Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3648
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sardar Akbar Ali)
Parties: ABDUL REHMAN ALIAS BABI vs STATE
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sardar Akbar Ali), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3648. In this matter between ABDUL REHMAN ALIAS BABI and STATE, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sardar Akbar Ali) DECISION DATE: 03-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 507-25 ============================================================ Stereo HCJDA-38 Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 (Abdul Rehman alias Babi versus The State) Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 (Muhammad Ismail versus The State) Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 (Allah Wadhaya versus The State) Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 (Allah Wasaya alias Waseem versus The State) Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 (Ali Zubair versus The State) Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 (Muhammad Niaz versus The State) Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 (Haji Allah Ditta versus The State, etc)
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 03.06.2026 Appellants by: M/s Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, Pir Imran Akram Bodla , Sardar Abdul Basit Khan, Khalid Umar Chaudhary and Ms. Shamsa Kanwal Advocates along with Muhammad Niaz, appellant in person. State by: Mr. Zafar Iqbal Soomro, DDPP. Complainant by: M/s Mirza Muhammad Azam , Muhammad Afzal Dharala , Mian Muhammad Salman Idrees, Mian Muhammad Junai d Akhtar and Waseem Ishaq Manik, Advocates. Sardar Akbar Ali. J: - Abdul Rehman alias Babi, Muhamm ad Ismail, Allah Wadhaya, Allah Wasaya alias Waseem, Ali Zubair and Muhammad Niaz (appellants) along with co -accused Muhammad Altaf, Riaz and Ali Sher were tried by the learne d Additional Sessions Judge/ Model Criminal Trial Court, Bahawalnagar, in private complaint titled “Haji Allah Ditta vs. Abdul Rehman alias Babi and others” filed by Haji Allah Ditta complainant under sections 302/ 324/ 336/ 337 -A(i)(ii)/ 337 -F(i)(iii)/ 33 7-L(ii)/ 109/ 148/ 149 PPC emanated from case F.I.R. No.660/ 2024 dated 09.09.2024 registered under sections 302/ 324/ 148/ 149/ 109 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Bahawalnagar, and on conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 29.10.2025, co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf, Riaz and Ali Sher Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 2 were acquitted of the charge s whereas the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: Abdul Rehman alias Babi 1. U/S 302(b) PPC , Life Imprisonment as Tazir for causing Qatl -e-Amad of Saif-ul-Malook (deceased). Convict is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (One Million) U/S 544 -A of Cr.P.C . which shall be distributed among legal heirs of Saif-ul-Malook (deceased) according to their legal shares. The compensation will be recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the convict, in case of default in payment of com pensation amount in terms of Sec.544-A Cr.P.C, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. 2. U/S. 324/148/149 PPC , 10 -years R.I and fine of Rs.25,000/ -, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. Muhammad Ismail, Appellant 1. U/S. 324/14 8/149 P PC, 10 -years R.I and fine of Rs.25,000/ -, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. 2. U/S. 337-A(i) PPC, 02-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Maqbool Bibi, injure d for injury No.1 & 02 -years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/-payable to Maqbool Bibi, injured for injury No.2. 3. U/S. 337-F(ii) PPC, 03-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Maqbool Bibi, injured for injury No.4 & 03 years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/-payable to Maqbool Bibi, injured for injury No.6. 4. Convict will remain in jail till the payment of Daman amounts. Allah Wadhaya, Appellant 1. U/S. 336 PPC, 10-years R.I and Arsh (1/2 of Diyat) in sum of Rs.49,14,335/, payable to Allah Rakha, injured for injury No.2. 2. U/S. 32 4/148/149 PPC , 10 -years R.I and fine of Rs.25,000/ -, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. 3. U/S. 337-A(i) PPC, 02-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Allah Rakha, injured for inj ury No.1 and 02-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to Allah Rakha, injured for injury No.3. 4. U/S. 337-F(iii) PPC, 03-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to Allah Rakha, injured for injury No.4 and 03 -years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to Allah Rakha, injured for injury No.5. 5. U/S. 337-F(i) PPC, 01-year R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to Allah Rakha, injure d for injury No.6 and 01 -year R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to Allah Rakha, injured for injury No.7. Convict will remain in jail till the payment of Arsh and Daman amounts. Ali Zubair, Appellant 1. U/S. 324/148/149 PPC , 10 -years R.I and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 3 2. U/S. 337-F(iii) PPC, 03-years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Mohsin, injured. Convict wil l remain in jail till the payment of Daman amount. Allah Wasaya alias Waseem, Appellant 1. U/S. 324/148/149 PPC , 10 -years R.I an d fine of Rs.25,000 /-, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. 2. U/S 337-F(i) PPC, 01-year R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Bilal, injured for injury No.2, 01 -year R.1 and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000 /- payable to Bilal, injured for injury No.3 & 01-year R.1 and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/-payable to Bilal, injured for injury No.4. 