Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4514
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice)
Parties: Shah Muhammad vs The State .
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4514. In this matter between Shah Muhammad and The State ., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice) DECISION DATE: 24-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: Jail Appeal 35831/21 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 (Shah Muhammad versus The State, etc.)
Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021 (Sher Pao Khan versus Shah Muhammad, etc.)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 24.06.2026. Appellant by: M/s Mehram Ali Bali and Barrister Abdul Qudoos Sohal, Advocates.
State by: Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Additional Prosecutor General. Complainant by: M/s Basit Nawaz Khan and Saif -ur-Rehman Hafeez , Advocates. -------------- AALIA NEELUM, C.J.- Shah Muhammad, son of Muhammad Nasir, caste Pathan, resident of Dar -ul-Salam Colony, Madina Town, District Faisalabad, the appellant, was involved in F.I.R. No. 188 of 2019, dated 28.05.2019, registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 PPC at Police Station Bhagtanwala, District Sargodha, and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The trial court, in its judgment dated 07.05.2021, convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment as Tazir , with a direction to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544 -A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased, Khuda Dad, and, in case of default in payment, to further undergo six months of S.I. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favor of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Shah Muhammad, the appellant, has assailed his conviction by filing Crl. Appeal No. 35831 -J of 2021. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also filed Crl. Rev. No. 31901 of 2021, seeking enhancement of the sentence Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
2 awarded to the appellant. The matters arising from the same trial court judgment are being disposed of in a consolidated judgment. 3. The prosecution st ory, as alleged in the F.I.R (Ex. PA) lodged on the statement (Ex. PL) of Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, is that on 28.05.2019, at about 10:15 p.m, he (PW-10), along with his brothers, Khuda Dad (the deceased) and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11), and one Mujeeb Ullah (given up PW), w as returning home from Jamia Masjid Maaz Bin Jabbal after offering Namaz Taravih; that a bulb was lighting the street; that when they reached near the house of Muhammad Hayat Pawali, suddenly a motorcycle without number, C.G -125, red color, with two unknown persons riding it, and a car without number, white color, with four unknown accused persons present, armed with firearms, came from behind, and the accused could be easily identified; the person sitting behind the motorcycle raised lalkara, saying to be brave, then he got off the motorcycle and fired straight at his brother Khuda Dad, which hit his neck from behind and crossed through the chin. The second fire was made by the said person, which hit the back of his brother, who fell; they attempted to capture the accused persons, but they fled away. The complainant (PW -10), along with others, attended to Khuda Dad, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The unknown accused persons committed the murder of Khuda Dad, brother of the complainant, for unknown reasons. 4. Upon receiving information of the occurrence, Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW-13), along with police officials, reached the place of occurrence, where Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, got recorded his statement (Ex.PL) to Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW -13), the investigating officer. After incorporating the police proceedings, the investigating officer sent the complaint (Ex.PL) to the police station through Faisal Shehzad 568/C (not cited as a witness) for registration of the FIR. Upon receipt of the complaint, Arshad Mehmood, A.S.I. (PW-2), chalked out the FIR (Ex.PA). 5. After the case was registered, Nasir Hussain, S.I (PW -13), initially investigated. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
3 Muhammad Mubashar Imtiaz, S.I (PW-15), who, having found the appellant guilty, prepared a challan under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and sent it to the court of competent jurisdiction. On 12.11.2019, the trial court formally charged the appellant, to which he pleaded not gui lty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced fifteen (15) witnesses. 6. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. He did not opt to appear as his witnesses under Section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C.; however, he produced an attested copy of the petition under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.DA) and a certified copy of the bailiff's report (Ex.DA/1) as part of his defence evidence. In response to a specific question about why this case was against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, the appellant made the following depositions: -
