Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 SCMR 621
Court / Jurisdiction: SUPREME-COURT
Parties: MANZOOR AHMED vs StateHonorable Justice Irfan Saadat KhanQari Abdul Rasheed
This judicial decision was delivered by the SUPREME-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between MANZOOR AHMED and StateHonorable Justice Irfan Saadat KhanQari Abdul Rasheed, officially reported as 2026 SCMR 621. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2026 S C M R 621 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ MANZOOR AHMED ---Appellant Versus The STATE ---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2023, decided on 22nd May, 2025. (On appeal against the judgment dated 30.09.2020 of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad in Cr. Jail Appeal No. D-03 of 2017 and Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2017). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Delay of 47 hours in lodging FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Record showed that there was an established delay of approximately 47 hours in registering the FIR---In the time that had elapsed, the postmortem examination of the deceased took place, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry at the place of occurrence, recovering articles and preparing the corresponding memos, the deceased's funeral and burial took place, the complainant met with relatives extending their condolences and yet still the FIR was not lodged---Record also confirmed that the complainant and prosecution had nowhere sought to explain the delay or even provided a reasonable justification for the belated registration of the FIR---In fact, the Investigating Officer stated categorically that during the spot inspection at 3:00 a.m. on 25.11.2011, barely 1 hours after the complainant had turned back from the way to H-(Hyderabad), he told to complainant to lodge the FIR, but he said that after funeral ceremony, he would lodge the FIR---Although there was no cavil to the proposition that a delay in registering the FIR was not per se fatal to the prosecution case, the same must be explained to grant the belated FIR some sanctity of truth---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 and Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.164---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Confession of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---On the following day of arrest of accused, the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded his confessional statement to the extent of murdering the deceased on account of some harsh exchanges between the appellant and the deceased's father, the complainant---Importantly, the FIR, lodged approximately two days after the occurrence, was completely silent about any possible motive---Furthermore, neither the complainant nor his brother made any mention of a heated exchange in their depositions nor had they uttered a single word regarding the appellant's possible motive for committing the crime---Again, in his statement under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant also mentioned that he had no enmity with anyone, in stark contrast to his confessional statement---Such material aspect of the appellant's confessional statement rendered the confession doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Record showed that in appellant s retracted confession, he stated that his motive for committing the murder was to cause the complainant grief because they had earlier exchanged bitter words---Similarly, the Investigating Officer stated that earlier on while the police interrogated the appellant, he admitted to committing the crime due to strained relations with the complainant, i.e. the deceased's father, and the complainant's brother, i.e. the deceased's uncle---Both of the complainant's brothers were present during that interrogation---Complainant's brother also submitted in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the appellant had committed the crime on account of some heated exchange with the complainant---Later, complainant s brother disclaimed his earlier statement, updating his story by mentioning that no harsh words were exchanged between the complainant and the appellant rendering the exact motive doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Record revealed that a bloodstained saw was claimed to have been recovered at the appellant's instance from the roof of the same mosque where the deceased's body was found---Admittedly, the recovery had been effected from a place open and accessible to the public i.e. a mosque frequented by worshippers, and so it could not be claimed that the recovery was made from the appellant's exclusive possession---Moreover, the mashirs, who had witnessed the recovery, were told by the police to arrive at the mosque telephonically---Thus, the recovery of the weapon of offence was rendered doubtful---Again, the saw was not subjected to any forensic testing to match the appellant's fingerprints with those that could have been taken from the weapon's hilt---Thus, in the instant case i.e. one where there was no direct evidence and there were missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the recovery of the saw and the results of the testing it was subjected to were inconsequential and did not advance the prosecution case since the weapon had not been independently linked to the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Record revealed that the complainant did not inform the police that the offence (sodomy) had been committed with his son, the deceased---In fact, the police only included the offence under Section 377, P.P.C., subsequently after the Chemical Examiner's report arrived---Moreover, Medical Officer stated in the postmortem report, issued under his hand, that there were no physical signs or symptoms of sodomy---Medical Officer recorded that no semen, nor blood, faecal matter or lubricant was found around anus, and no laceration on mucus membrane inside the anus---Anus was not prolapsed---Medical Officer, however, reserved his final opinion until receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner in regards the internal and external anal swabs he had taken---Moreover, it was only upon the receipt of the report which found human sperm on the deceased's shalwar and on the internal anal swabs that the Medical Officer concluded that sodomy had been committed with the deceased---Appellant's DNA, however, was not compared with the DNA in the sperm on the deceased's shalwar and internal anal swabs---Keeping in view that the instant case was one where there was no direct evidence, where there were otherwise missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and where the appellant's DNA was not sent for comparison with the DNA of the sperm found on the articles sent for examination, it would therefore be unsafe to rely solely on the presence of human sperm on the internal anal swabs and shalwar of the deceased to maintain a capital sentence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Last seen evidence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Witness of last seen evidence claimed that he had last seen the appellant leading the deceased from mosque's gate up its stairs---Said witness statedly had seen that happen around 9:00 p.m. on 24.11.2011 from his vantage point at a barber shop, where he had called his relative and from where he would head onwards to some other place that same night---Said witness returned home on 27.11.2011 where he was informed about the death of deceased---Said witness allegedly set out to offer his condolences to the complainant that very day; when en-route he encountered a police mobile van where he informed the Investigating Officer that he last saw the deceased with the appellant---There were, however, flaws in testimony of said witness; foremost amongst those was that said witness had not promptly informed that he last saw the deceased with the appellant, preferring only to inform the police when he happened to cross paths with a police mobile van---Said delay raised doubt for the additional reason that the incident had caused uproar in the locality and said witness likely having knowledge of the same, still did not come forward promptly---Said witness also acknowledged during cross-examination that in his statement to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he did not mention that he encountered the police mobile van---Again, said witness did not reasonably explain his presence at the barbershop except by stating that he had called his relative there even though the said relative lived at a great distance from the shop and despite that the barber himself was not present at the shop---Furthermore, the sitemap did not describe any barbershop from where the gate of the mosque was within view despite describing adjacent houses and streets---Sitemap certainly did not describe any source of light at the entrance of the mosque or the gate itself---Said witness's testimony as the "last seen" witness was thus also rendered doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Unnatural conduct of victim's relatives---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him---Admittedly, the uncles had left the deceased, a child of barely five or six years, behind at the mosque after the night (Isha) prayers, later began their search for the deceased when he had not returned home for some time---Again admittedly, the search party arrived at the mosque around 9:00 p.m.---Initial act of leaving behind a child unattended at the mosque in the darkness of night during the winter month of November was perplexing in itself but also because the mosque was usually closed after the Isha (night) prayer---Only one other person was present in the mosque when the search party arrived, further establishing the absurdity of the witnesses' actions and their account of events---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Qari Abdul Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Wali Muhammad Khoso, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant with Complainant in person (Via video link from Karachi). Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2025. JUDGMENT IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Session Judge, Tando Adam (Trial Court) in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 474 dated 26.11.2011, registered at Police Station Tando Adam under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."). Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the P.P.C., sentencing him to death and directing him to pay Rs. 100,000/- (one lac) as compensation to the deceased's legal heirs in terms of section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") and in default thereof to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment vide: judgment dated 02.01.2017. Concerning the charge of committing sodomy with the deceased, punishable under section 377 of the P.P.C., the Trial Court did not convict the appellant finding it doubtful. 2. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal1 before the High Court of Sindh (High Court). The appeal and corresponding confirmation case No. 01 of 2017 were decided in terms that the appellant's conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b) of the P.P.C. were maintained vide judgment dated 30.09.2020. The High Court additionally convicted the appellant committing sodomy with the deceased under section 377 of the P.P.C., sentencing him to imprisonment for life as well as directing him to pay Rs. 1,000,000/- (one million) to the victim's legal heirs and in default thereof to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. 3. Thereafter, the appellant directed Jail Petition No. 339 of 2020, and leave was granted by this Court through the order dated 14.02.2023, which is replicated below: "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the occurrence is unseen and the petitioner has been roped in the case merely on the fact that he was the Imam of the Masjid on the roof of which the dead body of the deceased was found. According to him, there was no direct evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of the offence. He further states that the recovery as alleged by the prosecution is also doubtful and is portrayed by the prosecution in a manner that cannot be believed by a prudent person. 2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, on the grounds raised by the learned counsel. The appeal stage paper-books be prepared on the available record with liberty to the parties to add thereto." 4. The facts of the case may now briefly be stated. A murder was reported to the police on 26.11.2011 at 7:30 p.m. by Muhammad Aslam (the "complainant"/PW-1) through the FIR supra. As per the FIR, approximately two days earlier on 24.11.2011, in between 8:00-9:00 p.m., the complainant's son Bilawal2 accompanied his paternal uncles, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Akram, to the Qutib-e-Madina Mosque to offer their Isha (night) prayer. After the prayer, both uncles left the mosque, leaving the minor child behind. When the child did not return home, the complainant, along with his brothers and a neighbour Nazeer Ahmed, launched a search for Bilawal, proceeding to the mosque where they met the Pesh Imam, Manzoor Ahmed (the appellant), and the Moazzin, Nadeem Shaikh, who both suggested to search the mosque. While searching the roof of the mosque - specifically the third floor - the search party noticed fresh blood on the floor. Upon further inspection, they discovered the child-Bilawal lying beside a heap of bricks, grievously wounded with his throat deeply cut and having a faint pulse. Bilawal was immediately transported to Murk Hospital, Tando Adam, from where he was referred to Hyderabad for further treatment. Unfortunately, Bilawal (the "deceased") succumbed to his injuries enroute to the hospital at Hyderabad and so his body was taken back to Taluka Hospital, Tando Adam3. The police were intimated and arrived at the hospital, where they prepared the required documents and ensured that a postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. In the meanwhile, the complainant led the police to the place of occurrence, i.e. Qutib-e-Madina Mosque, at around 3:00 a.m. on 25.11.2011, where an inspection was carried out and some blood-stained articles were recovered. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was handed over to the complainant, who oversaw the subsequent funeral and burial and remained occupied in receiving condolences. It was only on 26.11.2011, at about 7:30 p.m., that the complainant reported the incident to the police suspecting the appellant and the Moazzin of the mosque, Nadeem Ahmed Shaikh, as the perpetrators of the crime. 5. Qari Abdul Rasheed, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC/ AOR, have entered appearance on behalf of the appellant and stated, at the very outset, that the appellant has been falsely implicated in a case based entirely on suspicion and conjectures. The learned counsel argued that the occurrence was unwitnessed and all the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased, making their testimony interested and untrustworthy. They pointed out that there was a two-days unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It was further argued that the last seen witness, Muhammad Saleem, was introduced belatedly and was not named in the FIR or in the initial investigation. The learned counsel maintained that the conviction cannot be based on circumstantial evidence alone without clear, cogent and confidence-inspiring proof. They therefore prayed for the appellant's acquittal by allowing the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Wali Muhammad Khoso, ASC, has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant4 and stated, at the very outset, that the conviction of the appellant is fully supported by reliable and corroborated evidence on record. The learned counsel argued that the appellant, being the Pesh Imam of Qutib-e-Madina Mosque and the Islamic teacher of the deceased child was last seen taking the boy upstairs shortly before the child was found critically injured with his throat slit on the rooftop. He referred to the judicial confession of the appellant recorded in accordance with law by the Magistrate and submitted that it was voluntary, truthful and consistent with the medical and forensic evidence. The learned counsel highlighted the recovery of the blood-stained Aari (saw) blade at the appellant's instance and the positive chemical report showing presence of human blood and sperms on the deceased's clothing and internal swabs. It was further submitted that the appellant offered no explanation as to the whereabouts of the child after being last seen with him nor led any defence evidence and thus, the prosecution had established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the appellant's guilt. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the appellant's conviction and sentence may be maintained and the instant appeal may be dismissed. 7. Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General for the province of Sindh, has entered appearance on behalf of the State and argued in concurrence with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. 8. We have heard all the learned counsel, appearing in the instant matter, at length and have perused the record with their assistance. 9. The most prominent point in this case is the timeline and thus it is necessary to reiterate the events highlighted above and provide additional detail. Even a cursory glance at the record confirms that the occurrence allegedly took place around 8:00-9:00 p.m. on 24.11.2011 whereafter a search party, including the complainant, his brothers and his neighbour, began looking for the deceased when, at around 9:00 p.m., they reached the mosque, finding there the deceased, then injured and barely alive. They rushed the deceased to Murk Hospital, Tando Adam, and then departed onwards for Hyderabad. It was enroute to Hyderabad that the deceased passed away and so the complainant, accompanied by his companions, returned to the Taluka Hospital, Tando Adam around 1:30 a.m. on 25.11.20115. The police were then informed of the occurrence and police officers, including the I.O. Nadeem Akhtar Baig (PW-11) arrived at the hospital, preparing the necessary documents and ensuring that the postmortem examination of the deceased took place. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf (PW-6) began the postmortem examination at 2:15 a.m. noting a deep incised wound on the deceased's neck leading to shock and hemorrhaging, ultimately causing death. The doctor found no external signs of sodomy, although he collected anal swabs for further testing, reserving his final opinion in this regard until the results of the swabs' chemical examination. In the meanwhile, police officers, including the I.O., accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence the rooftop of the Qutb-e-Madina Mosque for a spot inspection at about 3:00 a.m. There, they recovered blood-stained earth and the deceased-Bilawal's green turban, white cap and slippers from behind the brick pile. These were seized and memos were prepared on the spot. After the postmortem examination had concluded, the body of the deceased was handed over to the complainant, who oversaw the funeral and burial of his son, the deceased. The complainant, still occupied with receiving condolences, had not yet registered the FIR. It was finally on 26.11.2017 at 7:30 p.m. that the complainant lodged the FIR supra and raised suspicion against the appellant and the Moazzin Nadeem Ahmed Shaikh, as possible perpetrators. There is then an established delay of approximately 47 hours in registering the FIR. In the time that had elapsed, the postmortem examination of the deceased took place, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry at the place of occurrence recovering articles and preparing the corresponding memos, the deceased's funeral and burial took place, the complainant met with relatives extending their condolences and yet still the FIR was not lodged. 10. The record also confirms that the complainant and prosecution have nowhere sought to explain the delay or even provide a reasonable justification for the belated registration of the FIR. In fact, the I.O., Nadeem Akhtar Baig (PW-11), stated categorically during his cross-examination that during the spot inspection at 3:00 a.m. on 25.11.2011, barely 11/2 hours after the complainant had turned back from the way to Hyderabad, he "told to [sic] Mohammad Aslam to lodge the FIR, but he said that after funeral ceremony, he will lodged [sic] the FIR". In this regard this Court's observations in the case of Altaf Hussain v. The State (2019 SCMR 274) are of relevance and are replicated as the following: "The inordinate delay in setting the machinery of law in motion speaks volumes against the veracity of the prosecution version" Although there is no cavil to the proposition that a delay in registering the FIR is not per se fatal to the prosecution case, the same must be explained to grant the belated FIR some sanctity of truth. The consequence of not explaining such a delay has been explained in the case of Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2023 SCMR 566) where this Court highlighted that: "Nowhere in the entire evidence, the prosecution has explained the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police with such a delay. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty on the part of the complainant and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation" 11. Following the registration of the FIR, Muhammad Saleem (PW-5) enters the picture as a 'last seen" witness on 27.11.2011. He stated before the police that he was present at a barbershop on the fateful night of 24.11.2011, and from there, he last saw the deceased at the door of the mosque around 9:00 p.m.; that shortly thereafter, the appellant came to the same door and took the deceased up the mosque stairs. The appellant was then arrested on 28.11.2011 and he statedly led to the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. a blood stained Aari (saw) blade allegedly used to cut the deceased's throat, on the same date. On the following day, i.e. 29.11.2011, the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded his confessional statement to the extent of murdering the deceased on account of some harsh exchanges between the appellant and the deceased's father, the complainant. Upon the receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report on 29.12.2011, Doctor Muhmmad Ashraf (PW-6) issued a final opinion on the question of whether sodomy was committed with the deceased. Quoting the Chemical Examiner's findings that human sperm was found on deceased's shalwar and the internal anal swabs taken, the doctor concluded that sodomy had taken place, contradicting his initial opinion in the postmortem report. The I.O. thus added section 377 of the P.P.C. in the challan he submitted to the Trial Court, which framed charges against the appellant accordingly. Here it is pertinent to note that the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, during the trial, the appellant submitted in his statement under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. that he gave the confessional statement due to "the pressure of police". Clearly then, the confessional statement has been retracted. 12. The delay in the FIR notwithstanding, it is apparent that the occurrence was unseen and that there was no direct evidence in this regard. A necessary caution must then be taken, i.e. where the prosecution case hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence,…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.