Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3384
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable The Chief Justice), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3384. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, 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: 11-05-2026 TAGLINE: When the complainant during her statement before the court deposed that she alongwith other private cited witnesses took the deceased in injured condition to the hospital for medical examination, where he succumbed to the injuries, however, she has been negated by the doctor, who categorically stated that police brought the deceased in injured condition to the hospital, then this major contradiction reduced the testimonial value of the deposition of the complainant; and when genesis to the occurrence are not discernable from the record, then this is also fatal for the case of the prosecution in the circumstances of the case. CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 25629/21 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 (Muhammad Younas versus The State, etc.)
Crl. Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 (Roshnai Bibi versus The State, etc.)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 11.05.2026. Appellant by: M/s Arshad Ali Mahar and Chaudhary Nazir Hussain, Advocates.
State by: Ms. Maida Sobia , Deputy Prosecutor General , along with Ashfaq, S.I. Complainant by: In person. -------------- Aalia Neelu m, C .J:- Muhammad Younas son of Charagh, Caste Waghra, resident of Sultan Nagar, Tehsil Depalpur District Okara , the appellant, was involved in case F.I.R. No. 468 of 2014, dated 02.08.2014, registered under Sections 302, 34 PPC, at Police Station , Basirpur, and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Depalpur. The trial court seized with the matt er in terms of the judgment dated 31.03.2021 and convicted the appellant under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with the direction to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased , Muhammad Siddique , and in case of default in payment thereof, he would further undergo six months of S.I. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Muhammad Younas, the appellant, has assailed his conviction by filing Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021. Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 2 It is pertinent to note that the complainant also fi led Crl. Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant. The matters arising from the same trial court judgment are being disposed of in a consolidated judgment. 3. According to the prosecution's version as set o ut in the crime report (Ex.PD) by Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, that her husband, Haji Muhammad Siddique, had four Kanals of agricultural land in Sultan Nagar. On August 1, 2014, in the afternoon (Dopeher -wela), she and her husband were there in co nnection with the cultivation of the land when Muhammad Younis, the appellant, suddenly came and challenged Chirag (since dead) to let Haji Muhammad Siddique taste the pleasure of cultivating the land and to kill him. On this, Muhammad Younis, the appellan t, inflicted “dang” blows on the different parts of the body of Haji Muhammad Siddique. Chirag (since dead) hit Haji Muhammad Siddique on the right palm with a kassi. Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, fell on her husband, and then Chirag (since dead) hit her on the right hand with a kassi. Then Muhammad Younis, the appellant, hit Roshnai Bibi (PW - 1), the complainant, several times with a “dang”, hitting different parts of her body. Upon hearing the noise and commotion, Muhammad Waris (given up being unnecessary) and Muhammad Aslam (PW -2), along with other villagers, arrived at the spot, witnessed the incident, and intervened to free her from the accused. The accused fled the crime scene with offensive weapons. Haji Muhammad Siddique was brought to the ho spital in Basirpur in a severely injured condition. He succumbed to his injuries at the hospital at 11 pm. The motive for the incident was that Muhammad Siddique owned four kanals of land in the village, which the accused sought to seize by force. Due to this grudge, after consulting with each other, the accused attacked and killed Muhammad Siddique and assaulted the complainant. 4. After the incident, Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, went to the police station on 02.08.2014 at 12.15 a.m. to repor t the incident. On the written application (Ex.PA) of Roshnai Bibi, the complainant (PW -1), for registration of Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 3 F.I.R., after completion of police karwai, a formal F.I.R. (Exh. PD) was chalked out by Ghulam Sabir, A.S.I (PW-4). 5. Muhammad Iqbal, S.I (PW -9), investigated the case, 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 17.05.2016, the trial court formally charged the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty a nd claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced nine (09) witnesses. 