Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2025 P Cr. L J 1644 [Lahore] Before Aalia Neelum, C.J and Abher Gul Khan, J Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky---Appellant Versus The State---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 59064 and Murder Reference No. 134 of 2020, decided on 16th April, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Time of occurrence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Complainant alleged that he took his nephew to "J" hospital; the Medical Officer confirmed the death of his nephewat "J" hospital and they returned back along with the dead body---Mandatory requirements under the law, specifically to inform the police of the unnatural death of the deceased, were not fulfilled---According to S.44 Cr.P.C., the attending Medical Officer was legally obliged to inform the police about the arrival of a medico-legal case---No record indicated that the deceased was admitted to or referred to "J" Hospital and that the medical examination was conducted---Mandatory requirements under the law to inform the police of the medico-legal case and the unnatural death of the deceased were not fulfilled---Not possible that if a police case comes to the hospital, the Medical Officer would not inform the police about it, rather after declaring unnatural death at "J" Hospital, by the Medical Officer, the doctors neither informed the police about the receiving of injured in serious condition nor they intimated to police about the unnatural death of deceased---Instantly, Medical Officer and doctors allowed the complainant to take away the dead body from the hospital---Complainant was unable to refer to any document or reference slip or any document of admission, discharge, or handing over of a dead body by the hospital authorities---On perusal of the inquest report, it revealed that the information about the incident was received on 22.07.2011 at 08:40 p.m., and the dead body was identified by a witness and brother of the deceased, who deposed during his examination-in-chief that he identified the dead body of deceased at the time of autopsy---Complainant deposed that on the night of occurrence, he had not visited the place of occurrence---If the complainant had not visited on the night of the incident at the place of occurrence, then how did he bring back the dead body to the place of occurrence---More significantly, the time of the incident and the reporting to police claimed by the prosecution became doubtful---In the inquest report, which was prepared at 08:40 p.m. on 22.07.2011, the Investigating Officer mentioned in Column No.4 the names of the persons who identified the dead body of deceased, which outrightly suggested that the complainant, eye-witnesses were not present when the inquest reportcase was prepared---Said circumstances suggested that the FIR was antedated and the inquest report of the dead body of deceased was not prepared at the time it was alleged to have been recorded, creating doubt about the time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Infirmities in prosecution's case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---According to column No. 1 of the inquest report, the dead body was found in "Gali", and according to column No.24, the dead body was lying on the ground---If the dead body was brought back from the "J" Hospital, then a prudent mind would not accept that the dead body would be placed in the "Gali"---Application for postmortem examination of the deceased revealed that on "the face of the application", the FIR number was tampered with, and "at the bottom of the application", "under the signatures of Incharge Chowki and "forwarded", the date was overwritten from 22.07.2011 to 23.07.2011---Similarly, the injury statement of the deceased revealed that on the face of the application, the FIR number was tampered with, and at the bottom of the application, under the signatures of Incharge Chowki, the date was overwritten from 22.07.2011 to 23.07.2011---Due to the said infirmities, the FIR had lost its value and authenticity and it would seriously and adversely affect the prosecution's story--- Furthermore, it created a serious doubt about the prosecution's story, suggesting that the complainant and the eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence and that facts had been manipulated---Therefore, no reliance could be placed on such testimony to establish the appellant's guilt, which would form the basis for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of complainant doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Medical Officer stated that on 23.07.2011 at 11.00 a.m., he conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was 12 to 24 hours---Going backwards, the incident could have taken place between 11.00 p.m. and 11.00 a.m. on 22.07.2011---In the postmortem report, the entries in the column regarding the date and time of death and the receipt of the dead body in the mortuary indicated an addition of 'p.m.' alongside 'a.m.' in the section of the date and time of death, which was noted as 22.07.2011 at 01:30 a.m.