Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Farooq HaiderShahid Azeem
2025 Y L R 2049 [Lahore] Before Farooq Haider and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda---Appellant Versus The State---Respondent Criminal Appeals Nos. 27397-J, 27395 and Murder Reference No. 86 of 2022, decided on 15th May, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two hours and fifty minutes in lodging the FIR------Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place at about 01.15 pm on 09.03.2020---Distance between place of occurrence and police station was just 3.5 km, however matter was reported by complainant through oral statement to police at the place of occurrence at 03.50 pm on 09.03.2020---First Information Report was recorded in the light of said statement at 04.05 pm at police station---Said facts showed that the said distance was covered within just 15-minutes---As per application, deceased was succumbed to the injuries at the spot and distance from the place of occurrence to the police station was coverable within 15-minutes, however, matter was not reported immediately to the police within reasonable time rather police come at the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the complainant for registration of the case at 03.50 pm and thereafter FIR was registered at 04.05 pm---Police Officials clearly stated before the Court that they reached at the place of occurrence at about 02.30 pm and statement of complainant for registration of case was recorded at 02.30 pm rather at 03.50 pm---Any explanation in that regard was not available on the record, therefore, matter had not been promptly reported to the police rather with delay and any plausible reason to explain said delay was neither available in fard-e-biyan for registration of the case nor otherwise had been brought on record---Hence, case had been registered with undue and unexplained delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven hours and thirty minutes in conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per post-mortem examination report, dead body was received at dead-house at 8.40 p.m., autopsy was conducted at 8.45 p.m. on 09.03.2020, so post mortem was conducted after about 07 hours and 30 minutes of the occurrence which statedly took place at 1.15 p.m.---So post mortem examination was conducted with delay and reason for the same was that complete documents from police for post mortem examination were received at 8.30 p.m. on 09.03.2020---Meaning thereby that documents for post mortem examination were prepared with delay and time was consumed for preparing said documents---Said state of affair further reflected that none of the eye-witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence and time was consumed for inducing, procuring and engaging witnesses as well as for tailoring story for the prosecution after consultation and deliberation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report---Scope---First Information Report (crime report) is the corner stone and foundational element of the case of prosecution and if same has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall. Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068; Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 16; Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 2021 SCMR 542 and Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of ---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case comprised of statement of complainant/eye-witness and other eye-witness---Occurrence in the case took place in the area of C-(Chiniot) whereas complainant was not resident of said vicinity rather he was resident of other district, J-(Jhang)---Though eye-witness was the resident of same village of occurrence but as per site-plan of the place of occurrence, he was neither having any residence nor any shop/business place at adjacent or around the place of occurrence, therefore, both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they were bound to bring on record and prove valid, cogent and acceptable reason to show/establish their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased categorically stated that time between injury and death was 30 to 60 minutes---Both injuries were on non-vital part, death occurred due to excessive hemorrhage and had the deceased been given proper medical aid timely in between 30 minutes, there would have been chance of his survival---As per case of prosecution accused persons had already left the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, then if said witnesses including complainant (who was real brother of the deceased) were present at the time and place of occurrence, then why they (complainant and other cited eye-witnesses) did not manage deceased, why they did not try to shift him for providing him medical aid and why let victim remained lying in injured condition from 30 to 60 minutes, resulting into oozing of his blood and causing his death due to hemorrhage i.e. blood loss---Moreover, if complainant being brother of deceased attended his brother after the occurrence and his clothes were stained with blood then why he did not produce his said clothes to the Investigating officer or in Court---Both cited eye-witnesses could not bring any material to establish convincing and acceptable reason to show their presence at the time and scene/place of occurrence---So much so, number, colour, make and model of motorcycle allegedly used by accused persons in the occurrence was not mentioned in application for registration of case---In such scenario, evidence of both the cited witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was "suspect" evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Nadeem alias Kala v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 153; Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan and others 2020 SCMR 319; Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652; Mst. Mir and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 1850 and Sarfraz and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Dishonest improvement made by witness---Scope---Dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, cannot be relied upon. Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 and Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810 rel. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence; it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury, but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury. Sajjan Solangi v. The State 2019 SCMR 872 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties--- Inconsequential ---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per record pistol was recovered from the appellant and three empties were recovered from the spot---As per report of Firearm & Toolmarks Examination Report of Forensic Science Agency, identification of three empty cartridges as having been fired from said pistol---Inquest report of the deceased was prepared at the place of occurrence and availability of any empty shells was not mentioned in column No.22 & 33 of the inquest report which made availability of empty shells at the place of occurrence as doubtful---As per case of prosecution, pistol along with three live bullets were secured through sealed parcel, however, as per report of Forensic Science Agency, parcel received in said Agency though contained .30 bore pistol along with test fires with magazine but availability of three live bullets in the said parcel was not mentioned in the report---Meaning thereby that parcel which was having pistol and three live bullets was not sent to the Forensic Science Agency for comparison/ examination rather parcel received over there was simply having pistol and test fires in it, therefore, safe custody of said parcel of the pistol and bullets had been compromised and not established which ultimately made report of Forensic Science Agency as inconclusive, inconsequential and of no helpful to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mst. Rukhshana Begum and others v. Sajjad and others 2017 SCMR 596 rel. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive behind occurrence mentioned in application for registration of the case was that on 08.03.2020 in the house of sister of complainant which was situated in City, an altercation took place/hot words exchanged between deceased and appellant and due to said grudge, accused persons by way of making firing with pistol had committed murder---However, said sister who was star witness in that regard was not produced by the prosecution during trial of the case---Complainant was not present at the time of said quarrel and therefore, not the witness of the said occurrence constituting motive---Similarly, eye-witness was also not present at the time of motive incident and he had not witnessed the same---Therefore, any evidence to establish/ prove motive had not been produced by the prosecution and motive remained unproved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Warrant of proclamation, issuance of---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per case of the prosecution, warrant for arrest of appellant was issued and his proclamation was also issued yet suffice it to say that perusal of warrant of the arrest revealed that as per contents of said warrant neither any Police Official nor any other public servant/person was asked through said warrant to arrest the appellant rather said column was blank---Similarly, perusal of proclamation also reflected that it had not been mentioned therein that under which period/how many days and on which date, the appellant had to surrender rather said columns were blank---Therefore, warrant of arrest and proclamation were defective---Even otherwise, abscondence was not the substantive piece of evidence, it could neither be viewed as proof for the crime nor could cure defects of the case of prosecution---In this case, when ocular account had been discarded then absconsion was of no help to the case of prosecution at all---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Wajeeh-ul-Hassan v. The State 2019 SCMR 1994 and Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo v. The State 2022 SCMR 1148 rel. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution would be sufficient for acquittal. Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 rel. (l) Appeal against acquittal--- ----Double presumption of innocence---Scope---After acquittal, accused person attains double presumption of innocence and Courts are always slow to disturb the same. Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others 2009 SCMR 803 and Muhammad Shafi alias Khddoo v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1045 rel. Shahid Azeem for Appellant. Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Mansab, S.I. for the State. Malik Azhar Abbas Waseer, with Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th May, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J.---This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.27397-J/2022 filed through jail authorities by Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda (appellant) against his "conviction and sentence", Murder Reference No.86/2022 sent by trial court under Section: 374 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 27395/2022 filed by Mubashar Hussain (complainant) against the acquittal of Muzzamil Raza, as all the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 24.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot/trial court. 2. Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda (appellant) along with his co-accused person namely Muzamil Raza was tried in case arising out of FIR No.107, dated 09.03.2020, registered under Sections 302, 34 P.P.C at Police Station: Chenab Nagar, District Chiniot and after conclusion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2022, while acquitting co-accused Muzamil Raza has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Under Section 302 (b) P.P.C: 'Death' as ta'zir for committing Qatl-e-amd of Mozaffar Hussain with payment of compensation Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased and in default thereof to further suffer S.I. for six months. 3. Primarily, Mubashir Hussain (complainant/PW-6) set the machinery of law into motion by recording oral statement (Ex.PH) regarding commission of murder of his brother namely Muzaffar Hussain to Arif Ali Inspector (PW-12) while mentioning therein that he is resident of H.No.314, Mohallah Muhammadi, Tehsil and District Jhang and has set up a shop of Keryana (in his Mohallah whereas his brother Muzaffar Hussain aged about 43-years was residing in Chhani Khichian, Chenab Nagar and he has also established a Keryana shop there; on 09.03.2020, Mubashar Hussain (complainant/PW-06) came to Chhani Khichian to see his brother Muzaffar Hussain, who was not present at his shop; inmates of the house told that he had gone to Chenab Nagar for fetching keryana/grocery items/articles; when after waiting a long, brother of the complainant did not return, then complainant (PW-6) along with Altaf Hussain (PW-7) and Jabar (given up PW) went for searching him; when they reached near Imam Bargha outside village, they saw that Muzaffar Hussain was coming on motorcycle Honda 70/CC bearing No.9580/FDM; at about 1.15 PM, Adnan alias Chanda and Muzamil came on motorcycle Honda CD 70 CC from back side, which was driven by Muzamil whereas Adnan (appellant) carrying/holding pistol .30 bore in his hand was pillion rider/sitting on rear seat, they forcibly stopped Muzaffar Hussain (brother of the complainant), as soon as brother of the complainant alighted from his motorcycle, Muzamil raised 'lalkara' to Adnan alias Chanda stating that he be taught a lesson because he (Muzaffar Hussain) had insulted and in their view, Adnan alias Chanda fired successive shots upon brother of the complainant which hit him on right thigh and near right hip/haunch who fell down in injured condition; they (complainant and PWs) ran towards their brother and accused persons escaped towards Qasba Chenab Nagar by brandishing pistol; they (complainant and PWs) took care of Muzaffar Hussain who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence was alleged that on 08.03.2020, at the house of sister of the complainant situated in Chiniot City, hot words were exchanged between Muzaffar Hussain and accused Adnan alias Chanda (appellant) and due to that grudge, accused persons committed murder of his brother. 