6. After the closure of pros ecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein neither did he opt to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. , nor did he produce defence evidence. In response to a particular question of why this case was against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, the appellant made the following depositions: - “The PWs are closely relate d inter -se. The PWs are inimical to me and my co -accused Charagh (my father since dead). The PWs have deposed falsely by suppressing the real facts. The real facts are that on the day and time of occurrence I was present in my land and Muhammad Rafique com plainant of cross version had also reached there. There was a dispute of land. After some time, Muhammad Siddique (deceased) along with Ramzan, Muhammad Akram his son, Umar his grandson along with two unknown persons armed with Sota and “Kassi” came there while raising lalkara. Muhammad Siddique (deceased) raised lalkara that I be taught a lesson for the demand of land and for quarrel with him. Akram accused of cross version caused Sota blow at me which hit on the right side of my head. I tried to resist up on which Siddique and Akram caught hold me. On lalkara of Muhammad Akram, Umar accused caused Sota blow on my left side of head, again Umar accused of cross version injured me. Ramzan accused caused Sota blow which landed on my left arm which was fractured , second blow of Ramzan accused of cross version hit on my right arm. I after receiving injuries fell on the ground. Muhammad Siddique (deceased) also received injuries at the hands of his own companions. I received injuries firstly and was not in a positi on to cause injury to Siddique. Siddique Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 4 deceased and I myself were medically examined. Complainant concocted a false story and dishonestly by suppressing my injuries involved me in this case. Complainant with her co -accused mentioned in cross version was aggressors. I am innocent.” 7. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the 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 in the afore-stated terms. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 9. In the present case, the occurrence took place on 01 .08.2014 in the afternoon (دوپہر Dopeher-wela). The matter was reported at the police station by Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, to Ghulam Sabir, ASI (PW -4), at 12:15 a.m. on 02.08.2014 through a written application (Ex.PA), and FIR (Ex.PD) was registered at the same time and date . The distance between the police station, Basirpur, District Okara, and the place of occurrence is 3 kilometers. According to the prosecution's version in the FIR (Ex.PD) , Haji Muhammad Siddique was brought to the hospital i n Basirpur in a severely injured condition. He succumbed to his injuries at the hospital at 11 p.m. on 01.08.2014. The incident was reported by Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, at the police station after the demise of Haji Muhammad Siddique, which occurred in the hospital at Basirpur at 11 p.m. Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, deposed during examination-in-chief that: “PWs took me and my husband to the hospital, Haji Muhammad Siddique was taken to RHC Basir Pur where he was medically examined by the doctor and was admitted in the hospital. I was taken to THQ Hospital, Depalpur where doctor medically examined me.” Muhammad Aslam (PW -2), son of Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, and Haji Muhammad Siddique, deceased, deposed during examination-in-chief that: “I and Waris PW took Haji Muhammad Saddique to RHC Basir Pur where he was medically examined Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 5 and after Isha prayer Haji Muhammad Siddiqu e succumbed to the injuries on the same day.” Muhammad Aslam (PW -2) stated that he, along with Muhammad Wa ris, took Haji Muhammad Siddique to RHC Basirpur, where he was medically examined. Contrary to the deposition of Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant and Muhammad Aslam (PW -2), Muhammad Abbas 1753/C (PW -6) deposed during examination-in-chief as under: “Stated that on 01.08.2014 I was posted at Police Station Basirpur. On the same day I produced injured Muhammad Younas before Medical Officer at RHC, Basirpur alongwith Pol ice papers and on the same day I also produced Muhammad Siddique injured alongwith Pol ice papers before Medical Officer at RHC Basirpur for medical examination. I also got medically examined Mst. Roshnai Bibi from THQ Hospital, Depalpur on the same day i.e. 01.08.2014 at about 6:15 p.m. I produced injured alongwith Police papers before WMO, THQ hospital, Depalpur.” During cross -examination, Muhammad Abbas 1753/C (PW-6) deposed that: “On 01.08.2014 at about 4:00 p.m. Muhammad Siddique injured was got medically examined