Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2023-12-31, officially reported as 2024 LHC 4246. In this matter between The State, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Iqbal, JUDGMENT, 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Aalia Neelum, Asjad Javaid Ghural Title:The State, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Arshad vs Muhammad Iqbal,

JUDGMENT

Reported As: 2024 LHC 4246, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 301 Result: Murder Reference Answered in Negative Judgment

JUDGMENT AALIA NEELUM, C.J:- The appellant-Muhammad Iqbal, son of Fatteh Khan, Caste Gujjar, resident of Udhuwal, Tehsil & District Gujrat, along with his co-accused, was involved in the case F.I.R. No.506 of 2014, dated 23.06.2014, registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149 P.P.C., at the police station, Civil Line, District Gujrat and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Gujrat. The trial court seized with the matter in terms of the judgment dated 17.06.2019, convicted Muhammad Iqbal (the appellant) under Section 302(b) PPC read with section 34 PPC and sentenced to Death as Ta'zir on two counts for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Shafaat and Muhammad Ijaz (the deceased). The appellant was also held liable to pay compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and if the same was realized, would be given Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of Muhammad Shafaat (deceased) and Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ijaz (deceased). In case of default thereof, to further undergo 06-months S.I each. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Muhammad Iqbal, the appellant, has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing the instant appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.48876-J of 2019. The trial court also sent M.R. No.185 of 2019 (The State. Vs. Muhammad Iqbal) to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Muhammad Iqbal. Whereas the complainant also filed Crl. Appeal No. 44259 of 2019 against the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 7, namely Mukhtar Ahmed, Iftikhar Ahmed alias Yar Muhammad, Muhammad Shafi, Altaf Hussain, Ali Raza, Ashiq Ali and

---

## Page 2

Yousaf. All 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 F.I.R (Ex. PD) lodged on the statement (Ex. PA) of Muhammad Arshad (PW-1)-the complainant, is that he (PW-1) alongwith his brother Muhammad Ilyas alias Amjad (PW-2) while boarding on motorcycle Honda 125/CG was going to village Udhowal Khurd to see his brother-in-law, namely Ch. Muhammad Shafaat; when they reached Service Morr, he (PW-1) met with Muhammad Afzal (PW-4), brother of Ch. Shafaat, who told that Ch. Shafaat was sitting at AlRehman Builders, Rehman Shaheed Road, Gujrat; after that, they all three went there. In the meanwhile, nephew of the complainant, namely Ijaz Ahmad while boarding on motorcycle came there for taking his father Muhammad Shafaat; Muhammad Shafaat insisted them to go to his home at village Udhowal; Muhammad Shafaat boarded on the motorcycle of his son Ijaz, whereas, the complainant (PW-1), Muhammad Ilyas alias Amjad (PW-2) and Muhammad Afzal (PW-4) boarded on their motorcycle and proceeded to village Udhowal; Ijaz and Muhammad Shafaat were going ahead on motorcycle and the complainant and others were following them; when they reached Udhowal road near water tank, it was about 07:15 p.m., accused persons Muhammad Iqbal (the appellant), Moazzam (since P.O), Iftikhar alias Yar Muhammad (since acquitted), Rehman Ali alias Mana (since P.O), Muhammad Shafi (since acquitted), Ali (since acquitted), Altaf Ahmad (since acquitted), Mukhtar Ahmad (since acquitted), Yousaf (since acquitted) and Ashiq (since acquitted) had already waylaid there while armed with deadly weapons; Muhammad Iqbal (the appellant) raised a lalkara that Shafaat and Ijaz might not be let alive that day and made fire with his weapon, which hit Ijaz Ahmad (deceased), Moazzam (since P.O) made a fire with his weapon, which hit Muhammad Shafaat (the deceased); upon receiving injuries, they both fell down from motorcycle; Rehmat Ali (since P.O) made a fire with his weapon, which hit Muhamad Shafaat (the deceased); Iftikhar Ahmad alias Yar Muhammad (since acquitted) also made a fire with his weapon, which hit Ijaz Ahmad (the deceased); Muhammad Shafi, Ali, Altaf Ahmad, Mukhtar Ahmad, Yousaf and Ashiq (all co-accused since acquitted) also made firing with their weapons, which hit Ijaz and Muhammad Shafaat; accused persons also raised lalkaras to get satisfaction about their death; after satisfaction about death of Muhammad Shafaat and Ijaz Ahmad, all the accused persons went away while raising lalkaras and making firing from the spot. Due to fear, the complainant and PWs did not go near; when the accused persons went away, they attended to Muhammad Shafaat and Ijaz Ahmad, who succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons committed the incident on the abetment of Shahbaz and Bhuttoo (co-accused since P.O), who sent messages of threats on different occasions, and witnesses of the said fact were Basharat Ali and Jawad Ali. The motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over land, due to which hot words were exchanged between Muhammad Iqbal (the appellant) and Muhammad Shafi, etc. with Muhammad Shafaat prior to this occurrence, for which accused persons had extended threats of death to Muhammad Shafaat. 4. After the incident, the complainant reported the matter to the police through his oral complaint (Ex. PA), and after that, formal F.I.R (Ex. PD) was chalked out by Muhammad Asghar S.I (PW-7). After the registration of the case, the investigation of this case was entrusted to Shahid Husnain S.I (PW- 15), 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 09.05.2015, 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 fifteen (15) witnesses. 5. Ocular account, in this case, has come out from the statements of Muhammad Arshad (PW-1)- the complainant, Muhammad Ilyas (PW-2), and Muhammad Afzal (PW-4)-the eye witness, whereas Dr. Yasir Ali (PW13), who conducted the postmortem examination of Muhammad Shafaat (the deceased) and Muhammad Ijaz (the deceased) found the following injuries on their person:-