4. After completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellant; he was formally charge sheeted but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was summoned; after recording of prosecution evidence, he was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. but he refuted the allegations levelled against him; he neither opted to produce defence evidence nor opted to appear as his own witness under Section: 340(2) Cr.P.C. Trial Court after conclusion of trial while acquitting the co-accused has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through impugned judgment dated: 24.03.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' of the case; ocular account is neither trustworthy nor corroborated by any other independent evidence; prosecution has remained unable to prove its case. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against the appellant through cogent and reliable evidence and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at about 1.15 p.m. on 09.03.2020, distance between place of occurrence and Police Station was just 3.5 KM as per column No.4 of the FIR (Exh.PE), however matter was reported by Mobashar Hussain (complainant/PW-6) through oral statement (Exh.PH) to Arif Ali Inspector (PW-12) at the place of occurrence at 3.50 p.m. on 09.03.2020 and FIR (Exh.PE) was recorded in the light of said statement at 04:05 p.m. at the Police Station, so when after recording 'Fard Biyan' (Exh.PH) at 3.50 p.m., it was sent to Police Station where at 4.05 p.m., FIR was recorded, then it means that said distance was coverable within just 15 minutes. It is relevant to mention here that as per application (Exh.PH), Muzaffar Hussain (deceased of the case) succumbed to the injuries at the spot and distance from the said place of occurrence to the Police Station was coverable within 15 minutes (as mentioned above), however, matter was not reported immediately to the police within reasonable time rather Arif Ali Inspector (PW-12) came at the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the complainant for registration of the case at 3:50 p.m. and thereafter FIR was registered at 4.05 p.m. as detailed above; furthermore, Arif Ali Inspector (PW-12) and Jafar Ali 795/C (PW-4) clearly stated before the Court that they reached at the place of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. and relevant portions of their statements are as under:- "I reached place of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m." "I along with Arif Ali Inspector reached at the place of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. but statement of complainant for registration of case was not recorded at 2.30 p.m. rather at 3.50 p.m. and any explanation in this regard is not available on the record; therefore, matter has not been promptly reported to the police rather with delay and any plausible reason to explain said delay is neither available in statement/Fard Biyan for registration of the case (Exh.PH) nor otherwise has been brought on record, hence, case has been registered with undue and unexplained delay. As per Post-Mortem Examination Report (Exh.PM), dead body was received at dead-house at 8.40 p.m., autopsy was conducted at 8.45 p.m. on 09.03.2020, so post mortem was conducted after about 07 hours and 30 minutes of the occurrence which statedly took place at 1.15 p.m., so post mortem examination was also conducted with delay and reason for the same is that complete documents from police for post mortem examination were received at 8.30 p.m. on 09.03.2020, meaning thereby, that documents for post mortem examination were prepared with delay, and time was consumed for preparing said documents which state of affair further reflects that none of the eye-witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence and time was consumed for inducing, procuring and engaging witnesses as well as for tailoring story for the prosecution after consultation and deliberation which situation further leads to the conclusion that case was even not registered at the stated time rather it was registered with delay and ante-time has been shown in the record, in this regard. So, regarding the occurrence, case was not registered promptly rather with unexplained delay. By now it is well settled that First Information Report (Crime report) is the corner stone and foundational element of the case of prosecution and if same has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State" (2019 SCMR 1068), Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 16) and "Ghulam Mustafa v. The State" (2021 SCMR 542). It is well settled that when there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version and same is fatal for the case of prosecution. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others" (PLD 2019 SC 64); relevant portion from paragraph No.29 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "There is no cavil to the proposition, however, it is to be noted that in absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always considered the delay in lodging of FIR to be fatal and castes a suspicion on the prosecution story, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. It has been held by this Court that a FIR is always treated as a cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those involved in a crime; thus, it has a significant role to play. If there is any delay in lodging of a FIR and commencement of investigation, it gives rise to a doubt, which, of course, cannot be extended to anyone else except to the accused " 9. Ocular account in this case comprises of statement of Mubashar Hussain (complainant/eye-witness/PW-6), Altaf Hussain (cited eye-witness/PW-7) and Jaber Ali (cited eye-witness) who has been given up being unnecessary. Occurrence in this case took place in the area of Chhani Khichian which falls within the area of Police Station Chenab Nagar, District Chiniot whereas Mubashar Hussain (complainant/PW-6) was not resident of said vicinity rather he was resident of Mohallah Mohammadi, Jhang. Though Altaf Hussain (PW-7) is the resident of village Chhani Khichian but as per site-plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PG/1), he was having neither any residence nor any shop/business place at, adjacent or around the place of occurrence, therefore, both the aforementioned witnesses are chance witnesses and they were bound to bring on record and prove valid, cogent and acceptable reason to show/establish their presence at the time and place of occurrence. As per case of prosecution, Muzaffar Hussain (now deceased of the case) had gone to Chenab Nagar for bringing grocery items/articles who did not come back…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.