by me and Mst. Roshnai Bibi was got medically examined by me from the doctor at 6:00 p.m. from Depalpur. I do not remember as to whether the medical examination of Siddique, Roshnai and Younas injured (accused) was got conducted at different times. After the medical examination Siddique, Roshnai Bibi injured and Younas inju red (accused) were left over by me and that I alongwith the MLRs went to the Poli ce Station.” Doctor Muhammad Zahid (PW -5) deposed during examination -in-chief as follows:- “Stated that on 01.08.2014 I was posted at RHC Basirpur, Tehsil Depalpur. On the same day, I examined Muhammad Siddique s/o Nizam, aged about 65 years, r/o Sultan Nagar, Police Station Basirpur. The injured was received at about 4:30 p.m. on 01.08.2014. The injured was brought by Abbas 1753/C.” Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 6 During cross -examination, Doctor Muhamma d Zahid (PW-5) deposed that: “The injured was accompanying Abbas 1753/C when he came to the hospital for his medical examination.” Doctor Yasmin Manzoor (PW-10) deposed during examination-in-chief as under: “Stated that on 01.08.2014 I was posted at TH Q hospital, Depalpur. On the same day, I medically examined Mst. Roshnai Bibi w/o Muhammad Siddique, aged about 80 years, r/o Sultan Nagar, Basirpur. The injured was received at about 6:15 p.m. on 01.08.2014. The injured was br ought by Muhammad Abbas 1753/C.” During the prosecution's testimony, Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, and Muhammad Aslam (PW-2) denied the defence's suggestions that Haji Muhammad Siddique, the deceased, and Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, were shifted by the police to the hospital for medical examination. Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination as under: “It is incorrect that Muhammad Siddique deceased while in injured condition was shifted to Hospital by the police. Volunteered that we ours elves shifted the injured to the hospital.------------ It is incorrect that we did not shift Siddique in injured condition in the Hospital. Siddique deceased while in injured condition was not in senses. It is incorrect that Siddique was in senses when he was in the hospital and that he himself stated the hi story of injury to the doctor.” Similarly, Muhammad Aslam (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: “Muhammad Siddique deceased was not medically examined through police.” While the documentary evidence shows that Haji Muhammad Siddique, deceased, and Roshani Bibi (PW -1) were taken to the hospital by Muhammad Abbas, 1753/Constable (PW -6), where they underwent medical examinations through injury statements issued by Nasir Ali 1068/HC (PW -8) in Rapts No. 14 dated Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 7 01.08.2014 (Ex.PE/1 and Ex.PG). Nasir Ali 1068/HC (PW -8) deposed during examination-in-chief as follows:- “Stated that on 01.08.2014 I was posted at Police Station Basirpur as Moharrir. On the same day the then injured Muhammad Siddique appeared at Police Station. I inspected the injured and prepared injury statement of Muhammad Siddique the then injured Exh.PE/1 and entrusted the injured alongwith injury statement to Muhammad Abbas 1753/C. On the same day injured Roshnai Bibi appeared before me and I prepared injury statement Exh.PG and entrusted the injured alongwith injury statement to Muhammad Abbas 1753/C for conducting medical examination.” The testimony of Nasir Ali, 1068/HC (PW -8), reveals that the prosecution witnesses, including the injured witness, deliberately concealed the truth and genuineness of the incident. Humans may lie, but documents would not lie. It is often said that documents speak louder than words. In this regard, case of “SHER MUHAMMAD and others versus MUHAMMAD KHAL ID and others ” (2004 SCMR 826 ) can be advantageously referred and relevant portion from its paragraph No.5 is hereby reproduced as under: - “Both the Courts were one in holding, and rightly so, that oral evidence which was contrary to the documentary evide nce could not be given preference over the said documentary evidence.” (emphasis added)
Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, deposed during cross -examination as under: “The police sta tion Basirpur is at a distance of one kilometer from the RH C Basirpur. I submitted application Exh.PA after the death of Muhammad Siddique deceased. Before the death of Muhammad Siddique and after the MLC of Muhammad Siddique in between that time I have not informed about the occurrence at the police station.” Contrary to the deposition of Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, Muhammad Aslam (PW-2), deposed during cross-examination that: Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 8 “I did not inform the police after the medical examination about the occurrence, however, my mother Roshnai PW had informed about the occurrence at the P.S Basirpur after the medical report of Muhammad Siddique (deceased) while he was injured.” There was an inordinate delay of twelve hours and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR, and, in this way, the possibility of deliberations and consultations cannot be ruled out. The above -stated facts also contradict the prosecution's story and strengthen the defense version that Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, got registered a case against them with false accusations and concealed the g enuine facts. Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, deposed during cross -examination that: “Muhammad Youn is did not receive injuries during the occurrence. It is incorrect that Muhammad Younis accused was medically examined through police i.e Muhammad Abba s 1753/C and that Muhammad Siddique was also got medically examined by Muhammad Abbas 1753/C at the same time.------------------ It is incorrect that Muhammad Younis accused was injured in the fight at the same time when Muhammad Siddique deceased received injuries. It is incorrect that at the time of fight there was no injury on the head of Muhammad Siddique.” Muhammad Aslam (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: “It is incorrect that Muhammad Younis accused was medically examined through police . ------------ It is incorrect that I have dishonestly suppressed the injuries of Muhammad Younis accused which he received during the occurrence. It is incorrect that at the time of medical examination Muhamm ad Siddique himself mentioned the history of fight to the doctor.” Contrary to the deposition of Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, and Muhammad Aslam (PW-2), Muhammad Abbas, 1753/Constable (PW-6), deposed that he produced the injured Muhammad Younas before the medical officer at RHC. Nasir Ali 1068/Constable (PW-8) deposed during cross-examination that: Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 9 “It is correct that on the same day I prepared the injury statement of Younas accused and Younas injured was sent to hospital with Muhammad Abbas 1753/C for the medical examination.” Muhammad Iqbal SI ( PW-9), investigating officer, deposed during cross - examination that: “Muhammad Younas accused was got medically examined by Muhammad Abbas 1753/C on 01.08.2014 from the RHC, Basirpur. There were four injuries mentioned in the MLC of Muhamm ad Younas, inju ry No.1 was on his head and the bone was exposed, second injury was also on the head and third injury was on arm which was found fractured through X -ray. ------------- It was found in the investigation by me that Muhammad Younas accused was injured in the same occurrence in which Muhammad Siddique and Roshnai were injured. I cannot say as to whether Roshnai or Sid dique the then injured approached the Police Station after getting the MLRs for the registration of case. Volunteered that the complainant made ap plication Exh.PA for registration of case at 12:05 a.m. (night). I prepared the unscaled site plan Exh.PH on pointing out the complainant and PWs. I did not omit anything mentioned by the PWs and complainant. I did not add anything in the unscaled site pla n on my part. The complainant and the PWs did not mention while preparing Exh.PH that Younas caused dang blow on the person of Muhammad Siddique which landed on his head. Volunteered that it was told to me that accused Younas armed with dang injured Muhammad Siddique. The complainant and PWs did not mention about the injuries of Muhammad Younas received by him during the occurrence. It is correct that in scaled site plan Exh.PJ the complainant and the PWs also did not mention the injury caused by Younas on the head of Muhammad Siddique and that the injuries of Muhammad Younas received i n this occurrence were also not mentioned.” Muhammad Iqbal SI (PW -9), investigating officer, also deposed during cross - examination that: Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 10 “The occurrence took place on 01.08. 2014 and that the statements of the PWs were recorded by me on 02.08.2014 after registration of the FIR which was registered at 12:15 a.m. (midnight).” Muhammad Iqbal, SI (PW-9), the investigating officer, deposed that Roshnai Bibi (PW-1), the complainant, submitted a written application (Ex.PA) at the Police Station at 12:05 a.m on 02.08.2014, which led to the registration of the FIR at 12:15 a.m. on 02.08.2014. According to Muhammad Iqbal, SI (PW -9), after the FIR (Ex. PD) was registered, he received the police file of the case through Bashir Ahmed 285/C. He then went to the RHC along with Muhammad Abbas, 1753/Constable (PW -6), where the dead body of Muhammad Siddique was present. He inspected it, prepared an injury statement (Ex.PF/3), and the inquest report (Ex.PF/4) regarding the dead body of Muhammad Siddique. On the face of the inquest report (Ex.PF/4), the FIR number, police station, and date of registration were mentioned. The date of registration of the FIR is mentioned as “02.08.2014.” In column No .3 of the inquest report (Ex.PF/4), the time