---

## Page 3

INJURIES OF MUHAMMAD SHAFAAT (THE DECEASED) 1. A lacerated wound of inverted margins blackening absent of 1.5 X 1.5 cm at the right temporal area. 2. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent at the right jaw. 3. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 with everted margins blackening absent about the right ear. 4. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent at the left half of the chest. 5. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent just below injury No.4. 6. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm at the right half chest just below the nipple with everted margins and blackening absent. 7. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm with everted margins blackening absent just below injury No.6. 8. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm on the left half of the chest with inverted margins blackening absent. 9. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent at left shoulder. 10. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening is absent. Just below injury No.9. 11. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent on the right half of the abdomen. 12. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm everted margins blackening absent at left shoulder. 13. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm at the anterior of the right thigh inverted margins blackening absent. 14. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm everted margins posterior of the right thigh. 15. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm at the anterior of the right forearm inverted margins blackening absent. 16. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm everted margins blackening absent lateral to injury No.15. 17. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent posterior of the left elbow. 18. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm everted margin blackening absent lateral to injury No.17. 19. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent at the lower back. 20. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent lateral to injury No.19. 21. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent 5 cm below injury No.19. After conducting the postmortem examination of Muhammad Shafaat (the deceased), the doctor opined that injuries No.1 & 2 damaged the brain and its major blood vessels, and injuries No.4 & 5 damaged the heart, lungs, and major thoracic vessels leading to shock and ultimate death. All other injuries were contributory to the above-mentioned injuries. All the injuries were caused by a firearm. The probable time between injuries and death was almost immediately, whereas between death and postmortem was 08 to 12 hours. INJURIES OF MUHAMMAD IJAZ (THE DECEASED) 1. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm inverted margins blackening absent at the right side of the scalp. 2. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm with everted margins blackening absent on the left side of the scalp. 3. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 with inverted margins blackening absent on the left side of the scalp below injury No.2. 4. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent below injury No.3. 5. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm with everted margins blackening absent on the right side of the scalp. 6. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm with everted margins and blackening absent below injury No.5. 7. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent at the back of the scalp. 8. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent on the right side of the abdomen.