“The complainant and the eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. I and complainant party originally hail from Mehmand Agency where we had tribal dispute and I have been involved in this case due to said tribal dispute. It was a blind occurrence and I was later -on involved in this case due to the above said grudge.” 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the evidence on record in light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution's version proved beyond any reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s conviction in the afore-stated terms. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record on file. 9. In the present case, the occurrence took place on 2 8.05.2019, at 10:00 p.m., at Ehsan Colony, Bhagtanwala, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Bhagtanwala, Sargodha. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant and brother of the deceased, through an oral statement (Exh. PL), reported the incident to Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW -13), at 11:15 p.m. at Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
4 the place of occurrence. Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW-13), after recording the oral statement (Exh.PL) of Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, incorporated the police proceedings, which revealed that he prepared the injury statement (Exh.PF) and the inquest repor t (Exh.PG) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination to THQ Hospital, Bhagtanwala, through Muzammal Liaqat 2455/C (PW -9). After that, he referred the complaint (Exh. PL) to the police station through Faisal Shahzad (not cited as a witness) for the formal registration of the FIR. The relevant portion of police proceedings is reproduced hereunder:- ” زی ر بیان خود اپنا ب ائیاں انگوٹھا ثبت کر دب ا جس کی میں تصدیق کرب ا ہوں بیان ب الا سائل و واقعات سے صورت ج رم 141/141/302 ت پ ب ائی جا کر نعش خ داداد مقتول ہ
رتیب دے کر نعش زی ر حفاظت م رمل لیاق
نقشہ مضروبی و نقشہ صورتحال ی2455/C بغرض پوسٹمارTHQ ہسپتال بھاگٹانوالہ بھجوائی جا رہی ہے استغاثہ ہذا بجرم مذکور مرت ہو کر بغرض قائمی مقدمہ بدس فیصل شہزاد 568/C ارسال تھانہ ہے مقدمہ درج نمبر مقدمہ سے اطلاع د جاوے حررر کو داات ہوئی ہ وہ پیشل رپور ائے اسراان جازز ارسال کرے میں موقعہ پر مصروف تفتیش ہوں۔“ (دستخط انگری ر ) SI تھانہ بھاگٹانوالہ، از احسان کالونی بھاگٹانوالہ ، 15/11 بجے رات مورخہ 11-5-21 Upon receipt of the oral complaint (Exh.PL), Arshad Mehmood, A.S.I. (PW- 2), prepared the FIR (Exh.PA) at 11:30 p.m. on 28.05.2019, i.e., one hour and thirty minutes after the occurrence, despite the police station being only two kilometers away from the sc ene. The incident was attributed to six unknown accused persons, two allegedly riding a motorcycle and four in a car. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW-11) are the real brothers of Khuda Dad, the deceased. Significantly, neither the complaint (Exh.PL) nor the FIR (Exh.PA) nor the depositions of Sher Pao Khan (PW -10) and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11) named any accused person or disclosed the features, appearance, or physical description of any unknown accused. The prosecution witnesse s, i.e., Sher Pao Khan (PW-10) and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11), deposed that a red motorcycle Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
5 without a number and a white car without a number arrived at the scene; two unknown accused were riding the motorcycle, while four unknown accused persons were present in the car, armed with weapons, whom they could easily identify. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that:- “I have not mentioned the appearance, physical description, and features of the accused persons in my statement, Ex.PL.” On perusal of injury statement (Exh.PF), it reveals that same contained the details of FIR and Nasir Hussain S.I. (PW -13)-the investigating officer after mentioning “بنام” left the space blank. It has also been noticed that in column No.3 of the inquest report (Exh.PG) relating to the date and time of receiving information of dea th “10:15 p.m. on 28.05.2019” was mentioned and in column relating to brief history of the case on 3 rd page of the inquest report (Exh.PG), particulars of the FIR have been mentioned. Nasir Hussain S.I. (PW -13)-the investigating officer also mentioned that the FIR was got registered. The relevant portion of the inquest report (Exh.PG) is reproduced hereunder:- ”اس بیان مقدمہ نمبر 111 مور11/5/21 ج رم 141/141/302 ت پ تھانہ بھاگٹانوالہ درج رجسٹر کرواب ا۔ جبکہ خ داداد خان مقتول کی نعش کا ملاحظہ کر کے نقشہ مضر رتیب دے کر بغرض پوسٹمارٹم زی ر حفاظت م رمل لیاق
