Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1715
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: The State, Liaquat Ali, Saeed Ahmed vs Liaquat Ali The State and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1715. In this matter between The State, Liaquat Ali, Saeed Ahmed and Liaquat Ali The State and another, 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 2025LHC1715
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, Sultan Tanvir Ahmad Title: The State, Liaquat Ali, Saeed Ahmed vs Liaquat Ali The State and another Case No.:Murder Reference No. 71 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2023, Criminal
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 LHC 1715 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative Judgment
JUDGMENT SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.- Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan and Saeed Ahmed son of Banaras Khan (convicts) were tried along with Nasir Ali, Ata Muhammad ,Muhammad Khan, Imanat Ali, Mamraz Khan , Muhammad Fayyaz and Riasat Mehmood ( all since acquitted ), the co-accused of the convicts, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindigheb in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled "Amanat Ali Versus Liaquat Ali and eight others" (relating to F.I.R. No. 350 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021 registered at Police Station Pindigheb, District Attock) in respect of offences under sections 302,324,337-F(vi),341,148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Basheer Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan (deceased) and Feroze Khan son of Amanat Ali (deceased) . The learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.11.2023 convicted Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan and Saeed Ahmed son of Banaras Khan (convicts) and sentenced them as infra: Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan :- i) Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Basheer Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan (deceased) and directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation under section 544- A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of each of the two deceased and in case of failure to pay compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of ten years under section 324 P.P.C and fine of Rs.1,00,00/- and in case of failure to pay fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. iii) To pay Daman of Rs.3,00,000/- under section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. to the injured Amanat Ali (PW-1) . The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till death.
---
## Page 2
Saeed Ahmed son of Banaras Khan:- i) Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Feroze Khan son of Amanat Ali (deceased) and directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of each of the two deceased and in case of failure to pay compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of ten years under section 324 P.P.C and fine of Rs.1,00,00/- and in case of failure to pay fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till death. The convicts, were however acquitted of the other charges by the learned trial Nasir Ali, Ata Muhammad, Muhammad Khan,Imanat Ali, Mamraz Khan Muhammad Fayyaz and Riasat Mehmood, the co-accused of the convicts were acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial court . 2. Feeling aggrieved, Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan (convict) lodged the Criminal appeal No.883 of 2023, assailing his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, Saeed Ahmed son of Banaras Khan (convict) lodged the Criminal appeal No.892 of 2023, assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No. 71 of 2023 under section 374 Cr.P.C. for confirmation or otherwise of the sentences of death awarded to Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan and Saeed Ahmed son of Banaras Khan (convicts). We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2023, the Criminal appeal No.892 of 2023 and the Murder Reference No. 71 of 2023 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Amanat Ali (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:- "States that I am farmer by profession. I have civil litigation with accused Liaqat Ali. On 13.09.2021, I, alongwith my brother Bashir Ahmad, my son Feroz Khan and Muhammad Idrees, residents of Thathi Kalran Pindigheb, was on my way back from Pindigheb courts to my home on two motorcycles, one bearing registration number AKK-7082 and the second one was without number. My brothers namely Lal Khan and Karam Khan were coming behind following us on their motorcycle. At about 02:30 p.m, when we were crossing the "The village School" present at some distance from Ikhlas chowk, in the meanwhile. accused persons Liaqat Ali son of Sher Khan, Nasir Ali son of Sher Khan, Atta Muhammad son of Sarfraz, Muhammad Khan son of Habib, Amanat Ali son of Mushtaq, Saeed Khan son of Banaras, Mumaraz Khan son of Amanat and Faiz son of Nawaz hurriedly overtook us through their four motorcycles and stopped their motorcycles beside the road on the opposite side of the college at some distance and alighted from their motorcycles. When we arrived near them, the accused persons caused restraint to us. We also alighted from our motorcycles. Meanwhile, accused Liaqat Ali took out pistol from his dub and raised Lalkara that we all would be taught lesson of litigation. Liaqat Ali made fire shots with intention to kill, at my brother Bashir Ahmad (since deceased) which landed on different parts of his person and he fell down on receiving fire shot injuries. Accused Saeed Khan while armed with pistol made straight fire shots upon Feroz Khan (since deceased) with intention to kill him, which landed on different parts of his person body, who also fell down on the ground. Accused MuhammadKhan, being armed with pistol, also made straight fire shots upon Muhammad Idrees with intention to kill, which also landed on different parts of the body of Muhammad Idrees and resultantly he also fell down. Accused Nasir Ali, armed with pistol, made straight fire shots upon me, with intention to kill, which landed on the lower part of my belly and left elbow. I also fell down after receiving these fire shots. The accused persons Atta Muhammad, Amanat Ali and Mumariz Khan gave kick blows to me. At the same time, PWs Lal Khan and Karam Khan attracted at the spot on seeing the occurrence. The accused persons, while brandishing their weapons decamped from the spot on their motorcycles. Bashir Ahmad succumbed to injuries at the spot and Feroz Khan was taken to THQ Hospital
---
## Page 3
Pindigheb, but after few minutes, my son also succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons Liaqat Ali & others, on the abetment of accused Riasat Ali son of Sultan, committed the murder of my brother Bashir Ahmad and my son Feroz Khan, while causing injuries to me and Muhammad Idrees. The motive of the occurrence is the pending civil litigation with the accused persons. I narrated the incident before police at THQ Hospital Pindigheb and my statement Exh.PA was recorded by police, which bears my signature as Exh.PA/1, upon which FIR No.350 dated 13.09.2021, under section 302, 324, 341, 337F(vi), 341, 148,149 PPC P.S Pindigheb. During investigation of the above said case at THQ Hospital Pindigheb, I submitted application Exh.PB before the police that due to some fear, pain and being in injured condition, I could not mention the name of accused Fiaz Hussain in the contents of FIR. The said Fiaz Hussain, while armed with pistol, was present, alongwith the other accused persons, at the spot. He raised lalkara, time and again, that no one should be spared. He also provided protection to the other accused persons, being armed at the spot. The accused Fiaz actively participated in the occurrence and shared common object with the other accused persons in order to commit Qatal-eAmd. I also mentioned in the application Exh.PB which bears my signature as Exh.PB/1 that Nazeer Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan and Majid Ali Khan son of Lal Khan told me that on 12.09.2021, at about 08:30 p.m, accused persons Riasat son of Sultan, Liaqat Ali son of Sher Khan and Saeed were talking to each other at Al-Hussain Hotel Pindigheb. Accused Riasat asked accused Liaqat Ali that when Feroz Khan, Bashir Ahmad, Adil Shehzad & others would come on the date of hearing at Pindigheb Civil courts, they be murdered. Accused Liaqat Ali, in reply, stated not to worry and in affirmation said that he would cause the murder of Bashir, Feroz & other. Accused Riasat Ali nourished grudge for opposing registration of FIR of abduction by Adil and Bashir against him at Islamabad. The above said story was told by the PWs Nazeer Ahmad and Majid Ali to him. My brother and my son were murdered upon the abetment of accused Riasat Ali. Local police, during investigation, apprehended accused Liaqat Ali and Saeed Ahmad and submitted challan against them but falsely declared the other accused persons as innocent, in connivance with them. I made an application for change of investigation before DPO Attock but no result came out. The investigation was changed and entrusted to Hafeez ur Rehman Inspector, who during his investigation declared involved 05 persons namely Liaqat Ali, Saeed, Muhammad Khan, Fayyaz and Mumaraz, whereas, declared 04 persons namely Riasat Ali, Nasir Ali, Atta Muhammad and Amanat not involved. The police did not pay heed in this regard. Being aggrieved from the investigation of local police, I preferred instant private complaint Exh.PC against the accused persons which also bears my signatures and thumb impression as Exh.PC/1. The accused persons may be punished in this case in accordance with law. I tender the attested copy of the petition for medical board, alongwith the order titled "Amanat Khan vs Liaqat Ali & others" Exh.PD/1 3, bail application "titled Tassadaq Hussain vs The State" alongwith order Exh.PE/1-3, rapat No.2/39 dated 08.09.2021 P.S Pindigheb Exh.PF, photocopies of rapat No.2/34 dated 26.05.2021 Mark-PA, of FIR 190 dated 29.05.2021 under section 337F(vi), 337A(i), 34 P.S Pindigheb Mark-PB and of FIR No.60 dated 18.02.2017 under section 452, 354 PPC P.S Pindigheb Mark-PC before this court in support of my version." 4. The accused were summoned to face trial in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled "Amanat Ali Versus Liaquat Ali and eight others" (relating to F.I.R. No. 350 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021 registered at Police Station Pindigheb, District Attock) in respect of offences under sections 302,324,337- F(vi),341,148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Basheer Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan (deceased) and Feroze Khan son of Amanat Ali . The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 20.01.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
---
## Page 4
5. The complainant of the case in order to prove his case got recorded statements of as many as seven witnesses. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Karam Khan (PW-3). Muhammad Adeel (PW-4) stated that on 13.09.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession various articles from the place of occurrence and on 19.09.2021, the appellant namely Liaquat Ali got recovered the pistol (P-5) and the appellant namely Saeed Ahmad got recovered the pistol (P-8) . Nazir Ahmad (PW-5) stated that on 13.09.2021 he identified the dead body of the deceased namely Feroz Khan at the time of its post mortem examination and that on 12.09.2021 he and Majid Ali Khan (PW-6) went to a restaurant and at about 09:30 pm they saw the appellant alongwith their co-accused planning the murder of the deceased and told this fact to the complainant of the case. Muhammad Daud (PW-7) stated that on 13.09.2021, he identified the dead body of the deceased namely Bashir Ahmad at the time of its post mortem examination 6. The learned trial court recorded statements of ten witnesses as Court witnesses. Muhammad Akram 501/HC (CW-1) stated that on 13.09.2021 he escorted the dead bodies of the deceased to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased and also got the appellants namely Liaquat Ali and Saeed Ahmad examined on the same day by the Medical Officer and also received their lost worn clothes and on 14.09.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession Universal Serial Bus (USB) storage device (P-19). Sher Ahmad 557/HC (CW-2) stated that on 13.09.2021, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him five sealed parcels, three motorcycles and one bullet and on 16.09.2021 he handed over the sealed parcels to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 19.09.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him three parcels and on 24.09.2021 he handed over the three sealed parcels to the Investigating Officer of the case for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 09.10.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him one sealed parcel which on 18.10.2021 he handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case for its onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore. Tayyab Iqbal draftsman (CW-4) prepared the scaled site plan of the occurrence (Ex.PY). Ghulam Hassan, SI (CW-9) investigated the case from 13.09.2021 till 23.10.2021 arrested the appellants on 14.09.2021 and narrated the facts of the investigation conducted by him in his statement recorded by the learned trial court. Hafeez ur Rehman, Inspector, (CW-10) investigated the case from 02.11.2021 till 13.02.2022 and narrated the facts of the investigation conducted by him in his statement recorded by the learned trial court. 7. The learned trial court also recorded the statement of Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8), who on 13.09.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ hospital Pindigheb and on the same day conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, namely Feroz Khan. Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) on examining the dead body of the deceased namely Feroz Khan, observed as under:- "1. Entry wound on right orbit medial side measuring 1.5 X 1.5 CM with orbit bone fractures measuring extend to 3 X 3 CM. Exit wound measuring 1.5 X 1.5 CM on medial aspect of back of skull and 6 CM from right ear pinna in upward position. 2. Entry wound measuring 1.5 X 1.5 CM on left side of thorax measuring 14 CM below left nipple and 10 CM lateral to body of sternum.. According to my opinion, cause of death might be brain damage due to firearm bullet passed through skull and damaged brain matter and vasculature of brain leading to brain injury and hemorrhage. Ultimately lead to cardiopulmonary arrest."