---

## Page 4

9. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent below injury No.8. 10. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 cm everted margins blackening absent on left half of abdomen. 11. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm on the left arm with inverted margins blackening absent. 12. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent at the back of the left shoulder. 13. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent below injury No.12. 14. A lacerated wound of 1 X 1 cm with inverted margins blackening absent below injury No.13. 15. A lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1.5 with everted margins blackening absent at the lateral border of the right shoulder. After conducting the postmortem examination of Muhammad Ijaz (the deceased), the doctor opined that injuries No.1, 3, 4 & 7 damaged the brain and led to death. All the other injuries had a contributory effect. Firearms caused all the injuries. The probable time between injuries and death was almost immediately, whereas between death and postmortem was 08 to 12 hours. 6. The learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up PWs Muhammad Sikandar, Naeem ud Din 1247/C, Jawad Ali, and Nafees Akhtar 2667/C as unnecessary and PWs Zahoor Ellahi and Muhammad Hanif 1386/C as dead. The prosecution evidence was closed after tendering reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex. PDD and Ex. PEE). 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 any 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 deposition: - "I am innocent. Neither I nor any other co-accused is involved in this alleged occurrence in any manner. None of the eye witness was present at the alleged time and place of occurrence. None of the cited eye witnesses have seen the occurrence and at a much belated stage with much delay they got information regarding death of deceased persons and thereafter they came in the picture. This case was got registered after much delay and after joining hands with the police with concocted, fabricated and false version against the real facts. Deceased Shafaat was ex-police employee and for this reason as well police joined hands with the complainant party for getting this case registered at a belated stage but with ante time proceedings and against the real facts. As actual assailants could not be seen and identified by any person hence, for causing blackmailing and harassment to me and other co-accused, we were roped in this case for fetching my property and remaining co-accused have been falsely roped in this case for their relationship with me and for causing blackmailing to them also. The other co- accused have also been roped in this case for keeping them refrain from making protest over false registration of case against me and also against them. There was no dispute of any land between me and Shafaat Hussain deceased and no threats have ever been issued by me to deceased Shafaat Husain and fake motive has been introduced by the complainant party. All the PWs are close relatives of complainant, therefore, they have deposed falsely against me and other co-accused persons." 8. After evaluating the evidence available on record in light of arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction and sentence in the above terms. 9. We have given our anxious and most thoughtful consideration to both sides' rival submissions. We have minutely gone through the evidence on record. 10. In the instant case, the incident occurred at 07:15 p.m. on 23.06.2014 at Udhowal road near "water Tainki" situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Civil Line, District Gujrat, which is at a distance of 11/2-kilometers from the place of occurrence. Muhammad Arshad (PW-1)-the