وبی و نقشہ صورت ل ل ی 2455/C THQ ہسپتال بھاگٹانوالہ بھجوائی جا ر ۔ بعد پوسٹمارٹم وجہ موت سے آگاہ نعش کو بھی ہمراہ بھجواب ا جا رائ ہے۔ رماب ا جاوے گواائن شناخ
ف“ According to the prosecution case, after incorporating the police proceedings at the foot of the oral complaint (Exh.PL), Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW -13), the investigating officer, referred the complaint to the police station for registration of the formal FIR and, at the same time, dispatched the d ead body of Khuda Dad, deceased, to THQ Hospital for postmortem examination through Muzammal Liaqat 2455/C (PW -9). In these circumstances, the mention ing of the FIR particulars in the inquest report (Exh.PG) strongly suggests that the FIR, as well as the s ubsequent Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
6 proceedings, were ante timed. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that:- “Police reached at the place of occurrence in 15 minutes. The police officer remained there for one hour.” Similarly, Muhammad Mumtaz (PW-11) deposed during cross -examination that:- “IO came at the spot after 15 to 20 minutes. No body from the adjacent houses came out during that time. When police arrived no body else other than us was present. The I.O remained at the place of occurrence for about 45 minutes.” Admittedly, the occurrence took place at 10:00 p.m., and the police reached the spot within 15 to 20 minutes. However, the matter was reported to Nasir Hussain, S.I. (PW-13), the investigating officer, at 11:15 p.m., reflecting an unexplained delay of one hour and fifteen minutes. This creates doubt about the prosecution's version. It further appears from the inquest report (Exh.PG) that, in column No. 4, the persons shown to have identified the dead body were Bakhtawar Ali, son of Qasim Khan, and Aamir Sha hzad, son of Dost Muhammad. However, on the last page of the same inquest report (Exh.PG), the witnesses in whose presence it was prepared are mentioned as Qaisar, son of Khadim Hussain, and Mushtaq, son of Jewan Khan. Notably, the names of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses do not appear in the inquest report. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, admitted during cross-examination that , when the police reached the spot, no person other than he and the prosecution witnesses were present there. Likewise, Muhammad Mumtaz (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination that no one from the adjacent houses came out when the police arrived at the spot. Viewed in this background, the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene becomes doubtful. It also clearly indicates that Sher Pao Khan (PW - 10), the complainant , and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11), the eyewitness, were not present when the inquest report (Exh.PG) was prepared. These circumstances, in my view, suggest that the FIR was ante timed. They also Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
7 show that the inquest report (Exh.PG) regarding the dead body of Khuda Dad, deceased, was not prepared at the time at which it is alleged to have been recorded, thereby creating further doubt about the time of occurrence. 10. Muhammad Mubashar Imtiaz S.I. (PW-15) arrested the appellant and his co -accused on 05.07.2019 and their identification parade was conducted on 10.07.2019 . Muhammad Masood Asghar (PW -12), Judicial Magistrate who conducted the identification parade , deposed during cross-examination that:- “It is correct that Shah Muhammad accused had raised objection that he was arrested on 25th of June by police headed by Shahid SHO from Faisalabad and that he was kept at Chowki Bhaghat where Sher Pao complainant, Mumtaz and Majeeb Ullah came and they filmed him and also took his photographs and that those witnesses met him some four times and that Sher Pao said to him that when actual murderer would come he would exonerate him (Shah Muhammad accused). --------------- It is correct that only dummy was Pa than by caste. It is correct that when witness Sher Pao came and was asked to identify the culprit, he went straight to the accused Shah Muhammad and put his hand on his head without giving any look to the other dummies.” The same fact was also incorporate d into his report (Exh. PN) by Muhammad Masood Asghar (PW -12). A perusal of the said report shows that Muhammad Masood Asghar (PW-12), the Judicial Magistrate, recorded that Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11) merely cast a general glance at all the under-trial prisoners standing in the row and thereafter placed his hand on the head of the suspect , Shah Muhammad. Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that:- “The real uncle namely Hazrat Khan of the accused p ersons was murdered prior to this occurrence whose false allegation of murder was leveled on my deceased brother. I got recorded in my statement before the police that unknown accused persons made attack for unknown reasons on us.” Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