---
## Page 5
On 13.09.2021, Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) also conducted the post-mortem Ahmad Khan . Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) on examining the dead body of the deceased namely Basheer Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan , observed as under:- "1. Wound entry measuring 1 X 1 CM in occipital region with bleeding about 11 CM back from right ear. Exit wound measuring 2 X 1 CM on forehead on right side 5 CM above right eye. Bruise: one bruise was present on left eye.. According to my opinion, cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest due to gunshot injury to brain. " On 13.09.2021 Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) also medically examined Amanat Ali (PW-1) . Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) on examining Amanat Ali (PW-1), observed as under:- "Entry wound on left side of left elbow joint measuring 2 X 1 CM with active bleeding. Exit wound on medial side of left elbow measuring 2 X 1 CM with active bleeding. 2. Entry wound on left anterior pelvis measuring 3 CM. On below anterior superior iliac spine measuring 1 X 1 CM with active bleeding. 3. Exit wound on left gluteal regeion measuring 8 CM lateral to coccyx bone measuring 1 X 1 CM with active bleeding. 4. Swelling on below right eye. No active bleeding." On 13.09.2021 Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) also medically examined Muhammad Idrees (PW-2). Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8) on examining Muhammad Idrees (PW-2), observed as under:- "1. Wound on the left side of chest in the upper region measuring 1 X 1 CM with active bleeding and bubble oozing from wound. Referred to Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi and injuries were kept under observation." 8. On 27.11.2023, the learned counsel for the complainant gave up the witnesses namely Lal Khan son of Ahmad Khan, Mehr Khan son of Ahmad Khan, Riasat Ali Khan son of Amanat Khan, Zafar Iqbal son of Lal Khan, Mehboob Khan ASI, Najeeb Ullah ASI and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the attested copy of FIR No.461/23 (Exh.PAD), copy of compromise deed between Khalida Bibi and Bashir Ahmed dated 16- 07-2021 (Exh.PAE), original death certificate of Bashir Ahmad son of Ahmad Khan (Exh.PAF), death certificate of Feroze Khan son of Amanat Ali (Exh.PAG), reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PAH, Exh.PAJ and Exh.PAK), photocopy of petition under Section 491 of Cr.P.C. titled as Sher Khan Vs. Karam Khan etc. alongwith order dated 08.09.2022 (Mark. PD/1-6). 9. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellants namely Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan and Saeed Ahmad son of Banaras Khan 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, they replied that they had been involved in the case falsely and were innocent rather during the occurrence, both of them were seriously injured after having been surrounded by the complainant party and fired at whereas both the deceased died as a result of receiving injuries at the hands of their own companions. The appellants opted not to get themselves examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. however, the appellant namely Liaquat Ali son of Sher Khan produced the certified copy of private complaint titled " Liaqat Ali Vs. Amanat Ali & others" (Exh.DB), certified copy of my oral statement before police (Exh.DC), certified copy of injury statement alongwith MLC (Exh.DD), certified copy of injury statement of Saeed Ahmad alongwith MLC (Exh.DE), certified copy of surgical report issued by Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi (Exh.DF), certified copy of surgical report of Saeed Ahmad issued by Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi (Exh.DG), certified copy of the radiological report (Exh.DH), certified copy of evidence recorded in private complaint titled "Liaqat Ali Vs. Amanat Ali & others" (PW-1 Saeed Ahmad Exh.DJ, PW-2 Liaqat Ali Exh.DK, CW-1 Najeeb Ullah ASI Exh.DL, CW-2 Muhammad Akram 501/HC Exh.DM, CW-3 Dr. Farman Ellahi Exh.DN, CW-4 Sher Ahmad 557/HC Exh.DO, CW-5 Dr. Hafiza Kiram Saleem Butta Exh.DP, CW6 Dr. Sobia Kulsum Exh.DQ,
---
## Page 6
CW-7 Muhammad Waqas 23/HC Exh.DR, CW8 Dr. Usman Ghafoor M.O Exh.DS, CW-9 Ghulam Hassan S.I Exh.DT, CW10 Hafeez ur Rehman Inspector Exh.DU) and the certified copy of the application for Superdari dated 13.09.2021 ( Exh.DV) as evidence in his defence. 10. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindigheb convicted and sentenced the appellants 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 that 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 in support of this appeal, further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the F.I.R., on the face of it, was highly improbable and the reason assigned by the complainant and the eye-witnesses for being present at the place of occurrence was without any justification. He further contended that the statements of Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Karam Khan (PW-3) were not worthy of reliance. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that on the day of occurrence the appellants namely Liaquat Ali and Saeed Ahmad were seriously injured after having been surrounded by the complainant party and fired at whereas both the deceased died as a result of receiving injuries at the hands of their own companions. 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 doubt. 12. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 contended that the prosecution proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. They further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellants and the witnesses were also injured at the hands of the appellants. They further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW- 2) and Karam Khan (PW-3). They contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to substitute the real offenders with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 prayed for the rejection of the appeals. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 14. The occurrence in the present case is admitted by the parties with their own respective versions. Each party has given a different version of the occurrence to establish the aggression of his opponent. According to the prosecution witnesses, on the day of occurrence they were attacked by the appellants and their co-accused resulting in the injuries to Amanat Ali (PW-1) and Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Qatl-i-Amd of Bashir Ahmad (deceased) and Feroz Khan (deceased) whereas according to the appellants, on the day of occurrence the appellants namely Liaquat Ali and Saeed Ahmad were seriously injured after having been surrounded by the complainant party and fired at whereas both the deceased died as a result of receiving injuries at the hands of their own companions. . It is a case of two versions, one set by the prosecution and the other as stated by the appellants. The common features in both the versions (one set out by the prosecution and the other by the appellants in their statements recorded under sections 342, Cr.P.C. ) are that the place of occurrence is not disputed and the incident happening on the return of both the parties from the courts on the day of occurrence is also admitted. First of all, we would like to see whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt because primarily, it is responsibility of the prosecution to discharge the said onus. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, mainly relied on the ocular account of the occurrence as furnished by Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Karam Khan (PW-3) and the
---
## Page 7
medical evidence. Presence of Amanat Ali (PW-1) and Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence is established as they had the stamp of injuries on their bodies. The prosecution witnesses namely Amanat Ali (PW-1) and Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) were examined by Dr. Usman Ghafoor (CW-8). The presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Amanat Ali (PW-1) and Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence was not even disputed by the appellants. While appearing before the learned trial court, the prosecution witnesses namely Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Karam Khan (PW-3) remained consistent on material particulars of the incident and we see no reason not to believe testimony of these prosecution witnesses with regard to their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. After careful analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved that the prosecution witnesses namely Amanat Ali (PW-1), Muhammad Idrees (PW-2) and Karam Khan (PW-3) were present at the place of the occurrence and the appellants were also present at the spot while armed and caused injuries on the person of the deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses. 15. As we have held above, in this case date, time and place of occurrence is admitted but only the manner of the incident stated by the appellants side is different from the prosecution case. We have noted that the appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. have stated that the complainant side received all the injuries at the hands of their own companions but also stated that the appellants namely Liaquat Ali and Saeed Ahmad both were also injured during the occurrence. The prosecution case is also silent about the injuries suffered by the appellants namely Liaquat Ali and Saeed Ahmad so, it can be gathered from the above that both the parties have not come to the Court with clean…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.