---

## Page 5

complainant, brother-in-law and maternal cousin (Mamu Zaad) of Shafaat (the deceased) and maternal uncle of Ijaz (the deceased) reported the incident through oral complaint (Ex. PA) to Shahid Husnain, S.I. (PW15) at 08:00 p.m. at the place of occurrence, i.e. Uddowal Khurd, who reached the place of occurrence upon receiving information of the incident and he (PW-15) incorporated police proceedings (Ex.PA/2) and referred the same through Naeem-ud-Din 1239/C (given up PW) to the police station, based on which, formal F.I.R. (Exh. PD) was chalked out on the same day at 08:20 p.m. by Muhammad Asghar S.I (PW-7). Admittedly, both the deceased are father and son. Muhammad Arshad (PW-1), the complainant, took forty-five minutes to report the incident to the police. During the examination-in-chief, Muhammad Arshad (PW-1), the complainant deposed that:- "At the spot on the same day, I made statement to Thanidar and I signed the same in English which is Ex. PA. Similar statements were made by Muhammad Ilyas (PW-2) and Muhammad Afzal (PW-4). The prosecution story is silent about why Muhammad Arshad (PW-1), the complainant, Muhammad Ilyas (PW-2), and Muhammad Afzal (PW-4) had not reported the incident to the police and what they were doing on the spot for 45 minutes, whereas the prosecution's case is that both Shafaat (the deceased) and Ijaz (the deceased) sustained injuries and scummed on the spot immediately. It indicates that they were not present at the spot. The complainant lodged the first information report 45 minutes after the alleged incident, whereas the police station was 1-1/2 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report have been highlighted. Delays in lodging the First Information report often result in embellishment and exaggeration, a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of introducing a colored version of the incident, or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, but also creeps in, casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, the delay in lodging the report must be satisfactorily explained. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place at 07:15 p.m., and the matter was reported to police at 08:00 p.m. at the place of occurrence. Whereas, in the inquest report of Muhammad Shafaat-the deceased (Ex.PS/A), in column No.3 regarding receiving information of death and time, only the date, i.e., 23.06.2014, has been mentioned, and time has not been given. Shahid Husnain S.I (PW-15)-the investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that Fard Biyan (Ex. PA) does not bear the signatures of a medical officer. Even on the last page of inquest reports (Ex.PS/A & Ex.PS/B), the columns of signatures and names of respectable persons in the vicinity are not mentioned. Shahid Husnain S.I. (PW-15)-the investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that he had not mentioned the names and respectable of the vicinity, nor has he mentioned the same on the last pages of inquest reports. The delay in conducting the postmortem examination from the time of the commission of the offence renders the whole of the prosecution story doubtful. Shahid Husnain S.I. (PW-15)-the investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that I have not shown the time in column No. 3 of inquest report Ex.P-S/B. It is correct that I had not obtained the signatures of respectables of the area at the bottom of inquest reports of Muhammad Shafaat Ex.P-S/A and Muhammad Ijaz Ex.P-S/B." Shahid Husnain (PW-15)-the investigating officer deposed that after recording the oral statement of Muhammad Arshad (PW-1)-the complainant, he transmitted the same to the police station for registration of formal FIR through Naeem Ud Din 1239/C (given up PW). After that, he (PW-15) inspected the dead bodies and drafted inquest reports (Ex.PS/A and Ex.PS/B) of Muhammad Shafaat and Muhammad Ijaz, respectively, applications for postmortem examination (Ex. PT and Ex. PU) of Muhammad Shafaat (deceased) and Muhammad Ijaz (Ex. PU); he also drafted injury statement (Ex. PV and Ex. PX) of Muhammad Shafaat and Muhammad Ijaz respectively and