of receiving information of death is 11:00 p.m. on 01.08.2014. In column No.4 of the inquest report (Ex.PF/4), the names of the eyewitnesses, i.e., Muhammad Waris (given up as unnecessary) and Muhammad Aslam (PW -2), are not mentioned, casting a cloud of doubt on their presence. In column No. 24 of the inquest report (Ex.PF/4), the dead body is shown lying on the grassy plot in front of the RHC Building, and this fact is also written in the column of the “brief facts of the case.” Muhammad Iqbal, SI (PW -9), the investigating officer, did not mention in the column of brief circumstances of the case of the Inquest Report (Ex.PF/4) that when he handed over the dead body of Muhammad Siddiq ue to Muhammad Abbas 1753/Constable to escort it to THQ Depalpur for postmortem examination, he had prepared and handed over various documents along with it. Dr. Adal Rasheed (PW-7), who conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Muhammad Siddique, deposed during examination-in-chief that: “The date and time of death was on 01.08.2014 at about 11:00 p.m. On 02.08.2014 at about 4:00 a.m. the dead body was brought in dead house. The documents were received from the Police on 02.08.2014 at about Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 11 11:30 a.m. The autopsy was c onducted on 02.08.2014 at about 12:05 p.m.” Dr. Adal Rasheed (PW-7), also deposed during cross-examination that: “According to post mortem report the time of death of Haji Muhammad Siddique deceased was 11:00 p.m. on 01.08.2014. The dead body was received in the hospital at 4:00 a.m. on 02.08.2014. The Police papers were received by me on 02.08.2014 at about 11:30 a.m. and that the post mortem was conducted by me on the dead body of Muhammad Siddique on 02.08.2014 at 12:05 p.m. --------------- When the dead body was brought in the dead house by the police at that time the relevant police papers for conduct ing the postmortem examination were not produced.” In a criminal case, it was the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's involvement beyond a reasonab le doubt. Considering the above - mentioned facts, I have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution concealed the genuine facts. Doctor Muhammad Zahid (PW -5) admitted during cross - examination that: "Muhammad Siddique the then injured was taken to the Hospital by the Police and that Muhammad Siddique was stable at that time. Muhammad Siddique injured himself narrated the history of injuries that the injuries were inflicted during fight at 2:00 p.m. I minutely checked up the whole body of the then injur ed Muhammad Siddique. During my examination whatever was observed by me in the shape of injuries I mentioned in the MLC Exh.P E without addition or omission." An injury on the left side of the deceas ed Muhammad Si ddique's head was visible, whereas Doctor Muhammad Zahid (PW -5) had not noticed the injury. Dr. Adal Rasheed (PW-7), also deposed during cross-examination that: “Injury No.1 on the person of Muhammad Siddique was visible.------------- Injury No.1 could be caused or could be the result of fall on t he ground on hard surface.” With medical evidence, this court also considered the sequence of the overt acts and the location of the injuries in relation to the accused and found that Crl. Appeal No. 25629 of 2021 & Crl.Rev. No. 29272 of 2021 12 the prosecution witnesses improved their evidence. There are contradictions/improvements in the testimon ies of Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, and Muhammad Aslam (PW -2), regarding the major aspect of the case. The defence brought on the record contradictions/improvements in the testimony of Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the com plainant, and Muhammad Aslam (PW-2). Roshnai Bibi (PW -1), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that: “I had stated in my application Exh.PA that Charagh accused raised lalkara to Younis to caught hold me and Haji Mu hammad Siddique and killed us . Confronted with Exh.PA where name of Roshani is not mentioned. I got record in Exh.PA that Younis accused inflicted dang blow to Haji Muhammad Siddique on his head on left side. Confronted with Exh.PA where it is not so recor ded in this sequence. I had stated in my application Exh.PA that Younis accused repeated second dang blow which hit Haji Muhammad Siddique on his right arm. Confronted with Exh.PA where it is not so recorded. I did not state in Exh.PA that Muhammad Younis caused dang blows on the person of Haji Siddique which landed on the different parts of his body. Confronted with Exh.PA where it is so recorded. -------------I stated in Exh.PA that Younis inflicted dang blow which hit on back of my head. I also stated th at Younis accused again inflicted dang blow which hit on my left knee and left buttock. I also stated that I fell on the ground and that Haji Siddique also fell on the ground after sustaining injuries. Confronted…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.