Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 PCrLJ 824
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: Muhammad Dilawar vs StateHonorable Justice Sardar Akbar AliTabida Islam and Areeba Sajid
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between Muhammad Dilawar and StateHonorable Justice Sardar Akbar AliTabida Islam and Areeba Sajid, officially reported as 2026 PCrLJ 824. 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 P Cr
2026 P Cr. L J 824 [Lahore] Before Shehram Sarwar Ch. and Sardar Akbar Ali, JJ Muhammad Dilawar and another---Appellants Versus The state---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 77117 and Murder Reference No. 223 of 2021, decided on 20th March, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 16-days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Complainant submitted written complaint before the police on the basis of which FIR was chalked out stating therein that on 01.11.2019, his brother/deceased in the company of his wife went to attend a marriage ceremony but he did not come back till 16.11.2019 and they searched for him but in vain---Occurrence took place on 01.11.2019 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 16.11.2019, after the lapse of 16 day of missing of his brother---Therefore, such inordinate delay in setting the machinery of law in motion spoke volumes against the veracity of prosecution version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274; Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527; Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State 2022 SCMR 393 and Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unseen occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Undisputedly, it was an unseen incident and there was no direct evidence against the appellants---No one had seen the appellants while killing the deceased---Role played by the appellants in the incident in issue had neither been mentioned in the FIR nor disclosed before the Trial Court through any solid or convincing evidence---Moreover, it had never been disclosed or alleged by the prosecution in the FIR as to under what circumstances, the deceased had been done to death and it remained shrouded in mystery---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Circumstantial evidence in an unseen occurrence should be like a well-knit chain and each circumstance is to be connected with each other to make one complete chain---If even one link of the chain is missing that would entitle the accused to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Imran alias Dullay v. The State 2015 SCMR 155 Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274 and Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account, not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Ocular account in the case was furnished by complainant and a witness, who were real brothers inter-se as well as to the deceased---From the perusal of statements of said witnesses, an inference could be drawn that admittedly, both the said witnesses and the deceased were real brothers and the testimony of the witnesses was just hearsay and not supported by any independent piece of evidence---Said witnesses were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence and even failed to produce any witness of the occurrence---Said witnesses categorically admitted that they visited the Colony where they were informed that the occurrence had been committed by the appellants and they also admitted that they could not tell the names of persons who met them at the Colony and informed them about the occurrence---Thus, there was no reason to consider the ocular account of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, this piece of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not worthy of reliance and was disbelieved---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Identification of the dead body of deceased not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police on 03.11.2019 and on the same day it's post mortem was conducted---Complainant and the witness came to know about the death of the deceased on 16.11.2019, when they visited the police station and identified deceased through photographs available in police record---Thereafter on the same day, the complainant got written the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered---Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was buried under the supervision of the police---Further no effort was made by the prosecution for identification of the dead body in any manner whatsoever---Whole story of the complainant and the witness was hearsay and no solid and concrete evidence had been brought on the record regarding identification of the dead body whether it was that of deceased or someone else to connect the appellants with the commission of offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Extra-judicial confession doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---In the present case, the evidence of extrajudicial confession of one of the accused person D was furnished by brother of complainant---Testimony of said witness regarding extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant D before him and given up witness was not reliable because no reason was assigned by him as to why the appellant D approached him to make such confession as he did not seek any help from him---Moreover, said witness had not informed the police soon after the extrajudicial confession of said appellant---Even said witness did not try to apprehend appellant D who came to meet him alone empty handed at the relevant time whereas the prosecution witnesses were two in numbers---Both the said prosecution witnesses of extra-judicial confession were not enjoying any status or authority in the society which could have promoted the appellant D to make such extra-judicial confession before them---Said witnesses were not in a position to get pardon for the appellant from the complainant---Another witness of extrajudicial confession had been given up by the prosecution, so the sole testimony of brother of complainant to prove the factum of extra-judicial confession of appellant D without any independent corroboration could not be relied upon and, thus, was brushed aside from consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Extra-judicial confession is always considered a weak type of evidence and could be procured at any time during the investigation when there is no direct evidence available to the prosecution---Moreover, the legal worth of the extra-judicial confession too is almost equal to naught, keeping in view the natural course of events, human behaviors, conduct and probabilities, in ordinary course---Extra-judicial confession has never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it is strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source. Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64 and Wajeeh-ul-Hassan v. The State 2019 SCMR 1994 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Judicial confession, recording of---Procedural illegalities---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---One of the accused persons H got recorded her confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate---After perusal of the evidence with regard to the confessional statement, material illegalities and irregularities in the process of recording confessional statement of appellant H were found---Admittedly, Recording Magistrate had provided only one opportunity with a single warning for reflection whereas she was to be provided full assurance that in case she was not guilty or was not making a confession voluntarily in this case, she would not be handed over back to police, but no such assurance was provided by Judicial Magistrate as depicted in questionnaire---Thereafter, sufficient time for reflection was to be given to the appellant after the first warning was administered---After the expiry of that, Recording Magistrate had to administer the second warning and accused was to be ensured that now she was in safe hands but in the instant case no second warning was issued to the appellant assuring her that she was in safe hands---Furthermore, all Police Officials whether in uniform or otherwise, including Naib Court attached to the Court, must be kept outside the Courtroom and beyond the view of accused but in the instant case, the Recording Magistrate directed in terms that all the un-concerned had to leave the Courtroom---Recording Magistrate also admitted in his report that questions Nos.1 to 5 were mentioned in English language and there was no such question about qualification of accused H ---However, it was mandatory for the Recording Magistrate that the question were to be put in the language of the accused H either in Urdu or Punjabi but no such note of the Recording Magistrate was available on record---After giving a certificate as required under S.364 Cr.P.C., the accused was to be sent to jail on judicial remand and during that process at no occasion she was to be handed over to any Police Official/Officer whether he was Naib Court wearing police uniform or any other Police Official/Officer, but in the instant case, the Investigating Officer admitted in his examination-in-chief before the Trial Court that after recording the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. he sent accused H to judicial lock up under the orders of the Area Magistrate whereas the report of the Recording Magistrate was silent about the fact that after recording her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. what order was passed by him for further handing over the custody of the appellant---In the instant case, the Recording Magistrate did not observe minimum precautions, required under the law---Statement of the appellant H was recorded grossly violating the relevant law---Recording Magistrate after recording the confessional statement of the appellant H on oath, handed her over to the same Police Officer, who had produced her in the Court---Thus, the confession of the appellant H was of no legal worth to be relied upon and was excluded from consideration, more so, when she retracted it at the trial---Confession of this nature, which was retracted by the appellant, could not mutually corroborate each other on the principle that one tainted evidence could not corroborate the other tainted piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Contradictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---One of the accused persons H got recorded her confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate---Appellant H in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. stated that the occurrence took place in the cricket ground which did not fall anywhere in the surroundings of the place of occurrence---Furthermore, in the postmortem report, there was no evidence of any firearm injury on the head of the deceased which negated the version of the appellant of firearm injury caused to the deceased with a pistol by appellant D ---In such state of affairs, the alleged judicial confessional statement purported to be of the appellant H besides being involuntary, untrue and unbelievable, had also not been recorded in accordance with the law and was not supported by any independent piece of evidence put forth by the prosecution, thus was of no help to the prosecution, which deserved to be excluded from consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2016 SCMR 1617; Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others 2016 SCMR 274; Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986; Shaukat Ali v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 577; Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 898; Khalid Mahmood v. The State and 2 others 2022 YLR 522 and Khadim Hussain Hussain and others v. The State and others 2024 YLR 2247 rel. (j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that pistol .30, wrist watch, wallet and ring of deceased were recovered from the possession of appellant D ---Accused/appellant was arrested on 10.12.2019 and thereafter on 13.12.2019 at 12:00, the appellant in presence of Police Official, on his disclosure and pointing out got recovered weapon of offence pistol 30 bore, wallet, wrist watch and ring of the deceased from his house---As regards recovery of crime weapon on the lead of appellant D , it was observed that according to the prosecution case the appellant had succeeded in fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with crime weapon and then on his arrest he was said to have got recovered the crime weapon i.e. .30 bore pistol from the baithak of his house---Firstly, it was not believable that an accused having committed a serious crime like murder and successfully managing escape along with crime weapon, would keep it safe for its subsequent recovery and use against him as evidence---Thus, the report of Forensic Science Agency was inconsequential---Such recovery was also in clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the evidence of such recovery could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused/appellant, being evidence that was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary role of evidence---Even otherwise, it was highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of recovery, which even otherwise was a corroboratory piece of evidence and relevant only when the primary evidence i.e. ocular account inspired confidence, whereas in the present case, the ocular account was doubtful---It was an admitted fact that both the witnesses were not witnesses of the recovery, even otherwise, the recovery of said articles was effected on the pointing out of appellant D from Baithak of his house which was accessible to every inmate of the house---As per statement of a witness, such like articles were easily available in the market, coupled with the fact that there was clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. as both the recovery witnesses were Police Officials and no private person from the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings---Thus, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that as to why the accused would keep such articles of the deceased with him for a period of more than one month after the occurrence---Said recovery in the circumstances could not be used against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 989; Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1427 and Muhammad Sajjad v. The State 2009 SCMR 1248 rel. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is merely an opinion of an expert and is confirmatory in nature and not corroboratory except those observations of the Medico-Legal Officer, which are based on physical examination, which serve as a corroboratory piece of evidence and that at best would confirm the ocular account with regard to the seat and nature of injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, but cannot identify the accused. Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 and Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1449 rel. (l) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was that appellant H had developed illicit relations with appellant D whereas deceased used to forbid his wife (appellant H ) but she did not mend her ways and ultimately, both the appellants along with 2/3 unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased---Admittedly, the motive part of incident was based on oral assertions and no solid evidence in that regard was produced by the prosecution during the trial---There was a haunting silence with regard to the minutiae of motive alleged---No place of motive incident had been mentioned by any of the prosecution witnesses and they had not claimed that they were present at the time of occurrence of motive incident---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Moreover, it was an admitted rule of appreciation of evidence that motive was only supportive piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable then motive alone could not be made basis of conviction---Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence---Thus, prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhamad Riaz and others v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1839 rel. (m) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused would be sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit. Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731 and Rehmatullah and 2 others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1782 rel. Tabida Islam and Areeba Sajid for Appellants. Ms. Rahat Majeed, Assistant Deputy District Prosecutor for the State. Nemo. for Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025. Judgment Sardar Akbar Ali, J.---Muhammad Dilawar and Mst. Hina (appellants) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha in a case FIR No.676 of 2019, dated 16.11.2019, offence under Sections 302/201/34 P.P.C, registered with Police Station Jhaal Chakian, District Sargodha. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 02.12.2021 convicted the appellants in terms of Section 302(b) P.P.C and sentenced them to death each for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Munir (deceased). The appellants were also held liable for the payment of compensations as required under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lacs only) each to the legal heirs of deceased. The appellants were also convicted under Section 201 P.P.C and sentenced them to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. They were extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. 2. Assailing the above-mentioned conviction and sentence, appellants Muhammad Dilawar and Hina have filed the appeal in hand whereas the learned trial Court has sent Murder Reference No.223 of 2021 for confirmation or otherwise of the appellants sentence of death, as required under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since both these matters have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, the same are being decided together through this single judgment. 3. Prosecution story, as congregated from the FIR (Exh.PJ) registered on the written application (Exh.PL) submitted by Muhammad Zaheer /complainant (PW-8) before Razzaq Ahmad, ASI (PW-05) on 16.11.2019 is to the effect that he was resident of Street No.8, Mohallah Siddique Abad, Sargodha. The marriage of his brother Muhammad Munir (deceased) was solemnized with appellant Hina Bibi on 27.07.2019. Hina had illicit relations with appellant Dilawar and his brother Muhammad Munir (deceased) used to forbade both of them but they did not take any heed. On 01.11.2019, there was marriage ceremony of brother of Dilawar and Hina accompanied his deceased husband to attend the wedding ceremony at Fatima Jinnah Colony but Muhammad Munir deceased did not come back till-date. The deceased was searched but he was not traced. He further stated that the appellants along with 2/3 unknown persons had committed the murder of his deceased brother. Motive behind the occurrence was that Hina Bibi had illicit relations with Dilawar for which the deceased forbidden Hina Bibi but she did not restrain herself and ultimately, the appellants along with 2/3 unknown persons committed the murder of his deceased bother. 4. Muhammad Yar, SI (PW-11) conducted the investigation in this case. On 16.11.2019, he received police file of instant case for investigation through Zaheer Abbas 1745/C (given up). Complainant and his brother Muhammad Khalil (PW-09) were also accompanied with Zaheer Abbas 1745/C. After that he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he prepared rough site plan (Ex.PP) on the pointing out of the complainant and PWs and added offence under section 201 P.P.C in the instant case. He also recorded statement of Gulsher Khan 470/DFC (PW-6) who escorted the dead body of the deceased to the DHQ, Hospital, Sargodha for postmortem examination on 03.11.2019. On 22.11.2019, he recorded the statement of Naeem Hussain Bhatti, Naib Qasid Municipal Corporation, Sargodha (given up) regarding burial of dead body of the deceased. On 25.11.2019, draftsman handed over to him three copies of scaled site plan (Ex.PM) and (Ex.PM/1). On 05.12.2019, he arrested appellant Hina and on her pointing out, he prepared identification memo of place of occurrence (Ex.PC) attested by Sikandar Hayat 1011/C (PW-03) and Nadia Batool 1716/LC (given up). He produced appellant Hina before the Court of learned Area Magistrate where she got recorded her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 08.12.2019 he recorded statements of Muhammad Khalil (PW-09) and Haider Ali (given up) under section 161 of Cr.P.C regarding extra-judicial confession of appellant Muhammad Dilawar. On 10.12.2019, he arrested appellant Muhammad Dilawar who on 13.12.2019, upon his disclosure and pointing out, led to the place of recovery and got recovered pistol .30-bore P-4 weapon of offence along with purse P-5, watch P-6 and ring P-7 belonging to the deceased from the baithak of his house. He took into possession above said articles through recovery memo (Ex.PL) attested by Gulsher Khan 470/DFC (PW-06) and Ghulam Baho 342/C (given up). 5. The learned trial court after submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. summoned the appellants to face trial. When charge sheeted, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, whereupon, the prosecution examined 12 P.Ws. Muhammad Zaheer /complainant (PW-8) and Muhammad Khalil (PW-9), deposed about ocular account, Muhammad Khalil (PW-9) is also the witness of extra judicial confessional statement allegedly made by the appellant Dilawar before him and Haider Ali (given up PW). Mr. Hasnat Aslam Gondal (PW-10) is the witness who recorded confessional statement of appellant Hina under section 164 Cr.P.C. Dr. Muhammad Rizwan Ashraf (PW-04) on 03.11.2019 at 08:00 p.m. conducted postmortem examination of deceased Muhammad Munir and observed as under: EXTERNAL EXAMINATION This was dead body of a young male lying flat on mortuary table. Eyes and mouth were burnt. Rigor mortis was fully developed. EXAMINATION OF CLOTHES The dead body was wearing half white burnt shalwar. EXAMINATION OF NECK. No ligature mark seen and second decree burn. DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES. Approximately 60% of body was burnt and putrefied. Left side of abdomen was burst and abdominal contents were protruding out. CRANIUM and SPINAL CORD: Scalp and skull were burnt while rest membranes and brain were healthy. First vertebrae and…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.