8 However, Sher Pao Khan ( PW-10), the complainant, did not mention the name of the appellant in the FIR (Exh.PA ), although he was allegedly previously known to him; rather, he stated that unknown culprits had murdered Khuda Dad Khan. The need for holding an identification parade arises only where the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The very object of a test identification parade is to require witnesses, who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence , to identify t hem from amongst other persons without any aid , prompting, or external source, to test the veracity of their claim . Learned counsel for the complainant admitted that the accused were known to the complainant; however, at the time of reporting the occurrence, they were not named. This is a very serious infirmity that undermines the credibility of witnesses’ testimony. The deposition of Sher Pao Khan (PW -10), the complainant, is rejected as untrustworthy and has shredded the prosecution's case. It is the defe nce version that Hameed Ullah Khan, brother of the appellant, Shah Muhammad, filed a petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C. (Exh.DA), titled “Hameed Ullah Khan v. S.H.O., Police Station Bhagtanwala,” on 05.07.2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, s eeking recovery of Shah Muhammad, the appellant, and Sami Ullah, co -accused, from the alleged illegal and unlawful detention of police officials. Pursuant thereto, a bailiff was deputed, who submitted his report (Exh.DA/1), stating that, vide Rapat No. 2/4 dated 05.07.2019, the arrest of Shah Muhammad, the appellant, was shown in case FIR No. 188 of 2019, registered at Police Station Bhagtanwala. Admittedly, Shah Muhammad , the appellant, was arrested on 05.07.2019, whereas the identification parade was conducted on 10.07.2019, after a delay of five days from his arrest. Muhammad Mubasher Imtaiz S.I. (PW-15), the investigating officer, admitted during cross-examination that:- “I arrested the accused Shah Muhammad and Sami Ullah u/s 54 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2019 in the morning.-------------- It is correct that Hameed Ullah Khan brother of Shah Muhammad and Sami Ullah accused persons had moved application u/s 491 Cr.P.C in the court of Sessions Sargodha to the effect that Shah Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
9 Muhammad and Sami Ullah were illegally picked up by the police of P.S Bhagtanwala on the night between 25/26.06.2019 from their house in Faisalabad. It is correct that bailiff was appointed and he visited P.S Bhagtanwala on 05.07.2019 and found that no entry regarding arrest of accused was men tioned in the manual daily diary register.” The prosecution's case rests substantially on the identification parade; therefore, the proceedings must be examined with care and caution. Sher Pao Khan (PW-10), the complainant, and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11), the eyewitness, did not mention the description, age, complexion, or any distinctive features of the accused persons who allegedly participated in the occurrence. Muhammad Masood Asghar (PW -12), the Judicial Magistrate, admitted during cross-examination that:- “It is correct that only dummy was Pathan by caste.” The purpose of a test identification parade is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the ocular account. As a rule of prudence, corroboration is generally sought for the sworn testimony of witnesses in court regarding the identity of accused persons who were strangers to them at the time of the occurrence until the identification proceedings . Where a witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of an accused, such features may lend assurance to his testimony in court, provided that the witness disclosed those distinctive features to the police at the earliest opportunity. In view of the above depositions of the prosecution witnesses , the identification parade does not furnish reliable corroboration to the testimony of Sher Pao Khan (PW-10), the complainant, and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW- 11)-the eye witness. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of SABIR ALI alias FAUJI v. THE STATE (2011 SCMR 563) that:- “--------It is an admitted fact that the complainant had not mentioned the name of any of the accused in the FIR. He also did not mention description/features of the accused persons in the FIR.” Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
10 “--------The aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly envisage that witnesses had opportunity to see the appellant and his co -accused, therefore, identification parade which was held in this case was not in accordance with that rules. It is also settled principle of law that identification pa rade of each accused should be held separately otherwise confusion would be created and in the case in hand identification parade of all the three accused was held jointly. This aspect of the case was not considered by both the courts below in terms of law laid down by this Court in Pasand’s case (PLD 1981 SC 142) wherein the conviction was set aside on this ground alone.--” 11. As far as recovery of pistol 30-bore (P-3) along with two live bullets (P-4/1-3), on the pointing of Shah Muhammad (the appella nt) on 24.07.2019 and positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PY) are concerned , it is a prosecution case that the appellant, Shah Muhammad, was arrested by Muhammad Mubasher Imtiaz S.I. (PW -15)-the investigating officer on 05.07.2019. Muhammad Mubasher Imtiaz S.I. (PW- 15)-the investigating officer deposed during examination-in-chief that: - “On 24.07.2019 accused Shah Muhammad got recovered pistol 30 -bore crime weapon from rented house situated in Pull Mangani. The above said pistol 30 -bore P -3 and two live bullets P -4/1-3 were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PH duly attested by the witnesses.” A perusal of the recovery memo (Exh.PH) shows that Shah Muhammad, the appellant, allegedly got recovered a 30 -bore pistol along with two live bullets on 24.07.2019. However, the Firearms and Tool Marks Examination Report (Ex.PY) reveals that parcel No. 2, relating to the al legedly recovered weapon, contained only the pistol. No live bullets were received at the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, contrary to what was mentioned in the recovery memo (Exh.PH) and deposed by the investigating officer (PW - 15). This disc repancy indicates that the parcel received by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency was not the same parcel allegedly prepared by the investigating officer, because, according to the recovery memo (Exh.PH), Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
11 two live bullets had also been secured along with the 30-bore pistol, whereas no such bullets were found in the parcel by the Agency. This circumstance raises serious doubt about the parcel's relevance to the present case and leads to the safe conclusion that its custody and transmission were compromised and have not been proved. Consequently, the report (Ex.PY) becomes inconclusive and is of no assistance to the prosecution. So far as the motive is concerned, the trial court has already disbelieved the same. Even otherwise, motive is a double -edged weapon: while its existence may provide a reason for committing the offence, the Court must remain mindful that, in a given case, it may equally furnish a basis for false implication. There may always be different motives operating in the mind of a person making a false accusation. 12. Given the difficulty in relying on the testimonies of Sher Pao Khan (PW-10), the complainant, and Muhammad Mumtaz (PW -11)-the eye witness, and for other reasons detailed hereinbefore, I am persuaded that the prosecution has not proven its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, as there are numerous inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court cannot be sustained. It is held in the case of “Muhammad Akr am v. The State” (2009 SCMR 230) that: - “The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matte r of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.” Crl. Appeal No.35831-J of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No.31901 of 2021
12 13. I, therefore, accept Criminal Appeal No. 358 31-J of 2021, filed by the appellant, Shah Muhammad, son of Muhammad Nasir, in toto. As a result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 07.05.2021 are set aside. The appellant, Shah Muhammad, son of Muhammad Nasir, is ordered to be acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 188 of 2019, dated 28.05.2019, registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 PPC at Police Station Bhagtanwala, District Sargodha. The appellant, Shah Muhammad, son of Muhammad Nasir, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. So far as Criminal Revision No. 31901 of 2021, filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant/respondent No. 1, Shah Muhammad, is concerned, for the reasons aforesaid, the revision is devoid of any legal force and is accordingly dismissed.
(AALIA NEELUM) CHIEF JUSTICE This judgment was dictated, pronounced on 24.06.2026, and signed after completion on 29.06.2026. Ikram*