Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1873
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: TASAWAR HUSSAIN vs STATE
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1873. In this matter between TASAWAR HUSSAIN and STATE, 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: 22-01-2026 CASE DETAILS: Murder Reference 10-24 ============================================================ Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No. 10 of 2024 (The State Vs. Tasawar Hussain)
Criminal Appeal No. 96-J of 2024 (Tasawar Hussain Vs. The State)
Date of hearing: 22.01.2026. Appellants by: Mr. Umair Mohsin, Advocate. State by:
Complainant by: Mr. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General .
Mr. Zeeshan Haider, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T
SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. –Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali (convict) was tried along with Abdul Rehman (since acquitted ), the co-accused of the convict, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fortabbas in case F.I.R No. 407 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 registered in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 337-F(i) and 34 P.P.C. at the Police Station Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Shahzaib Khan son of Fiaz Akhtar (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.02.2024, convicted Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali (convict) and sentenced him as infra:
Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 2
Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali : Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Shahzaib Khan son of Fiaz Akhtar (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.500,000/- as compensation under section 544 -A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased namely Shahzaib Khan son of Fiaz Akhtar (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.
The convict was however extended the benefit available under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the learned trial court. Abdul Rehman, the co-accused of the convict, was however, acquitted by the learned trial court.
2. Feeling aggrieved, Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No. 96 -J of 2024, assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 96-J of 2024 and Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 through this single judgment.
3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Fiaz Akhtar (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:-
“Stated that 16.08.2022, I along with my son shahzaib aged about 16/17 years were coming to City on motorcycle for purchasing some grocery articles. At about 01:00 p.m, when we reached at pholra road, meanwhile the accused persons Tasawar Hussain armed with pistol, Abdul Rehman armed with pistol, Rao Fazal and Rao Talha in prosecution of their common objectiori were present there and they Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 3
forcibly stopped us and started beating by saying that they would take the revenge of beating to Abdul Rehman by Shahzaib. Meanwhile, the PWs Zafar Iqbal S/o Muhammad Amin, Caste Maher, R/o Pholra, Faisal Mehmood Case Maher, R/o Pholra attracted at the spot. Accused Tasawar Hussain & Abdul Rehman started firing and accused Tasawar Hussain climbed over the roof of his house while committing firing, accused Abdul Rehman and Rao Talha, dragged my son Shahzaib near to wall of their house. Rao Fazal caught hold me, in the meanwhile, accused Tasawar Hussain made fire from the roof of his house in order to commit Qatal-e-Amd of my son Shahzaib, which hit in front of right side of his chest near the right shoulder. Accused Abdul Rehman made firing upon my son Shahz aib with intention to commit his murder, which hit Rao Talha who caught hold my son Shahzaib and he severely injured. Accused Abdul Rehman again fired in order to Qatal -e-Amd of Zafar Iqbal, which hit him on right knee (goda). In the meanwhile, many people of the locality gathered there, the accused persons fled away along with their respective weapons. I along with Faisal Mehmood and respectable of locality attended injured Zafar Iqbal and Shahzaib but my son Shahzaib succumbed to the injuries due to above said firing. We took Zafar Iqbal and Shahzaib to THQ Hospital Fortabbas. Motive behind the occurrence is that there was dispute between Abdul Rehmaan etc. and my son Shahzaib. People of the locality patched up the matter. while Abdul Rehman etc. had grudge in their mind and they committed the occurrence. I submitted the application Exh.P.A for registration of case, which bears my thumb impression and signatures Exh.P.A/1.”
4. After the formal investigation of the case, the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the ac cused on 03.01.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got statements of as many as twelve witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 4
prosecution witnesses namely Fiaz Akhtar (PW-1) , Faisal Mehmood (PW -2) and Zafar Iqbal (PW-3). Muhammad Ijaz (PW-4) stated that on 16.08.2022 , he identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination and in his presence, the Medical Officer handed o ver the last worn clothes of the deceased to the police and furthermore, on the same day, the Crime Scene Unit visited the place of the incident and seized articles and on 03.10.2022, Abdul Rehman (since acquitted), the co-accused of the appellant, got recovered the pistol (P.17). Saif Ullah ASI (PW -7) stated that on 16.08.2022, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PN). Ghulam Mustafa 578/C (PW-9) stated that on 16.08.2022 he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and received the last wor n clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Muhammad Ameen tracer (PW-11) prepared the scaled site plan of the occurrence (Exh.PS). Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW -10) investigated the case from 16.08.2022 till 11.10.2022, arrested the appellant on 01.09.2022 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court.
6. The prosecution also got Dr. Abdul Jabbar Bha tti (PW-5) examined, who on 16.08.2022 was posted as THQ hospital Fortabbas and on the same day conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased namely Shahzaib Khan son of Fiaz Akhtar. Dr. Abdul Jabbar Bhatti (PW-5),on examining the dead body of the deceased namely Shahzaib Khan son of Fiaz Akhtar, observed as under:- “Description of Injuries (including findings on dissection)
Injury No.1
Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 5
A circular wound measured 01.7cmx01cm with black inverted margins, 03cm below right mid clavicle, 09 cm from hyoid bone extending to left 4th intercostal space is found. ……… Final opinion: After thorough external and internal examination, it is concluded that death happened due to damage of pulmonary vessels causing massive bleedings (sic) due to fire arm injury. The entry of bullet is from at below right mid clavicle and bullet found at 4 th left inter costal space. So, fire seems from upper right lateral side that is homicidal and ante mortem in nature”
The prosecution also got Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6) examined, who on 16.08.2022 was posted as THQ hospital Fortabbas and on the same day medically examined the injured namely Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) and observed as under:- “Injury No.1. A lacerated wound about 2cmx1.5cm in size was present approximately 6cm above knee joint on right thigh, the wound was at latero posterior aspect of knce joint. On anterior aspect of wound a laceration of approximately 4cm was present. Two others (sic) small injuries was also present, one was in popliteal fossa and second was 4inches posterior to knce. The patient was referred to BV H Bahawalpur for further management and expert opinion. Final opinion: According to the surgical opinion of Bahawalpur. multiple wound on right knee and right leg. The diagnosis was gunshot wound according to BVH Bahawalpur discharge slip. The injuries lied in Jurrah Ghayer Jaifah Damihah.”
Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 6
7. On 16.05.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness namely Sajid Mehmood as being unnecessary. On 26.09.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witness namely Ghazanfar Ali 1382/C as being unnecessa ry and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PT. and Exh. PU.).
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Tasa war Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali 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, he replied that he had been falsely involved in the case and was innocent. The appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr. P.C and did not adduce any evidence in his defence.
09. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Forabbas convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali precisely was that the whole case was fabricated and false and the p rosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 7
was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the recovery of t he pistol (P-12) from the appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali was full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and was result of fake proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt.
11. 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 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. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the recovery of the pistol (P -12) from the appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhamm ad Arshad Ali also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 8
substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellant namely Tasawar Hussain son of Muhammad Arshad Ali.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial.
13. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently argued that as the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) was injured during the occurrence, therefore, his statement could not be doubted in any manner. The stamp of injuries on the person of a witness may be proof of his presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, however the same can never guarantee a truthful deposition. In juries received by a witness during an incident do not warrant acceptance of his evidence without scrutiny. At the most, such traumas can be taken as an indication of his presence on the spot, but still, his evidence is to be scrutinized on the benchmark o f principles laid down for the appraisal of evidence. It is not a given that a witness who suffered injuries during the occurrence will depose nothing but the truth. Even otherwise, it is not the simple presence of a witness at the crime scene but his credibility, which makes him a reliable witness. It has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan repeatedly that the facts that an injured witness narrates are not to be implicitly accepted ; rather, they are to be attested and Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 9
appraised on the princip les applied for the appreciation of evidence of any prosecution witness, regardless of whether he is injured or not. Guidance is sought from the principle enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazir Ahmad vs. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527) where at page 534 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan , was pleased to hold as under: “It is settled law that injuries of P.W. are only indication of his presence at the spot but are not affirmative proof of his credibility and truth”. Guidance is also sought from the principle enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Amin Ali and another Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 323), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that the presence of injuries does not stamp a witness to be a truthful one and observed as under :-. “12. Certainly, the presence of the injured witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident, but the question is as to whether they are truthful witnesses or otherwise, because merely the injuries on the persons of P.Ws. would not stamp them truthful witnesses. It has been held in the case of Said Ahmed supra as under:--
"It is correct that the two eye -witnesses are injured and the injuries on their persons do indicate that they were not self-suffered. But that by itself would not s h o w that they had, in view of the aforenoted circumstances, told the truth in the Court about the occurrence; particularly, also the role of the deceased and the eye-witnesses. It cannot be ignored that these two witnesses are closely related to the deceased, while the two other eye- witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. namely,Abdur Rashid and Riasat were not examined at the trial. This further shows that the injured eyewitnesses wanted to withhold the material aspects of the case from the Court and the prosecution was apprehensive that if independent witnesses are examined, their depositions might support the plea of the accused."
In the case of Mehmood Hayat supra at page 141 7, it has been observed as under:--
"10. There is no cavil with the proposition laid down in the case of Zaab Din and another v. The State (PLD 1986 Peshawar 188) that merely because the P.Ws. had stamp of firearm injuries on their person was not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on their testimony."
In the case of Mehmood Ahmed supra, this Court at page 7 observed as under:
Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 10
"For an injured witness whose presence at the occurrence is not disputed it can safely be concluded that he had witnessed the incident. But the facts he narrates are not to be implicitly accepted merely because he is an injured witness. His testimony is to be tested and appraised on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness."
13. From the abo ve evidence of the P. Ws., they do not appear to be truthful witnesses; therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their evidence.”
With this principle of appreciation of evidence in our minds that an injured witness cannot be presumed to be also a truthful witness, we have proceeded to examine the statement of the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW- 3) . We have not ed with con cern that despite the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely that the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) was very much conscious after receiving the injury and the said injury was also declared to be of the kind of Jurh Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah , however still his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case on the day of the incident . In this regard, the prosecution witness namely Fiaz Akhtar (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination as under:- “Zafar Iqbal PW was referred to Bahawalpur Hospital round about 01:45 p.m. Zafar Iqbal PW remained in his conscious during the THQ examination as well as at the time of referral to BVH Bahawalpur.” The claim of Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) also remained that he was well oriented in time and space after the incident and stated before the learned trial court as under:- “I remained round (sic) about 30 minutes to hospital, doctor gave first aid and I was referred to BVH. I remained in conscious and then I was referred to BVH Bahawalpur.” Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 11
Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW -10), the Investigating Officer of the case , admitted that the statement of the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqb al (PW-3) was not recorded on the day of the occurrence , rather it was recorded on 23.08.2022 i.e after six days of the occurrence. Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW-10), the Investigating Officer of the case, stated before the learned trial court as under:- “ On 23.08.2022, Zafar Iqbal the then injured witness of this case joined the investigation of this case and I recorded his statement U/S. 161 Cr.P.C..” Even during cross -examination , Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW -10), the Investigating Officer of the case could not explain as to why the statement of Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) was not recorded on the day of the occurrence , rather was recorded on 23.08.2022 i.e after six days of the occurrence and admitted during cross-examination as under:- “ I did not record the statement of Zafar Iqbal injured on 16.08.2022 on the date of occurrence because he was referred to BVH Bahawalpur. I did not record his statement at BVH Bahawalpur. Zafar Iqbal injured w as discharged from BVH Bahawalpur on 17.08.2022. Zafar Iqbal injured is resident of Basti pholra Fortabbas. Zafar Iqbal injured did not appear before me on 17.08.2022 for recording his statement, neither I went to see him for recording his statement on the said date. I received the MLC of injured Zafar Iqbal on 23.09.2022 and I have perused the same. As per MLC of Zafar Iqbal, he was fully conscious at the time of his examination.” Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 12
Even the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) himself admitted that he got recorded his statement on 23.08.2022 i.e after six days of the occurrence and stated before the learned trial court as under:- “On 23.08.2022 I.O Aamir Abbas SI recorded my statement u/s 161Cr.P.C.” It is trite that the delayed recording of the statement of a prosecution witness under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 reduces its value to nothing unless there is a plausible explanation for such delay . No explanation, much less plausible, has been given by the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) for not getting his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 recorded immediately and therefore no value can be attached to his statement. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Abdul Khaliq Vs. The State” (1996 SCMR 1553) has held as under: “It is a settled position of law that late recording of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of a prosecution witness reduces its value to nill unless there is plausible explanation for such delay”. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “ Muhammad Khan Vs. Maula Bakhsh” (1998 SCMR 570) has held as under: “It is a settled law that credibility of a witness is looked with seriou s suspicion if his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C is recorded with delay without offering any plausible explanation”. Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 13
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another Vs. The State” (1993 SCMR 550) at page 571 has held as under: “In the absence of satisfactory nature of explanation normally rule is that statements recorded by police after delay and without explanation are to be ruled out of consideration. In this case unsatisfactory explanation which is not substantiated can be equated with no explanation”. 14. We have also noted with grave concern that when the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) appeared before Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6),who medically examined him on 16.08.2022 at the THQ hos pital Fortabbas, Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) never made any statement regarding the details of the incident or the names of the accused or even the fact as how and at whose hand he himself had received the injury. During cross-examination Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6) stated as under :- “It is correct that the injured Zafar Iqbal did not mention the name of any person, who made the fire on him.” Even Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) himself admitted during cross-examination that he had not made any statement regarding the details of the incident or the names of the accused or even the fact as how and at whose hand he himself had received the injury and admitted as under:- “I did not inform the doctor regarding the history of occurrence as well as arm” There was no reason for Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) not making any statement regarding the details of the incident or the names of the accused or even the Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 14
fact as how and a t whose hand he himself had received the injury while narrating the brief history before Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6). The admitted failure of Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) in making any statement regarding the details of the incident or the names of the accused or even the fact as how and at whose hand he himself had received the injury before Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6), proves that Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) had no idea of the said details and created the narrative subsequently and thus, mires the case of the prosecution in ambiguity. 15. We have also noticed that according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the police were not present at the time when Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6) had examined Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) and Fiaz Akhtar (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination as under:- “ The police was not present at the time of medical examination of Zafar Iqbal PW. The police reached at the hospital after the examination of Zafar Iqbal PW at about 03:00 p.m. The police reached at the hospital after the referral of Zafar Iqbal PW to Bahawalpur.” It is also a fact that on the injury statement (Ex.PN/2) prepared with regard to Zafar Iqbal (PW-3), Dr. Sheheryar Aamir (PW-6) mentioned that at the time of the medical examination of Zafar Iqbal (PW -3), the said injury statement (Ex.PN/2) was not p roduced before him. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got Saifullah ASI (PW -7) examined who stated that on 16.08.2022, he had prepared the injury statement (Ex.PN/2) with regard to Zafar Iqbal (PW -3) however, Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW -10), t he Investigating Officer of the case admitted during cross -examination that the Murder Reference No.10 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.96-J of 2024 15
case was never investigated by Saifullah ASI (PW -7) .During cross - examination, Syed Aamir Abbas, SI (PW-10) stated as under:- “I did not prepare the injury statement of Zafar Iqbal injured rather Saif - Ullah ASI prepared his injury statement, who also reached there. The investigation of the case remained with me…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.