Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 245305. In this matter between Faisal Rafique and Saeed Mumtaz Durrani, 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir DECISION DATE: 28-NOV-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Appeal-198-2021 CITATION: 2025 IHC 245305 PARTIES: Faisal Rafique VS Saeed Mumtaz Durrani, etc LAW / SECTION: under Section 324 PPC and 337-D,452 PPC SUBJECT: Against Acquittal, Other ============================================================ ORDER SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Appeal No. 198 of 2021 Faisal Rafique versus Saeed Mumtaz Durrani and another

S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 05.11.2025. Mr. Adil Aziz Qazi and Barrister Talha Ahmed Advocate for appellant, Malik Akhtar Abbas, Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Mr. Ehtisham Basharat, Advocate for respondent, Mr. Hanan Din Chaudhary, SPP, Imran, ASI.

Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J.- Listed criminal appeal in terms of section 417(2-A) Cr. PC emanate from judgment dated 12.10.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Islamabad West, whereby respondent No.1 namely Muhammad Saeed Mumtaz Durani was acquitted of the charges under Section 324 PPC and 337-D PPC, however, convicted for offence under Section 452 PPC. The acquittal of the respondent in both offences have been assailed through the listed appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that the ocular account and medical evidence explicitly proved that the injured had received firearm injury, therefore, the ground made basis to declare the evidence at variance is uncalled for; that the essentials to constitute offence under Section 324 PPC also stood established and that on the same set of evidence, respondent was held guilty for the offence under section 452 PPC while acquitted under sections 337-D and 324 PPC, therefore, impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal is liable to be set aside. Page-2 Crl. Appeal No.198-2021

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-accused repelled the above submissions by contending that the trial court after properly appreciating the evidence, rendered the verdict of acquittal; that the evidence on record was based upon glaring material infirmities which cannot be overlooked, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with their able assistance.

5. It is well settled principle that every criminal case is required to be seen in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. For giving the benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not mandatory that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is any circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Guidance is taken from the case of Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).

6. Perusal of record reveals that prosecution case was suffering from glaring discrepancies which cannot be overlooked by terming the same as minor. The court held that there was contradiction on the locale of injury/injuries, clothes of the victim were not collected to determine the facts through the corresponding holes; blackening margins over the alleged injuries indicated the inflicting of injuries from the close range, contrary to the prosecution version. The recovery proceedings were disbelieved for want of private witnesses and forensic comparison with the empties. No independent witness from the locality was produced. The relationship of the parties as reveals Page-3 Crl. Appeal No.198-2021

from paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, is quite evident and the visit of the respondent to the house of the complainant appeared to be quite obvious. There is also no denial that the parties who were earlier closely related, had been in litigation and that the FIR was registered with delay. Therefore, in the attending circumstances, it cannot be held that the findings of acquittal are based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence or reflects incorrect appreciation of the same.

7. The respondent was acquitted after full length trial. It is settled law that an accused who is acquitted by any court of competent jurisdiction carries double presumption of innocence, strong and cogent reasons are required to dislodge such presumption. Reliance is placed upon case laws reported as Jehangir v. Aminullah (2010 SCMR 491), Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka (2017 SCMR 1710), Zaheer sadiq v. Muhammad Ijaz (2017 SCMR 2007), Muhammad Azam v. The State (2009 SCMR 1232) and Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo v. State (2019 SCMR 1045).

8. Suffice to observe, listed appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

(ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR) JUDGE

Announced in the open Court on _____11/2025.

JUDGE Shafqat

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Islamabad High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant