef he made again pist ol fire shot which landed on left side of ribs of Hafiz Shahid Lateef. Accused Jamal made pistol fire shot which landed upon inner side of upper Arm (Dola) of Hafiz Shahid Lateef. Accused Muhammad Arif made pistol fire shot which Landed upon left upper arm (Dola) of Hafiz Shahid Lateef who fell down in injured condition in Dala. We all Muhammad Irfan and Waheed Arshad rescued, shifted him at RHC, Dahranwala. Local police also reached there. Injured Hafiz Shahid Lateef (deceased) was not able to get record h is statement. Upon my statement Exh.P.A FIR was registered. Injured Hafiz Shahid Lateef was referred to BVH. Hospital Bahawalpur due to his critical condition. I.O accompanied us at the place of occurrence. Hafiz Shahid Lateef during treatment in the same night at about 06.00 AM succumbed to the injuries. I.O got conducted the post mortem examination of deceased and recorded our statements.
Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 4
During investigation, SHO, DSP circle Chishtian being in league with the accused persons managed duty of Muhammad Aamir Mehmood ASI (I.O) in matter of flood affectees and handed over the investigation of the instant case to one Muhammad Ayoub SI, who conducted dishonest partial and against the facts and law investigation. Muhammad Ayoub SI only in order to favor and to save the skin of the accused person nominated in FIR from the expected punishment nominated accused Muhammad Siraj upon his own in place of unknown accused persons and recorded his aftert hought, concocted extra judicial confession upon his own and produced him before the learned Area Magistrate and submitted application for recording the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C but said Siraj refused to get record statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and application was dismissed. I.O Muhammad Ayoub SI again being in league with -accused-persons got submitted application for recording the statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C through private counsel but the same was again dismissed by the learned Area Magistrate. I.O Muhammad Ayoub Sl remained consistent for giving benefits to the accused person nominated -in-FIR and in this regard he planted fake recovery of pistol upon said Siraj showing from the house of the accused Muhammad Jamal and declared accused Muhammad Jamal none to be involved in the commission of occurrence. I appeared before Magistrate court and submitted my written affidavit maintaining therein that said Siraj neither was nominated by me nor he is my accused, rather local police planted him in my case in order to favour the real accused persons, learned court advised me to approach high ups of police upon which I submitted application before RPO, Bahawalpur against the act and conduct of L.O. RPO got conducted inquiry and concluded that Muhammad Ayoub SI conducted dishonest and partial investigation and recommended change of investigation. Muhammad Ayoub Sl while concluded the investigation declared Muhammad Atif, Muhammad Bilal and planted one Siraj to be involved in commission of occurrence and rest of accused persons n ot to be involved in the commission of the occurrence.
The second investigation was conducted by DSP, circle Minchinabad who conducted the investigation, I alongwith my witnesses produced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove my version. Said I.O concluded that nothing is available in shape of incriminating material against said Siraj and he challan the accused Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 5
persons Muhammad Atif, Bilal and Muhammad Jamal in commission of occurrence however, he also declared rest of the accused persons not be i nvolved in the commission of occurrence however, he did not conduct any criminal proceedings against Muhammad Ayoub SI being sub-ordinate. I being aggrieved filed the instant private complaint Exh.P.B. The accused persons of my complaint case are real culp rits may kindly be punished as per law.” 4. The accused were summoned to face trial in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “Sikandar Ali Vs. Atif and seven others “filed in respect of offences under sections 302,324,148 and 149 P.P.C. (related to the F.I.R. No. 310 of 2022 dated 10.07.2022 at the Police Station Dharanwala, District Bahawalnagar), for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef (deceased). The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 02.09.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The complainant of the case in order to prove his case got recorded statements of as many as five witnesses. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Sikandar Ali (PW-1), Waheed Arshad (PW-2) and Muhammad Irfan (PW-3). Muhammad Saeed Akhtar (PW -4) stated that on 09.07.2022, Ayyaz Farid (since acquitted), the co-accused of the convicts, threatened him that the deceased would be done to death. Muhammad Azam (PW -5) stated that on 10.07.2022, he had seen Arif and Ghulam Nabi (both since acquitted)the co -accused of the convicts, riding on a motorcycle going towards Chak 170/Murad. 6. The learned trial court recorded the statements of as many as thirteen court witnesses. Ehtsham Ali 1019/C (CW-1) stated that on 10.07.2022, he Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 6
took the written application (Exh.PA) to the police station. Arshad Ali 841/C (CW-2) stated that on 10.07.2022, he got Hafiz Shahid Latif, then injured later deceased, examined by the Medical Officer. Muhammad Arshad 812/HC (CW-3) stated that on 10.07.2022, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain empty shells of bullets and the shirt of the deceased and also a vehicle and on 20.07.2022, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain a bullet and on 27.07.2022, he handed over the sealed parcels said to contain empty shells of bullets and the shirt of the deceased to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forens ic Science Agency, Lahore. Muhammad Farooq draftsman (CW-6) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.CW-6/A). Shahenshah Ahmad Chandio, DSP (CW-10) investigated the case from 12.11.2022 till 10.02.2023 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. Muhammad Ayyub SI (CW-11) investigated the case from 25.08.2022 till 20.10.2022, arrested the appellant namely Muhammad Atif on 07.09.2022, and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. Amir Mahmood, ASI (CW -12) investigated the case from 10.07.2022 till 25.08.2022 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 7. The learned trial court also recorded the statement of Dr. Ali Hasnain (CW-9) who on 10.07.2022 was posted as Medical Officer at the RHC Dahranwala and on the same day had conducted the medical examination of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef (then injured later deceased) . On Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 7
examining Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef (then injured later deceased), Dr. Ali Hasnain (CW-9) observed as under:- “Description of injuries: Injury No. 01. Lacerated wound of 5cm x2.5 cm flesh exposed. Blood coming out of the wound. About 15 cm distal to left shoulder joint and 2.5 cm proximal left elbow joint. Advice x-ray left arm AP/LT. Injury No. 02. Firearm 1 (entry wound) of 1.6 cmx 1.5 cm about 7.5 cm distal to the left acromion of left arm. Blood coming out of wound. Collar abrasion present with inverted margins. Advice x-ray left arm AP/LT. 2 (exit wound) of 2 cm x 2 cm about 5 cm from the left acromion of left arm. Everted margins. Blood coming out of it. Advice x-ray left arm AP/LT. Injury No. 03 Firearm 1 (entry wound) of 1x1 cm about 5 cm from the left elbow joint. Inverted margin. Collar abrasion present. Blood coming out of the wound. 2 (exit wound) 2cm x 2cm everted margins about 3 cm from left elbow joint. Advice x-ray left arm AP/LT. Injury No.04 Firearm 1 (entry wound) of 2 cm x 2 cm with Inverted margins. Collar abrasion present in mid axillary line on the chest left Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 8
sided at the level of nipple blood coming out of it. Advice x -ray chest AP/LT. All injuries are KUO and referred to BVH, Hospital Bahawalpur for further management and surgical notes. Patient was critical. Firearm injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and blunt weapon injury No.1. No fabrication and probable duration of injuries within six hours. I also singed diagram of injuries regarding seat of injuries as Exh.CW-9/Α/1.” The learned trial court also recorded the statement of Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Abdullah (CW-8) who on 10.07.2022 was posted as Medical Officer at the Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had conducted the medical examination of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef (then injured later deceased) and observed the same injuries as were observed by Dr. Ali Hasnain (CW -9). The learned trial court also recorded the stateme nt of Muhammad Asim (CW-7) who on 11.07.2022 (inadvertently mentioned as 11.10.2022 in the statement of Dr. Muhammad Asim (CW-7), had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Hafiz Shahid Lateef son of Abdul Lateef (deceased) and observe d the same injuries present on the dead body of Hafiz Shahid Lateef (deceased) as were observed by Dr. Ali Hasnain (CW-9) and gave his final opinion as under:- “OPINION. After thorough external and internal examination MLC notes and treatment notes from BVH, Bahawalpur I am of the opinion that above mentioned injuries are anti mortem in nature and caused by firearm weapon these injuries damage vital organs of body which leads massive blood loss, hemorrhagic shock and cardiopulmonary arrest and ultimately death. I issued PMR No.27/22 dated 11.10.2022 Exh.CW-7/A which is carbon copy Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 9
of original and in my hand writing and bears my signatures. I also signed injury statement Exh.CW-7/B and inquest report Exh.CW-7/C. ”
8. On 26.10.2023, the counsel for the complainant gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Tahir Mahmood and Muhammad Saleem as being unnecessary. On 09.12.2023, the learned counsel for the complainant closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the attested copy of application for recording statement under section 164 Cr.P.C dated 08.09.2022 and order dated 08.09.2022 (Exh.P.E/1 and Exh.P.E/2 ), the attested copy of application for recoding statement under section 164 Cr.P.C and order dated 12.09.2022 (Exh.P.F and Exh.P.F/1 ), the attested copy of application for initiation of legal action against Muhammad Ayyoub SI (Exh.P.G), the attested copy of Writ Petition No. 4861 -22( Exh.P.H) and orders dated (20.06.2022 Exh.P.H/1), the attested copy of private complaint titled "Gulnaz Bano vs. Lal Khan etc" and order sheet as (Exh.P.I) , the attested copy of statement of Gulnaz Bano dated 21.11.2022 (Exh.P.I/1),the attested copy of Crim. Misc No. 4197-H-22 titled "Sughran Bibi vs.. SHO etc" (Exh.P.J) and order dated 23.11.2022 (Exh.P.J/1), copy of affidavit of the complainant (Mark-A), copy of application against SHO and I.O before RPO (Mark-B), copy of inquiry report as (Mark-B/1), copy of Nikahnama of Furqan Arshad with Gulnaz Bano (Mark-C), application for registration of case titled "Waheed Arshad vs. Jamal etc" (Mark-D), copy of habeas petition titled Sughran Bibi vs. SHO City Hasilpur (Mark-E), copy of orders dated 06.07.2022 (Mark-E/1), copy of FIR No.. 309/22 (Mark-F) and copy of FIR No. 354/22 (Mark-G). Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 10
9. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant s namely Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, they replied that they had been involved in the case falsely and were innocent. The appellants namely Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan opted not to get themselves examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 10. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian convicted and sentenced the appellants namely Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and Jamal son of Daleel Khan as referred to above. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant s also argued that the appellant s had been involved in the occurrence due to suspicion alone. The learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt. Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 11
12. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of a doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant s. The learned D eputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Sikandar Ali (PW-1), Waheed Arshad (PW-2) and Muhammad Irfan (PW-3). The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the recovery of the Pistol (P -4) from the appellant namely Muhammad Atif son of Ghulam Farid and the recovery of the motorcycle from the appellant namely Jamal also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offenders with the innocent in this case. Lastly, they prayed for the rejection of the appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant s, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their able assistance, perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 14. At the very outset, we have noted with grave concern that the prosecution witness namely Sikandar Ali (PW-1), in his statement as recorded Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 12
by the learned trial court, claimed that he had also witnessed the occurrence , however, his such claim was exposed to be false when not only he himself but the other witnesses were also confronted with their previous statements wherein no such claim was made by them that Sikandar Ali (PW-1) had also witnessed the incident. During cross -examination, Sikandar Ali (PW-1) was confronted with this improvement made by him that he had also witnessed the occurrence with his written application (Exh.PA) as submitted by him to Amir Mahmood, ASI (CW-12) and the learned trial court observed as under:- “ I got recorded in my statemen t Exh.P.A that I alongwith my cousin Shahid Latif, Muhammad Waheed Arshad and Muhammad Arfan were present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Confronted with Exh.P.A where the words 'I alongwith my witnesses' is (sic) not mentioned. ………… I got recorded in my statement Exh PA that I and my witnesses attended Hafiz Shahid Latif and shifted him at RHC, Dahranwala. Confronted with Exh.P.A where the word 'I' is not mentioned. ”(emphasis supplied) The fact that Sikandar Ali (PW-1) had not been mentioned as a witness who was present at the place of occurrence and had also seen the incident was confronted with from the prosecution witness namely Waheed Arshad (PW - 2) and during the cross-examination of Waheed Arshad (PW-2), the learned trial court observed as under:- “ I got recorded in Exh.D.A my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that complainant was also with us. Confronted with Exh.D.A where it is not so recorded” (emphasis supplied) Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 13
Muhammad Riaz SI (CW-13), who had recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW- 13/A) on 10.07.2022, frankly admitted that Sikandar Ali (PW -1) was not mentioned as an eye witness in the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW -13/A). During cross-examination, Muhammad Riaz, SI (CW-13), stated as under: - “I perused the written complaint. I recorded FIR as per contents of written It is correct that bear perusal of FIR does not reveal presence of complainant ” The above referred admission of Muhammad Riaz SI (CW -13), who had recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW-13/A) on 10.07.2022, that Sikandar Ali (PW-1) was not mentioned as a witness in the formal F.I.R. (Exh.CW-13/A) who had seen the occurrence conclusively proves that Sikandar Ali (PW-1) made a very sinister effort to claim himself as an eye witness of the incident, however, he was exposed in this regard. The perusal of the written application (Exh.PA) as submitted by the Sikandar Ali (PW -1) to Amir Mahmood ASI (CW-12) itself makes it c lear that Sikandar Ali (PW -1), at the time of submission of the written application (Exh.PA), had not claimed that he was a witness who had seen the occurrence, rather only informed the police of the incident. In this manner, the prosecution witness namely Sikandar Ali (PW- 1) himself impeached his credit when he improved upon his statement and claimed to have witnessed the occurrence in his statement before the learned trial court , contrary to his own written application (Exh.PA) wherein it had not been mentioned that Sikandar Ali (PW-1) had also witnessed the incident or was even present at the time of the incident. Article 151 of the Qanun -e- Shahadat Order 1984 provides as under: Murder Reference No. 02 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2024 14
“151. Impeaching credit of witness. The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: (1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be un worthy of credit; (2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence; (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted ;” As the prosecution witness namely Sikandar Ali (PW-1) introduced dishonest, blatant and substantial improvements to his previous statement and was duly confronted with his written application (Exh.PA), hence his credit stands impeached and the prosecution witness namely Sikandar Ali (PW-1) cannot be relied up on, being proved to have deposed with a slight, intended to mislead the court. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Muhammad Ashraf Vs. State” (2012 SCMR 419) took serious notice of the improvements introduced by witnesses and rejected their evidence. We, thus, are satisfied that the evidence of the prosecution witness namely Sikandar Ali (PW-1) has no intrinsic worth and is to be rejected outright. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent case reported as “Muhammad Mansha Vs. The State” (2018 SCMR 772) has enunciated the following principle: “Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the eye witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their statements then it is not safe to place reliance on their statements. It is also settled by this Court that whenever a witness made dishonest improvement in his version in order to bring his case in line with the medical evidence or in…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.