Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1457
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Justice Abher Gul Khan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1457. 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 Justice Abher Gul Khan) DECISION DATE: 13-02-2026 CASE DETAILS: Jail Appeal 17383/20 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 (Afzaal & 2 others v. The State) and Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 (Maqsood Ahmad v. Zulfiqar Ali & 3 others)
JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 13.02.2026 Appellants by: M/S Nighat Saeed Mughal & Humayun Rashid, Advocates. State by: Ms. Sumara Shafi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor. Complainant by: Mr.Akhtar Saeed Bhatti, Advocate ----------------------------------- ABHER GUL KHAN , J. The appellant s Afzaal, Muhammad Imran and Zulfiqar Ali along with co -accused Sarfraz Ahmad involved in case FIR No. 87/2015 dated 19.03.2015 registered under Sections 302,109,148 & 149 PPC at Police Station Satghara, Okara, were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara. Trial court vide judgment dated 20.02.2020 acquitted the afore-said co -accused; however convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following terms:- (i).Under Section s 302(b)/149 PPC to suffer imprisonment for life as ta‟zir with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased Rukhsana Bibi under Section 544 -A Cr.P.C. and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (ii).Under Section 148 PPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convicts.
Challenging their conviction and sentence the appellant s Afzaal, Muhammad Imran and Zulfiqar Ali filed Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 while the complainant Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4) filed Criminal Revision No. 17382 of 20 20 seeking enhancement of sentence of Afzaal, Muhammad Imran and 2 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 Zulfiqar Ali (respondents No.1 to 3). Both these matters are being decided through this single judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, as delineated in the FIR (Exh.PE/1) lodged by Maqsood Ahmad (PW. 4) is that his real sister, Mst.Rukhsana Bibi, was married to Muhammad Aslam approximately 7/8 years prior to the occurrence in question. From the said wedlock, two daughters were born. Muhammad Aslam subsequently died and thereafter Mst.Rukhsana Bibi continued to reside at her matrimonial home. About 4/5 months after the demise of her husband, the accused namely Zulfiqar and Sarfraz, extended threats to her life and dispossessed her from the house. Consequently, she instituted FIR No.395/2014 under Sections 380, 506-B, 148 & 457 PPC at Police Station Satghara against the said accused. On 19.03.2015, the complainant, accompanied by Mst.Rukhsana Bibi, proceeded to the District Courts, Okara, for the attestation of the inheritance mutation in favour of the deceased in respect of her late husband‟s property. Thereafter, while returning therefrom and upon reaching the vicinity of Ahata Karam Chand on a metaled road, the accused namely Zulfiqar Ali, Afzaal and Imran, each armed with .30 bore pistols, confronted them. Accused Zulfiqar raised Lalkara to commit the murder of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi for not handing over the property of Aslam to them and made a fire shot with his pistol which hit her b elow the right shoulder, whereupon Mst.Rukhsana Bibi ran towards Ahata Karam Chand to save her life but the accused chased her and Afzaal accused fired a s hot which landed on her right buttock while Imran accused fired a shot which hit at her left buttock, due to which she fell down . Thereafter Zulfiqar fired three shots repeatedly which landed on her abdomen. Zulfiqar also fired shots which hit at her right cheek and chin whereas the accused Afzaal fired shot which landed on her left knee joint. Imran accused made fire shot which hit Mst.Rukhsana Bibi on her right upper arm. Afzaal accused fired shot hitting her on left side of abdomen and then Zulfiqar accused made fire shot hitting at her left thigh upon 3 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 which she succumbed to the injuries. Besides that, two unknown accused made aerial firing. Meanwhile PWs Munir Ahmad and Safdar came at the spot and witnessed the incident. Allegedly, the incident occurred at the abetment of co -accused Sarfraz. The motive for the incident was that Muhammad Aslam, husband of the deceased Mst.Rukhsana Bibi, had passed away. The accused, Zulfiqar and others, who were his stepbrothers, sought to take away Muhammad Aslam‟s land f rom Mst.Rukhsana Bibi. When the inheritance mutation was officially sanctioned in favor of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi, the accused committed the murder of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi. 3. After the occurrence, the complainant, Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4) submitted a written applica tion (Exh.PE) before Ihsan -ul- Haq, ASI (PW. 2), on the basis of which the formal FIR (Exh.PE/1) was registered. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Aslam, SI (PW. 12), who on 19.03.2015 visited the scene of the occurrence. At the instan ce of the complainant and other witnesses, he prepared an unscaled site plan (Exh.PK) inspected the dead body, secured blood -stained earth through memo (Exh.PL) and prepared the injury statement (Exh.PC), inquest report (Exh.PB) and application for postmortem examination (Exh.PD). The body of deceased was then handed over to Dost Muhammad 826/C for autopsy at DHQ Hospital, Okara. On 16.04.2015, Muhammad Aslam SI drafted an application (Exh.PM) and submitted it before the Area Magistrate to obtain permission to associate co-accused Sarfraz in the instant case who had already been arrested in FIR No.395/2014. Upon receipt of the requisite permission, Sarfraz was formally arrested, remanded to judicial custody and an interim report was submitted to the extent of his involvement. Non-bailable warrants for the arrest of appellants Zulfiqar, Afzaal, and Imran were subsequently obtained (Exh.PP, Exh. PQ & Exh. PR) and reports regarding the same were submitted (Exh.PP/1, Exh.PQ/1 & Exh.PR/1). Proclamations against the appellants were issued as Exh.PT, 4 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 Exh.PU & Exh.PV, and a report regarding proclaimed offenders was prepared under Section 512 Cr.P.C. The investigation wa s later taken over by Jalil Ahmad, SI (PW.8), who on 27.12.2016, 06.01.2017, and 16.01.2017, arrested the appellants Zulfiqar Ali, Afzaal, and Imran, respectively. On 08.01.2017, appellant Zulfiqar Ali made a disclosure pursuant to which a .30 bore pistol (P.4) along with three live bullets (P.5/1 -3) w as recovered and taken into possession through memo (Exh.PG). During the course of investigation conducted by Jalil Ahma d, SI (PW. 8), it was concluded that appellants Imran and Afzaal were not involved in the alleged offence. Upon completion of all legal formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. To substantiate the charge against the appellants and their co-accused, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Dr.Rehana Rashid (PW.1) conducted the post -mortem examination of the deceased, Mst.Rukhsana Bibi on 19.03.2015 and issued the post -mortem report along with the pictorial diagram (Exhs.PA, Exh.PA/1 & PA/2). The ocular account of the occurrence was fu rnished by the complainant, Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4) and Safdar Ali (PW.10). The investigation of the case was conducted at different stages by Jalil Ahmad SI (PW.8), Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.12) and Zahid Ramzan Inspector (PW.13). The remaining witnesses are of a formal nature. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein each incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence was put to them. They denied the allegati ons in toto, claimed innocence, and asserted their false implication. However, they neither opted to make statements on oath in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor did they produce any evidence in defence. Upon culmination of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as detailed hereinabove, hence the instant criminal appeal and criminal revision. 5 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the present case emanates from an occurrence which took place on 19.03.2015 at about 2:30 p.m. in Chak Mauza Bibi Pur, situated at a distance of approximately nineteen kilometers from Police Station Satg hara. During the said occurrence, Mst.Rukhsana Bibi sustained multiple firearm injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants , namely Afzaal, Muhammad Imran and Zulfiqar Ali, each armed with .30 bore pistols, while she was returning home from the District Courts, Okara, after getting the mutation of inheritance of her deceased husband, Muhammad Aslam, attested. Allegedly, the incident took place at the instigation of co -accused Sarfraz (since acquitted) and that two unknown accused resorted to aerial firing at the spot. The record further unveils that the matter was reported to the police by the complainant, Maqsood Ahmad (PW. 4) through a written application sub mitted to Ihsan -ul-Haq, ASI (PW.2) at Police Station Satg hara at about 4:00 p.m., thereby reflecting a delay of two hours and thirty minutes in the registration of the FIR. Ordinarily, a delay of a couple of hours in a case of murder may not, by itself, be considered fatal. H owever, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, such delay assumes significance and casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution version. It is noteworthy that in the written application (Exh.PE), the complainant specifically mentioned his cell number, however despite the a vailability of telephonic means and notwithstanding the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was nineteen kilometers, the complainant opted to personally visit the police station for lodging the report, leaving behind the dead body of his sister at the place of occurrence in the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely Munir Ahmad ( given up) and Safdar (PW. 10). Although the complainant later asserted during trial that he was having a motorcycle, on which he and the deceased were travelling , to reach the police station, yet neither was the said motorcycle taken 6 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 into possession by the Investigating Officer nor was it produced before him. This omission on the part of the prosecution has resulted in the loss of a material link in establishing the complainant‟s presence and movement immediately after the occurrence. Moreover, while the FIR was registere d on the basis of a written application (Exh.PE), the complainant neither disclosed during investigation nor at trial the identity of the scribe of the said application. Consequently, the authorship, the place of drafting, and the exact time at which it wa s prepared remained shrouded in mystery throughout the proceedings. It is further observed that the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted approximately nine hours after the occurrence. Such delay, in the absence of any plausible explanation, adversely reflects upon the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the timing of the FIR and the particulars of the occurrence recorded therein. A careful scrutiny of the record does not reveal any justification for the belated dispatch of police p apers to the medical officer for autopsy. In the circumstances, it appears that the intervening period was utilized to deliberate upon , to tailor the prosecution story and to procure the attendance of witnesses. While holding so, I am enlightened by the ob servation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in the case reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa (2017 SCMR 54) which is as under:- “Post-mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Shahbaz deceased had been conducted after nine hours of the incident which again was a factor pointing towards a possibility that the time had been consumed by the local police and complainant party in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and cooking up a story for the prosecution.”
Considering the cumulative effect of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is compelled to conclude that the FIR does not seem to represent a spontaneous narration of the incident. Instead, it appears to be a document prepared after careful deliberation, containing possible embellishments or fabrications. In light of this, the Court is obliged to scrutinize the prosecution‟s 7 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 evidence with the highest degree of care, caution, and judicial restraint, while adhering to the establis hed principles guiding the evaluation of evidence in criminal law. 7. In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, it is observed that the ocular account of the occurrence was furnished at trial by the complainant, Maqsood Ahmad (PW. 4), and Safdar Ali (PW.10), who are admittedly related to the deceased, being her real brother and maternal uncle, respectively. As regards Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4), it has surfaced during cross -examination that he, along with the other private witnesses, is a permanent res ident of Thatha Saleemka, Dakhli Mauza Mardani, situated at a distance of about 15/16 kilometers from the place of occurrence. He candidly admitted that neither he nor the other witnesses owned any agricultural land, business premises, or residence in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. It has further been noticed that while deposing before the learned trial Court, the complainant made several material improvements over his earlier version as contained in the written application (Exh.PE). These deviati ons were promptly confronted to him by the learned defence counsel. In his deposition, he asserted, inter alia that accused Zulfiqar fired a shot from a .30 bore pistol which hit the right cheek of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi; accused Imran fired a shot which struck her on the chest near the right arm; Zulfiqar fired successive shots which landed on her abdomen; accused Afzaal fired a shot hitting the right side of her abdomen and accused Imran again fired at her chest near the right arm. He also introduced a new ass ertion that on 19.03.2015 at about 11:00 a.m., co -accused Sarfraz had attended the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Okara. When confronted with his written application (Exh.PE), none of the aforesaid details found mention therein. In addition to these, several other significant improvements were made by him during his testimony, which were likewise confronted with his earlier version. Given that the entire edifice of the prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4), 8 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 it is considered appropriate, for proper appreciation of the matter, to reproduce the material improvements introduced by him during cross-examination, which, for the sake of reference and convenience, are set out hereunder:- “FIR of this case was registered on my written application Ex.PE. I got recorded in my application Ex.PE that Zulfiqar accsued made fire with pistol 30-bore, which landed on the right cheek of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is no so recorded. I did not get recorded in my appl ication Ex.PE that Zulfiqar made fire with his pistol 30 -bore which landed underneath of right shoulder. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is so recorded in portion A to A. I got recorded in my application that accused Imran made fire which landed on the chest near the right arm. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is no so recorded. I did not get recorded that second fire was made by Imran accused with his pistol which landed at left buttock of Rukhsana Bibi who fell down. Confronted with Ex.PE, where it is so recorded in portion B to B. I got recorded in my application that Zulfiqar accused made fires one after the other which landed on th abdomen of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi deceased. Confronted with Ex.PE, where it is no so recorded, however, it is recorded that accused Zulfiqar made three repeated fires which landed on the front of abdomen of Rukhsana Bibi. I got recorded in my application that Zulfiqar accused again fired which landed on the chin of Rukhsana Bibi. Confronted with Ex.PE, where the sequence of fires are different. I got recorded in my application that Afzaal accused made a fire which landed on the right side of abdomen. Confronted with Ex.PE where landing of fire on right side of the abdomen is not recorded. I did not get recorded in my application that A fzaal accused made fire which hit Rukhsana Bibi deceased on her left knee. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is so recorded in portion C to C. I did not get recorded in my application that Imran accused made fire with pistol which landed at right „Daula‟ of R ukhsana Bibi. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is so recorded in portion D to D. I got recorded in my application that Imran accused made a fire which landed on the chest near the right arm. Confronted with Ex.PE where it is not so recorded. I got recorded i n my application that on 19.03.2015 at about 11;00 a.m., Sarfraz accused attended the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Okara. Confronted with Ex.PE where the time 11:00 a.m. is not so recorded.”
The foregoing improvements unmistakably dem onstrate that Maqsood Ahmad (PW. 4) has not adhered to a consistent and truthful version of events. The nature and extent of the embellishments introduced by him during trial proceedings suggest a deliberate attempt to align the ocular account with the medical evidence on record. It is a well -settled principle governing the appraisal of evidence that where a witness deliberately introduces dishonest improvements in order to 9 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 strengthen the prosecution case, he thereby undermines his own veracity. A witness who thus pollut es his testimony forfeits the confidence of the Court and renders his evidence unworthy of reliance. Reference in this context may be made to the case reported as Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmed and others (2017 SCMR 344) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- “…….the improvements and omissions were made by the witnesses in order to bring the case of prosecution in line with the medical evidence. Such dishonest and deliberate improvement and omission made them unreliable and they are not trustworthy witnesses.”
Insofar as Safdar Ali (PW. 10) is concerned, although he appeared before the learned trial Court and supported the prosecution version in line with the complainant, yet a closer scrutiny of his testimony renders it equally doubtful. During cross -examination, he admitted that he is a permanent resident of Thatha Saleemka, situated at a distance of about fourteen kilometers from the place of occurrence, and that he neither owns any agricultural land nor has any business or residence in the vicinity of the scene of crime. More significantly, he candidly conceded that he had not made any statement before the police during the course of investigation. When his testimony is juxt aposed with the contents of the written application (Exh.PE) submitted by th e complainant Maqsood Ahmad (PW. 4), it becomes evident that, as per the s aid application, Safdar Ali (PW.10) and Munir Ahmad (given up) had reached the spot only after the accused had already inflicted firearm injuries upon the deceased and the two unknown accused had resorted to aerial firing. Thus, the active and detailed role attributed to t he appellants by Safdar Ali (PW. 10) during trial appears incongruous with the earlier version set out in Exh.PE and does not inspire confidence. In these circumstances, the only plausible inference that can be drawn is that the complainant and other purported eyewitnesses were not present at the crime scene at the relevant time, and their testimonies before the trial Court are 10 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 bereft of credibility and fail to meet the standard of proof required in a criminal case. 8. This Court has observed that, according to the prosecution, the complainant, along with Mst.Rukhsana Bibi (deceased), on the fateful day i.e. 19.03.2015 proceeded to the District Courts, Okara for the purpose of sanction of mutation of inheritance in respect of the property of the late husband of Mst.Rukhsana Bibi (deceased) and while returning therefrom, the appellants e ncountered the complainant and the deceased and, by firing at the deceased, caused her death. However, upon a careful examination of this aspect in light of the record, it emerges that the prosecution has relied upon two revenue documents (Exh.PW), the scr utiny of which discloses that the matter relating to the sanction of mutation about the property of the deceased‟s husband was not materialized at District Courts, Okara rather it was passed in J alsa-e-Aam on 19.03.2015 in favour of Rukhsana Bibi on the ba sis of Rapt entered in Roznamcha Waqiati (Daily Diary of Events) on 14.03.2015. It is pertinent to note that sanction of mutation through Jalsa -e-Aam is a recognized legal and traditional procedure under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, whereby a revenue officer approves changes in land ownership records in the presence of the local residents and the parties concerned, at the village where the land is situated. On 19.03.2015, during the Jalsa -e-Aam, Rukhsana Bibi, identified by Amir Saleem, Advoc ate, and Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4) appeared and verified the Shajra Nasb prepared by the Patwari consequent upon the demise of her husband. Besides that, Amir Saleem, Advocate who as per revenue document identified the deceased before the revenue officer was an important witness but he too was neither produced before the trial court nor at investigative phase. In these circumstances, the prosecution‟s assertion that the deceased and the complainant had proceeded to the District Courts, Okara for the said purpose cannot be sustained. Similarly, during cross -examination, the complainant deposed that 11 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 Mst.Rukhsana Bibi left her residence at approximately 8:00 a.m. and arrived at District Okara at around 9:00 a.m., whereas the mutation was sanctioned at 11:00 a.m. He further stated that the distance from the District Courts to the place of occurrence could be covered within approximately forty -five minutes but the incident took place at 2:30 p.m. and there is no justification available in the entire eviden ce where the intervening time was spent by the deceased and the complainant . This part of evidence of the complainant also casts serious doubt about the timing of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 9. This Court has also taken note of another significant aspect arising from the prosecution evidence, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution‟s case. Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.12) visited the spot on 19.03.2015, the same day where the complainant, Maqsood Ahmad (PW.4) appeared before him and filed an application seeking correction of the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased. This conduct indicates that the complainant had, on the very day of the incident, disassociated himself from the contents of the FIR. Furthermore, Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.12), despite conducting a spot inspection, did not secure any crime empties, which undermines the prosecution‟s theory that the three appellants, along with two unknown accused made heavy firing at th e spot from their respective .30 bore pistols. A perusal of the site plan (Exh.PJ) indicates that the deceased, Rukhsana Bibi, sustained the first firearm injury at point “A” at the hand of the appellant Zulfiqar. She is alleged to have then run to point “A-1,” where she received the remaining firearm injuries, and it is from this location that blood -stained earth was collected by Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.12). However, in his cross-examination, Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.12) admitted that he neither observed nor co llected any blood-stained earth at point “A” nor did he recover any crime empties from that location. He further stated that, on his initial visit, he found the deceased at point “A-1,” along the road leading to Ihata Karam Chand, and did 12 Criminal Appeal No.17383-J of 2020 & Criminal Revision No.17382 of 2020 not notice any bl ood trail connecting point “A” to point “A -1.” Given its…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.