---To reiterate, the complainant clearly stated that they left "J" Hospital at 02:30 a.m. on 23.07.2011 and arrived at the place of occurrence at 03:30 a.m. on 23.07.2011, whereas the Medical Officer testified that he received the dead body at 01:30 a.m. on 23.07.2011---Said facts raised doubts about the testimony of the complainant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and improvements made by witnesses in their statements---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Complainant deposed that he went to the house of deceased, from where he heard that deceased received a bullet injury and he had been taken to "N" Hospital---Mother of the deceased deposed that on 22.07.2011 at evening time, acquitted accused forcibly took his deceased son from her house and after some time, one boy told her that the appellant and acquitted accused while riding on motorcycle had caused bullet injuries to her son---Mother of deceased rushed to the place of the occurrence and people had already escorted her son to "N" hospital, and there they came to know that her son had been referred to "J" Hospital---During cross-examination, statement of said witness was confronted by the defence with the statement she had made before the police during the investigation and brought on record the improvements/contradictions made by her in her statement---Eye-witnesses deposed in similar lines as stated by the complainant in his examination-in-chief and mentioned in supplementary statement---One of the witnesses deposed that the complainant was his paternal uncle, whereas other witness was his cousin---While cousin of complainant deposed that the complainant was a paternal cousin of his father and other witness was his chacha-zad cousin---Thus, it became clear that the statements of eye-witnesses contained significant contradictions---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Both the eye-witnesses admitted that they were close relatives of the deceased, but they did not bother to accompany deceased to the hospital or inform his family members; rather, they formally went back to their houses---Such unnatural conduct of both the prosecution witnesses also threw cloud of doubt that those prosecution witnesses were later on maneuvered to support the prosecution story, which was manufactured to cover the delay in reporting the incident, as Medical Officer deposed during examination-in-chief and mentioned in postmortem report that the duration between injuries and death was immediate---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Motive behind the occurrence was that a few days prior to the occurrence, accused quarreled with deceased, due to which present incident took place---Admittedly, the complainant had not mentioned the motive in his application for registration of the case---Rather, the complainant introduced the motive through his supplementary statement---Even the eye-witnesses had not uttered a single word about the motive part of the occurrence---In addition, during the investigation, the prosecution had introduced motive through the statement of nephew of the complainant, who deposed during his examination in chief that on 04.09.2011, he along with his uncle, the complainant, and ten other persons went to Police Station, where the Investigating Officer was interrogating the appellant, who stated that he suspected that brother of deceased/eye-witness used to tease his sister----Appellant further stated that the deceased and eye-witness both brothers resembled with each other and due to their resemblance deceased was murdered by him---Admitted fact that a written complaint did not disclose the motive for the offence---Complainant introduced the motive through his supplementary statement---However, the prosecution failed to lead any witness in support of the motive mentioned in the supplementary statement and deposed by the complainant---Rather, a new motive had been introduced by the prosecution through nephew of complainant---As was evident from the said deposition, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence, which was shrouded in mystery---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon for the occurrence and false implication---There are always different motives that operate in the mind of a person in making false accusations. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Safe custody of parcel containing weapon compromised and not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injury to his neighbourer---Record showed that pistol 30-bore along with two live bullets was recovered on the pointing of the appellant on 29.08.2011 and report of Forensic Science Agency was positive---As per prosecution case, on 23.07.2011, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and secured four empties of pistol 30-bore through recovery memo---On 22.08.2011, the appellant, was arrested---Upon the disclosure of the appellant, on 29.08.2011, pistol 30-bore along with two live bullets were recovered by the Investigating Officer who secured the same into possession through a recovery memo---As per recovery memo, statedly recovered pistol along with two live bullets were secured into the parcel, which was sent for comparison with the empties secured from the place of occurrence---However, perusal of the Firearms and Tool Marks Examination Report revealed that the parcel which was submitted over there regarding allegedly recovered weapon only contained the pistol but live bullets had not been mentioned as available in the said parcel, which state of affairs led to the safe conclusion that the parcel which was prepared at the time of recovery of pistol with live bullets was not sent over there and thus safe custody of said parcel had been compromised as well as not proved, which ultimately made the said report inconclusive/inconsequential and thus of no help to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (i) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of every doubt must be extended in favor of the accused. Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Rai Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Akhlaq, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Sajjad Ahmad Jatoi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J.---The appellant-Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky, son of Waqar Alam, Caste Meo, resident of Near Sabzi Mandi Kot Radha Kishan, Kasur, presently resident of Bacho-Ki-Majha Tehsil Raiwind, District Lahore, was involved in case FIR No.539 of 2011, dated 23.07.2011, registered under Sections 302, 324, 34 P.P.C., at P.S. Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge MCTC, District Kasur. The trial court seized with the matter in terms of the judgment dated 14.10.2020, convicted Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky (the appellant) under Section 302 (b) P,P.C, and sentenced to Death as Tazir for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Hassan (the deceased), with the direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544-A of Cr.P.C and in case of default thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I further. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky, the appellant, has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing the instant jail appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.59064-J of 2020. The trial court also referred the M.R. No.134 of 2020 (The State v. Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant. Both the matters arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through a single judgment. 3. The prosecution story, as alleged in the FIR (Ex.PC) lodged on the application (Ex.PJ) of Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant, is that on 22.07.2011 at about 08:30 p.m, his (PW-11) real nephew Ali Hassan (the deceased) after purchasing mobile easy-load from the Public Call Office nearby his house located in Mohallah Mirza Moazam Baig Street, was returning to his house; suddenly, three unknown persons while boarding on a Honda 125 motorcycle came there, out of whom two persons sitting on the rear seat started firing with their respective pistols at Ali Hassan; one fire landed below the umbilicus (belly button) of Ali Hassan, second fire hit the left side of his chest, while third fire landed on upper part of his left arm and fourth fire landed on the back of his right shoulder, who fell down; a fire shot made by the accused persons also hit neighbor namely Sheikh Hamza, who became injured, while complainant's nephew succumbed to the injuries at the spot; after committing the occurrence, the accused persons fled away from the spot; the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Shafique (PW-12) and Muhammad Rizwan (PW-10). Later, through a supplementary statement (Ex.PK), the complainant (PW-11) nominated Muhammad Waqas alias Vicky (the appellant), along with one Shoaib (since acquitted) and Hamza Sajjad (since acquitted) in the instant case. 4. After the incident, the complainant reported the matter to the police through a written application (Ex. PJ). After that, a formal FIR (Ex. PC) was chalked out by Muhammad Aslam, S.I. (PW-5). After registering the case, the investigation was entrusted to Tanveer Hussain, S.I. (PW-14), who found the accused/appellant guilty, prepared a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction. On 13.11.2019, the trial court formally charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses. 5. The ocular account, in this case, has come out from the statements of Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant, Muhammad Rizwan (PW-10) and Muhammad Shafique (PW-12)-the eye-witnesses, whereas Dr. Hafeez Ullah M.O (PW-2), who conducted the postmortem examination of Ali Hassan (the deceased) found the following injuries on his person: - INJURIES 1-A An entry wound: A lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm at the front of the left side of the chest, 4 cm above the left nipple, at the level of the nipple. The blackening was present 7 cm from midline. Margins were inverted. 1-B An exit wound: A lacerated wound 2 x 2 cm at the back of the right side of the chest, uppermost part, in between 3 cm from the right scapula, 4 cm from the vertebral column. Margins were everted. 2-A An entry wound: A lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm at the front of the left forearm, 8 cm below the left elbow joint, blackening was present. Margins were inverted. No exit wound because the bullet was recovered from the back of the left forearm. 3-A An entry wound: A lacerated wound 2 x 2 cm at the front of the abdomen, 4 cm below the umbilicus at the level of the midline. No exit wound. 4. An abrasion 5 x 3 cm at the outer side of the lower right leg. After conducting the postmortem examination of Ali Hassan (the deceased), the doctor opined that the deceased died due to excessive hemorrhage and shock caused by injury to the left lung, stomach, and large and small intestines, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by a firearm weapon. The statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses are formal. 6. The learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence after tendering reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex. PP/1, Ex. PQ, and Ex. PR). 7. The appellant was also examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he neither opted to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., nor opted to produce evidence in his defence. In response to a particular question about why this case was against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following depositions: - "That the complainant Muhammad Younas PW-11 is the real uncle of Ali Hassan deceased, Muhammad Shafique PW-12 and Muhammad Rizwan PW-10 are the cousins of Ali Hassan deceased. Prosecution case is full of doubts. There are many discrepancies in the prosecution case. Both the alleged eye-witnesses have totally failed to establish their presence at the crime scene. The conduct of PWs are unnatural and does not appeal in prudent mind. No independent evidence is available to support the prosecution case. My co-accused Shoaib alias Shoaibi has been acquitted from Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore in instant case on the basis of same set of evidence. Complainant PW-11 involved me in this case due to friendship with co-accused Shoaib alias Shoaibi (since acquitted). Complainant and PWs have inter-se relation with each other and on the asking of complainant PWs deposed against me to strengthen the prosecution case." 8. After evaluating the evidence available on record and considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found that the prosecution's version was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant's conviction and sentence in the above-stated terms. 9. We have carefully considered both sides' rival submissions and thoroughly reviewed the evidence on record. 10. According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 22.07.2011 at 08:30 p.m. in the street of Mohallah Mirza Moazam Baig, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Radha Kishan, Kasur. The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Younas (PW-11), the complainant and paternal uncle of Ali Hassan (the deceased), at 04:00 a.m. on 23.07.2011. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 03 kilometers. Tanveer Hussain S.I. (PW-14), the investigating officer, deposed during cross-examination that: - "The inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 3/4 km. the police post is nearer the place of occurrence as compare to the police station. It took 10/15 minutes while reaching to the place of occurrence from police station." Contrary to the contents of the written application (Ex. PJ), Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Stated that on 22.2011 I heard that my nephew Ali Hassan sustained bullet injury, I went to the house of Ali Hassan from where I heard that injured had been taken to Noor hospital and when I reached at Noor Hospital I observed that my nephew Ali Hassan was being placed in a vehicle. I took him to Jinah Hospital Lahore the doctors confirm the death of Ali Hassan at Jinah Hospital and we returned back along with the dead body." Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "I reached Noor hospital after Maghrib prayer time. When I reached Noor Hospital I observed that Ali Hassan in injured condition was being placed in the vehicle and I have not tried to identify the person present there. ---------------- We admitted the injured Ali Hassan in Jinnah hospital, Lahore and Medical Officer confirmed his death at that time. On 23.07.2011 we reached Jinnah hospital Lahore at about 01:00 am. ---------- We left Jinnah hospital, Lahore at about 02:30 am and reached place of occurrence at about 03:30 am." The mandatory requirements under the law, specifically to inform the police of the unnatural death of the deceased, were not fulfilled. The police should be notified that, according to Section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the attending medical officer is legally obligated to inform them about the arrival of a medico-legal case. Any failure to report such an occurrence may lead to prosecution under Sections 187 and/or 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. No record indicates that the deceased was admitted to or referred to Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, and that the medical examination was conducted. The mandatory requirements under the law to inform the police of the medico-legal case and the unnatural death of the deceased were not fulfilled. It is not possible that if a police case comes to the hospital, the medical officer will not inform the police about it, rather after declaring unnatural death at Jinnah Hospital, Lahore by the medical officer, the doctors neither informed the police about the receiving of injured in serious condition nor they intimated to police about the unnatural death of Ali Hassan. Instantly, they allowed Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant to take away the dead body from the hospital. Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant was unable to refer to any document or reference slip or any document of admission, discharge, or handing over of a dead body by the hospital authorities. Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is not in my knowledge that whether Medical Officer has given any documents of admission or discharge of deceased, however, the same were not delivered to me. Along with me in the vehicle where injured was taken to Jinnah hospital, Lahore one brother of the deceased Ali Raza and the driver of the vehicle were present. Tanveer Hussain S.I. (PW-14)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "During investigation it came into my knowledge that after the occurrence complainant Muhammad Younas took Ali Hassan to Jinnah hospital, Lahore. Complainant did not present any admission or discharge slip of Ali Hassan to me of Jinnah hospital, Lahore." Muhammad Younas (PW-11)-the complainant also deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that on the night of occurrence I had not visited the place of occurrence." If the complainant (PW-11) had not visited on the night of the incident at the place of occurrence, then how did he bring back the dead body to the place of occurrence, as he deposed during cross-examination, reiterated above? Ali Zaman 1770/C…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

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