---

## Page 6

handed over the dead body of Muhammad Shafaat to Ashiq Ali 3629/C (PW-8) and dead body of Muhammad Ijaz to Mudassar Iqbal 147/C (PW-10) for postmortem examination. Ashiq Ali 3629/C (PW-8) deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 23.06.2014, the dead body of Shafaat Hussain, along with police papers, was entrusted to him for the postmortem examination, and he escorted the dead body to ABS Hospital, Gujrat for postmortem examination. He (PW-8) admitted during cross-examination that I.O. had not recorded his statement about the entrustment of a dead body to him for the postmortem examination of deceased Shafaat Hussain on 23.06.2014. In similar words, Mudassar Iqbal 1473/C (PW-10) deposed. Mudassar Iqbal 1473/C (PW-10) also admitted during cross-examination that I.O had not recorded his statement about the entrustment of the dead body to him for the postmortem examination of deceased Ijaz Ahmad on 23.06.2014. Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13) deposed in his examination in chief that: - "According to police paper the death occurred at 7:15 pm, on 23.06.2014. Dead body was received in dead house at 10:00 pm, on 23.06.2014. I received complete documents from police at 3:30 am, on 24.06.2014. I conducted autopsy at 4:00 am, on 24.06.2014." In similar lines, Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13) deposed about the receiving of the dead body of Muhammad Ijaz (the deceased) on 23.06.2014 during examination-in-chief. Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13) further deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "Carbon copy of post mortem report is Ex.P-Q and its diagrams are Ex.P-Q/1 and Ex.P-Q/2 which are in my hand and signed by me." He (PW-10) also deposed during examination-in-chief that, "Carbon copy of post mortem report is Ex.P-R and its diagrams are Ex.P-R/1 and Ex.P-R/2 which are in my hand and signed by me." It is an admitted fact that Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13), who conducted postmortem reports on the dead bodies of Muhammad Shafaat and Muhammad Ijaz (the deceased), has not signed any document except postmortem reports (Ex. PQ and Ex. PR). Although it is the prosecution case that the incident took place at 07:15 p.m. on 23.06.2014, the matter was reported to the police at the spot at 08:00 p.m. on 23.06.2014. However, during cross-examination, Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13) admitted that he only signed postmortem reports (Ex. PQ and Ex. PR). If police documents, i.e., Fard Biyan (Ex. PA), FIR (Ex. PD), injury statements, inquest reports, and applications for conducting postmortem reports were handed over to the doctor before the postmortem of the dead bodies, the same should have been signed by the medical officer. Even Dr. Yasir Ali (PW-13) was also unable to mention in the postmortem reports (Ex. PQ and Ex. PR) that injuries were ante mortem in nature; during cross- examination, he admitted that he had not mentioned in the postmortem reports that injuries were ante-mortem or post-mortem. He (PW-13) also admitted during the cross-examination that: - "It is correct that in the post mortem report of deceased Shafaat Hussain Ex.P-Q, the column as to age of deceased is blank. It is correct that the column as to CNIC and relationship with deceased is also blank. It is correct that I have not specified under the description of injuries that the same were fire arm injuries. Volunteer states that I have specified under my opinion that the nature of injuries was fire arm injuries. It is correct that under the opinion given in the post mortem report the nature of injuries was not shown as fire arm injuries., It is correct that I have not specified the words "exit and entry wounds" under the description of injuries. Volunteer states that I have used the word inverted and everted margins. It is incorrect to suggest that the reason for non-mentioning of nature of injuries as to exit or entry wound is that I was not sure that the injuries were either caused by fire arm or not. It is correct that every injury of every nature has margins of different nature. It is correct that I have not specified the number on injuries in pictorial diagrams. It is correct that I have not specified in my opinion that the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem. It is correct that I had seen the dead body in mortuary for the first time at the time of conducting post mortem examination. It is correct that I had mentioned the time of receipt of dead body in the post mortem report as 10:00 pm when

---

## Page 7

police told me at the time of post mortem examination. It is correct that in the post mortem report of deceased Ijaz Ex.P-R, the column as to CNIC and relationship with deceased is blank. It is correct that I have not specified under the description of injuries that the same were firearm injuries. Volunteer states that I have specified under my opinion that the nature of injuries was fire arm injuries. It is correct that under the opinion given in the post mortem report the nature of injuries was not shown as fire arm injuries. It is correct that I have not specified the words "Exit and entry wounds" under the description of injuries. Volunteer states that I have used the word inverted and everted margins. It is correct that I have not specified the number on injuries in pictorial diagrams. It is correct that I have not specified in my opinion that the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem. It is correct that I had seen the dead body in mortuary for the first time at the time of conducting post mortem examination. It is correct that I had mentioned the time of receipt of dead body in the post mortem report as 10:00 pm when police told me at the time of post mortem examination." Muhammad Ilyas (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: - "I don't know when postmortem examination over dead bodies of the deceased of this case was performed." Muhammad Arif (PW-12), the identifier of the dead bodies, deposed during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that my statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. as to the identification of the dead body was not recorded by the I.O." Shahid Husnain S.I. (PW-15)-the investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that: - "It is correct that carbon copy of fard biyan available on the police file does not bear the proceedings of duty officer. It is correct that fard biyan Ex.P-A does not bear the signatures of Medical Officer. It is correct that I have not specified the registration number and model of motorcycle in the use of eye witnesses in the whole record. I do not remember whether I had dispatched the copy of FIR to the Medical Officer at the time of post mortem or not. It is correct that in the case diaries of record of this case I have not mentioned that the eye witnesses were present at the place of occurrence when I got visited draftsman to the place of occurrence. Volunteers states that it is specified in the record that complainant was…

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
• Browse Pakistani court decisions from the year 2023
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant