Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3162
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3162. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, 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 Justice Abher Gul Khan) DECISION DATE: 13-05-2026 CASE DETAILS: Jail Appeal 14980/21 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 (Mohsin Raza v. The State) and Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021 (Khatoon Bibi v. Mohsin Raza etc.)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 13.05.2026 Appellant by: Ch. Awais Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate. Complainant by: Mr. Faisal Iqbal Bajwa, Advocate. State by: Ms. Sadia Arif, Deputy District Public Prosecutor. ----------------------------------- ABHER GUL KHAN, J. The appellant Mohsin Raza along with co - accused Kamran Raza, Hafiz Ali Raza, Mehram Ali, Muhammad Boota, Saif Bhatti and Usman Ali involved in case FIR No. 154/2018 dated 08.02.2018 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F (ii), 337- D, 148 & 149 PPC at Police Station South Cantt., Lahore, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore . Trial court vide judgment dated 04.02.2021 acquitted the afore -said co -accused, however convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:- (i).Under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer imprisonment for life for qatl-i-amd of the deceased Qaiser Junaid as ta’zir. He was further directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (ii).Under Section 324 PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempting to commit qatl-i-amd of the injured Sajawal (PW.8). He was further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. (iii).Under Section 337-D PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. He was further directed to pay one third of Diyat amount i.e. Rs.925,784/ - as Arsh. In lieu of non -payment of Arsh, the convict was ordered to be kept in jail. All the sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently and b enefit of Section 382 -B Cr.P .C., however was extended to the convict.
Aggrieved by his convictions and sentence s the appellant filed Criminal A ppeal No.14980-J of 202 1, while the complainant Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) filed Criminal Revision No. 9747 of 202 1 2 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
for the enhancement of sentence of the appellant Mohsin Raza. Both these matters are being disposed of through this single judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as narrated by the complainant Mst. Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) in FIR (Exh.PQ) is that sh e is a resident of Rehmat Pura, Main Bedian Road, Lahore. On 08.02.2018 at about 6:00/7:00 p.m., her son, namely Qaiser Junaid (deceased), along with his friends Sajawal alias Badshah (PW.8) and Abdul Rehman (given up PW) proceeded to meet the appellant Mohsin near Khurshid Model School regarding settlement of a monetary dispute. During the course of said meeting, an altercation ensued between the deceased Qaiser Junaid and the appellant Mohsin Raza. Thereafter, the appellant Mohsin Raza went towards his house and returned shortly along with his brother Kamran, Saif Bhatti, Boo ta and 2/3 unknown accused, all armed with knives and clubs. After their arrival at the spot accused Kamran caught hold of Qaiser Junaid from behind, whereupon appellant Mohsin Raza inflicted a knife blow upon him. Co-accused Saif Bhatti (since acquitted) also caused a knife injury to Sajawal alias Badshah (PW.8) on the left side of his abdomen, whereas Boota and the unknown accused gave club blows to Abdul Rehman (given up PW), thereby injured him. As a consequence of the knife injury attributed to appellant Mohsin, Qaiser Junaid fell on the ground in an injured condition. The occurrence was witnessed not only by the complainant herself but also by Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) and Muhammad K amran (PW.7). Thereafter, the injured Qaiser Junaid, Sajawal alias Badshah and Abdul Rehman, were shifted to General Hospital through ambulance of Rescue 1122, however Qaiser Junaid succumbed to the injuries. 3. On 08.02.2018, upon receipt of information regarding the occurrence, Habib Ahmad SI (PW.10) reached General Hospital, Lahore, where the complainant Mst. Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) submitted a written application (Exh.PO). On the basis thereof, the requisite police endorsement was recorded and the same was dispatched through Saif Ullah 8601/C to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. As per record the investigation was thereafter entrusted to Saif Ullah 3 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
SI (not produced) who visited the place of occ urrence on 08.02.2018 and secured blood -stained earth with the help of cotton, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PJ. On 14.03.2018, during the course of investigation, the appellant Mohsin Raza made a disclosure and in consequence thereof led to the recovery of a Chhurri (P.5) which was taken into possession by the aforesaid investigating officer through memo Exh.PM. Upon completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial court. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the appellant Mohsin Raza, the prosecution produced as many as eleven witnesses. Foremost amongst them, Dr.Khyzer Hayat Sukhera (PW.2) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Qaiser Junaid on 09.02.2018 at about 11:30 a.m. and thereafter issued the postmortem report (Exh.PF) along with pictorial diagrams (Exh.PF/1 and Exh.PF/2). On the same day, Dr.Saqib Nadeem (PW.3) conducted medico-legal examination of the injured Abdul Rehman and Sajawal and issued medico -legal certificates (Exh.PG and Exh.PH), respectively. The ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by Muhammad Afzal (PW.6), Muhammad Kamran (PW.7), in jured Sajawal (PW.8) and the complainant Mst. Khatoon Bibi (PW.9). The investigation of the case had initially been conducted by Saif Ullah, Sub-Inspector, who however, was not produced before the l earned trial Court. In his place , Abb-ul-Asar constable (PW.5) appeared and deposed regarding the investigative steps allegedly undertaken by the said investigating officer during the course of investigation. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature and were examined to establish ancillary and procedural aspects pertaining to the completion of investigation. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant Mohsin Raza was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein all incriminating pieces of evidence appearing against him were put to him. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations in toto, professed innocence and asserted false implication in the case. However, the appellant neither opted to make statement 4 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in defence. At the culmination of the trial, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him accordingly, hence the instant criminal appeal and criminal revision. 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the instant case arises out of an occurrence which allegedly took place on 08.02.2018 at about 6:00/7:00 p.m. near Khurshid Model School, Bedian Road, situated at a distance of about five kilometers from Police Station South Cantt., Lahore. According to the prosecution, the appellant Mohsin Raza, along with his co -accused all allegedly armed with Chhurries and clubs, inflicted injuries with their respective weapons upon Qaiser Junaid (deceased), Sajawal alias Bad shah (PW.8) and Abdul Rehman (given up PW). The injured were thereafter reportedly shifted through ambulance of Rescue-1122 to General Hospital, Lahore, where Qaiser Junaid succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The record further reflects that inform ation regarding the occurrence was conveyed to the police by the complainant Mst. Khatoon Bibi (PW.9), who submitted a written application (Exh.PO) before Habib Ahmad, SI (PW.10) on the basis whereof the formal FIR (Exh.PQ) was chalked out. 7. This Court has further observed that according to the contents of the FIR (Exh.PQ) the complainant Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) nominated the appellant Mohsin Raza, his brother Kamran, Saif Bhatti and Boota, along with 2/3 un known accused. During the course of investigation, the complainant made a supplementary statement wherein she additionally implicated Ali Raza, Mehram Ali and Usman Ali as the persons who had initially been mentioned as unknown accused in the FIR. Consequently, in all seven accused including the appellant faced trial before the learned trial c ourt. It is significant to note that through the impugned judgment, only the appellant Mohsin Raza was found guilty and convicted, whereas all the remaining co - accused were acquitted of the charge. The record furth er reveals that against the acquittal of the said co -accused, the complainant 5 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) preferred Criminal Appeal No.9742 of 2021, which came up for hearing before a learned Division Bench of this Court on 22.10.2025. The said appeal, however , was dismissed as not pressed on behalf of the complainant, with the result that the acquittal of the co -accused attained finality. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the prosecution case was disbelieved by the learned trial Court to the extent of six co-accused on the basis of the same set of evidence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant could only be sustained if supported by strong, independent and confidence-inspiring evidence distinctly connecting him with the commission of the offence. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court has minutely examined the entire record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It has been noted that according to the prosecution version the occurrence allegedly took place on 08.02.2018 at about 6:00/7:00 p.m., whereas the matter was reported to the police by the complainant Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) at General Hospital, Lahore, on the same day at about 8:35 p.m. through a written application (Exh.PO) submitted before Habib Ahmad SI (PW.10). A careful scrutiny of the prosecution case reveals that the complainant herself was uncertain regarding the exact time of occurrence, as she merely stated that the incident had taken place at about 6:00/7:00 p.m. According to her version, de ceased Qaiser Junaid along with Sajawal alias Badshah (PW.8) and Abdul Rehman had gone to meet the appellant Mohsin Raza near Khurshid Model School in connection with a monetary dispute, where an altercation ensued between the parties. Allegedly, thereafter the appellant Mohsin Raza proceeded to his house and returned along with his brother Kamran, co -accused Saif Bhatti, and 2/3 un known accused (later nominated as Ali Raza, Mehram Ali and Usman Ali ) armed with Chhurries and clubs. The complainant alleged that the appellant Mohsin Raza inflicted a Chhurri blow upon deceased Qaiser Junaid, while co -accused Saif Bhatti (since acquitted) caused a Chhurri injury on the left side of the abdomen of Sajawal alias Badshah (PW.8). It is further alleged that 6 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
accused Boota along with the un known accused caused club blows to Abdul Rehman (given up PW). According to the complainant, all the injured, namely Sajawal alias Badshah, Abdul Rehman and Qaiser Junaid, were shifted in an injured condition to General Hospi tal, Lahore through Rescue 1122, where Qaiser Junaid succumbed to the injuries. From the tenor of the written application, an impression prima facie emerges that the complainant herself had witnessed the occurrence. However, upon a careful examination of t he record, the same does not appear to be correct. In the first instance, the complainant was not certain regarding the precise time of occurrence and vaguely mentioned the same as having taken place at about 6:00/7:00 p.m., which circumstance, by itself, casts a shadow of doubt upon the prosecution version. Secondly, while submitting the written application (Exh.PO), the complainant did not specify the exact part of the body of deceased Qaiser Junaid where the alleged injury was sustained at the hands of the appellant Mohsin Raza. Furthermore, while appearing before the learned trial Court, Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) stated that her son Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) was present at the place of occurrence who had informed her about the incident. During cross-examination, she candidly admitted that at the relevant time she was present at her house and that the occurrence had been narrated to her by Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) at about 6:45 p.m. Although she attempted to explain during cross -examination that in the written application (Exh.PO) she had mentioned that the incident was reported to her by Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) yet when confronted with the contents of the said application, no such recital was found incorporated therein. It has further been observed that during her cross-examination, the complainant stated that the written application had been scribed by a police official prior to the arrival of the police officer before whom the application was presented, th ough she expressed ignorance regarding the name of the said official. Since the aforesaid aspect goes to the root of the matter, the relevant portion of the cross -examination of Mst. Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) is reproduced hereunder:- 7 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
“I don’t know the name of p olice officer to whom I gave application Ex.PO. Said application had been written by the police official before arrival of the officer but he was S.I.”
From the foregoing discussion, it becomes manifestly clear that the complainant Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) was not an eyewitness of the occurrence and that the story furnished by her before the police as well as before the learned trial Court was purely hearsay in nature, having been based upon information allegedly conveyed to her by others after the incident. 9. This Court has further observed that the ocular account in the present case has been furnished by Muhammad Afzal (PW.6), Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) and the injured Sajawal (PW.8). So far as the testimony of the first two alleged eyewitnesses is concerned , it may be noted that in the FIR (Exh.PQ), the complainant Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) merely stated that her son Qaiser Junaid (deceased) had gone towards Khurshid Model School along with his friends Sajawal alias Badshah and Abdul Rehman but in discontinuat ion of the sequence in the middle of the written application (Exh.PO), it was stated that when the deceased, after sustaining injuries, fell on the ground, Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) and Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) also witnessed the occurrence. However, the complai nant did not disclose in the FIR as to how and under what circumstances the said alleged eyewitnesses had reached the spot. Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) in his examination -in-chief stated that on 08.02.2018 at about 6:00/6:30 p.m. he was proceeding towards the house of his contractor, situated at a distance of 5/6 houses from the place of occurrence, when he allegedly heard noise and upon reaching there, saw Sajawal alias Badshah (PW.8) bleeding from the left side of his chest below the heart. He further stated that within his sight the appellant Mohsin Raza inflicted a Chhurri blow upon the deceased Qaiser Raza. According to him, he then lifted the deceased with the assistance of Kamran and Ehsan, dispatched him to hospital on a motorcycle along with Kamran and Ehsan, and thereafter proceeded to his house to inform his mother Mst.Khatoon Bibi (PW.9) about the occurrence. It is noteworthy that Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) is the real brother of the 8 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
deceased, yet his conduct as projected appears highly unnatural and contrary to ordinary human behaviour. It is beyond comprehension and repugnant to common sense that a real brother, allegedly present at the spot would leave his grievously injured brother in the hands of others for transportation to hospital and would instead leave the crime scene to inform his mother. Furthermore, though he claimed to have witnessed the appellant inflicting injury upon the deceased, yet he admittedly made no attempt to rescue his brother or apprehend the assailants. During cross-examination, he stated that he ran towards the appellant Mohsin Raza, who allegedly fled away , however, this version does not find mention in his police statement (Exh.DA). It is further significant that the place of occurrence was stated to be about one kilometer from his residence, yet he failed to furnish any plausible explanation for his presence at the spot at the relevant time. His presence is further rendered doubtful from his admission that the written application (Exh.PO) was not authored by him, but was scribed by a police official, whose name he could not disclose, and was dictated by his mother at the hospital at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. It also appears highly improbable that Muhammad Afzal (PW.6), a 24 - year-old alleged eyewitness and real brother of the deceased, who was present at the hospital with his mother, would not have been the natural complainant in the case, particularly when the complainant herself was admittedly not an eyewitness. Similarly, Muhammad Kamran (PW.7), in his examination -in-chief, stated t hat upon receiving a call from his friend Abdul Rehman (given up PW), he reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that the appellant first inflicted a Chhurri blow upon Sajawal (PW.8), who fell injured, and thereafter caused a Chhurri blow which landed on the chest of the deceased Qaiser Raza. This version is in material contradiction with the contents of the FIR (Exh.PQ), wherein it was specifically stated that Saif Bhatti (since acquitted) had caused the injury to Sajawal. Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) further stated that he made a call to Rescue -1122 and that the ambulance reached the spot . However, this version is inconsistent with that of Muhammad Afzal 9 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
(PW.6), who stated that he, along with Kamran and Ehsan, transported the injured Qai ser Junaid on a motorcycle to the hospital. During cross-examination, Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) stated that he remained at the place of occurrence for about ten minutes and did not sustain any injury. He further stated that he shifted the deceased to Bhatta Chowk where the ambulance arrived and thereafter the injured was taken to hospital. However, this assertion was confronted with his police statement (Exh.DB), wherein no such fact was recorded. It is further pertinent to note that Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) stated in cross- examination that he reached the hospital at about 8:00/8:30 p.m., whereas Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) stated that he reached the hospital at about 7:00/7:15 p.m. Such material discrepancy between the two alleged eyewitnesses on a vital aspect of the case further creates serious doubt regarding their presence at the spot. The presence of Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) at the place of occurrence was further confused by injured Sajawal (PW.8) who deposed during examination-in-chief that “Hamid and Imran shifted me at Chiragdin hospital and in the meanwhile Afzal had also arrived at place of occurrence. ” Meaning thereby he is also not ey ewitness of the occurrence. In view of the aforesaid contradictions, improvements and inherent improbabilities, this Court is of the considered view that the presence of both Muhammad Afzal (PW.6) and Muhammad Kamran (PW.7) at the place of occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and their names seem to have been subsequently introduced only to give strength to an otherwise doubtful prosecution case. 9. This Court is also not oblivious of the fact that the prosecution has placed reliance upon the statement of Sajawal (PW.8), who is stated to have sustained a stab injury at the hands of the appellant Mohsin Raza during the occurrence. It is well-settled that the presence of an injured witness at the place of occurrence ordinarily carries some assurance of his presence at the spot, and t he factum of sustaining injuries may, to a certain extent, lend corroboration to his version. However, such a circumstance, by itself, does not furnish conclusive proof of the truthfulness and correctness of the entire 10 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
ocular account deposed by such witnes s. Even the testimony of an injured witness is required to be evaluated in the light of settled principles governing the appreciation of evidence, and it cannot be accepted as gospel truth without independent scrutiny. The oft -quoted principle that an inju red witness would not ordinarily spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person, though generally acceptable, yet cannot be applied as an absolute rule in all cases, particularly where multiple accused are involved and there exists a possibility of exaggeration, embellishment, or over -implication of the accused. In such like circumstances, it would be unsafe to base conviction solely or mechanically upon the statement of an injured witness unless the same inspires confidence and passes the strict test of credibility upon careful and cautious evaluation of the entire material on record. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Amin Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- “Certainly, the presence of 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 person of P.Ws. would not stamp them truthful witnesses.”
In another c ase reported as Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527) , the Supreme Court of Pakistan while examining the case of an injured witness held as under:- “It is settled law that injuries of PWs are only indication of his presence at the spot but are not affirmative proof of his credibility and truth. See Said Ahmed’s case (1981 SCMR 795) and Muhammad Pervez’s case (2007 SCMR 670).”
In the light of the foregoing observations, this Court has minutely examined the record and is of the considered view that the statement of the alleged injured witness Sajawal (PW.8) does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of reliance for the purpose of sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Sajawal (PW.8), in his examination -in-chief stated that he was caught from his left arm from behind by someone without naming the appellant and was inflicted a Chhurri blow, as a result whereof he fell on the ground. He further deposed that he saw a Chhurri in the right 11 Criminal Appeal No.14980-J of 2021 & Criminal Revision No.9747 of 2021
hand of the appellant Mohsin Raza, while co -accused Saif Bhatti (since acquitted) was also allegedly present with him at the spot. Since the aforesaid aspect is of material significance, the relevant portion of the examination-in-chief of Sajawal (PW.8) is reproduced hereunder:- “Someone apprehended me from my left arm from my back and inflicted dagger blow. I fell down. I saw Churri in the right hand of Mohsin and Saif Bhatti was also standing with him.”
From above, it becomes evident that the identity o f the person who allegedly inflicted the Chhurri blow upon Sajawal (PW.8) is not stated with clarity or consistency, thereby rendering his version doubtful on this material aspect. Sajawal (PW.8) further stated that he was shifted to Chiragdin Hospital and during the course of his treatment, injured Abdul Rehman also reached there, whereafter ambulance of Rescue- 1122 arrived and both the injured were subsequently shifted to General Hospital, Lahore. In order to appreciate the true import of his statement, i t is considered appropriate to reproduce the exact words deposed by Sajawal (PW.8), which are as under: “Hamid and Imran shifted me at Chiragdin hospital……………………………………………................ Abdul Rehman injured also arrived there. Hospital staff did not prov ide us first aid. In the meanwhile ambulance of 1122 reached there and I and Abdul Rehman were shifted at General Hospital, Lahore.”
However, it is significant to note that the aforesaid Hamid and Imran, who allegedly shifted Sajawal (PW.8) to Chiragdin Hospital, were neither associated during investigation nor produced at the trial stage to substantiate this crucial aspect of the prosecution version, which further weakens the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.