3. U/S. 337-F(iii) PPC, 03 years R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ - payable to Bilal, injured for injury No.5 & 03 years RI a nd Dam an in sum of Rs.25,000/-payable to Bilal, injured for injury No.6. 4. Convict will remain in jail till the payment of Daman amounts. Muhammad Niaz, Appellant 1. U/S. 324/148/ 149 PPC, to 10 -years RI and fine of Rs.25,000/ -, in case of default in payment of fine, convict would, further, undergo six months S.I. 2. U/S. 337-F(i) PPC, 01-year R.I and Daman in sum of Rs.25,000/ -payable to Abdul Shakoor, injured. 3. Convict will remain in jail till the payment of Daman amount. All the sentences of the appellants were o rdered to run concu rrently while extending them benefits of section 382-B Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences , Abdul Rehman alias Babi, Muhammad Ismail, A llah Wadhaya, Allah Wasaya alias Waseem, Ali Zubair and Muhammad Niaz (appellants ) have filed the aforementioned appeals whereas Haji Allah Ditta filed Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 for enhancement of sentences of the appellants. However, the complainant filed PSLA No.48 of 2025 against the acquittal of co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf, Riaz and Ali Sher which w as dismissed due to non - prosecution vide order dated 18.05.2026. 3. Since all these matters have arisen out of the same jud gment, therefore, the same are being decided together through this single judgment. 4. The facts of the c ase, as enumerated in para graph No.01 of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, are that: “Complainant's version as recorded in complaint (Exh.PB) is that on 09.09 .2024 at about 04:00PM, he alongwith his family members, was present in his home. In the meanwhile, Abdul R ehman alias Babi, accused, armed with 12 -bore gun, Allah Wadhaya, accused, armed with 12 -bore gun, Altaf, accused, armed wit h 12-bore gun, Allah Wasa ya alias Waseem, accused, armed with repeater, Muhammad Ismail, accused, armed wi th 12 -bore gun, Ali Zubair, accused, armed with 12-bore gun and Muhammad Niaz, accused, armed with 12 -bore gun came there. Abdul Rehman alias Babi, ac cused and Ismail, accused , raised lalkara to teach them a lesson for previous night motorcycle collusion. Abdul Rehman alias Babi, accused made straight fire with 12 -bore gun which landed at Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 4 the left shoulder of complainant's son Saif-ul-Malook. Abdul Rehman alias Babi, accused made second fire which hit at chest and belly of Saif -ul-Malook. Abdul Rehman alias Babi, accused made third fire which landed at the right side of back of Saif-ul-Malook. Allah Wadhaya, accused made fire with 12 -bore gun which hit A llah Rakha, PW at his hea d and forehead. Allah Wadhaya, accused made second fire which hit at left arm and chest of Allah Rak ha. All ah Wadhaya, accused made third fire which landed at back of Allah Rakha. Allah Wasaya alias Waseem, accused made fire with h is repeater gun which lan ded at the left eye, right shoulder, left elbow, wrist, chest and belly of Muhamm ad Bilal. Ali Zubair, accused made fire which hit Muhammad Mohsin at his left buttock. Muhammad Ismail, accused made fire shot with his 12 -bore gun which landed at right cheek and head of Mst. Maqbool Bibi. Muhammad Ismail, accused also gave butt blow to Mst. Maqbool Bibi and injured her. Muhammad Altaf, accused made fire with 12-bore gun which hit at back side of left hand of Shahwan Bibi.
He also gav e her butt blow. Niaz Ahm ad, accused made fire shot with 12 -bore gun which hit at left shin of Abdul Shako or. On hearing hue and cry, Ghulam Rasool S/O Ghulam Fareed and Alam Ali S/O Naik Muhammad, PWs were attracted to the spot. Many other persons of loca lity were also attracted. At the sight of people and PWs, accused while hoisting their weapons decamped fr om the spot. Occurr ence was committed on the abetment of Muhammad Riaz S/O Rafique and Ali Sher S/O Ashraf. Complainant in presence of witnesses atten ded his son Saif-ul-Malook who succumbed to injuries at the spot. 3. Motive of the occurrence is that on t he preceding night, motorcycle of complainant’s son Allah Rakha and Mohsin had collided with the motorcycle of Abdul Rehman and Ismail accused and an altercation ahd also occu rred. The accused nurshed grudge of the same and they in connivance with each oth er committed murder of com plainant’s son Saif -ul-Malook and injured other persons.”
5. After recording cursory evidence, the appellants were summone d to face trial in the pr ivate complaint case. When charge sheeted, the accused/appellants pleaded not gui lty and claimed to be tried, whereupon, the prosecution examined 07 prosecution witnesses and 12 court witnesses. On closure of prosecution case, the accused/ appellants were examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. who refuted the prosecution evidence. However, they neither opted to app ear as their own witness as required by section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor to adduce evidence in their defence except Ali Zubair, appellant who produced evid ence in his defence and the trial ended in the terms as detailed in opening paragraph of this judgment. 6. Heard. Record perused. 7. This unfortunate incident wherein Saif-ul-Malook (deceased) lost his life whereas Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW -02), Muhamma d Mohsin, injured (PW-03), Maqbool Bibi, injured (PW -04), Abdul Shakoor, injured (PW-05), Allah Rakh a, inju red (PW -06) and Mst. Shahwan Bibi, injured (since given up PW) sustained injuries, as per prosecution, took place on 09.09.2024 at 04:00 p.m. in the area of Mauza Fatwera Hithar within the territorial limits of Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 11:00 p.m. with the delay of 0 7 Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 5 hours despite the fact that the police s tation was 11 kilometers from the place of the occurrence. Nowhere in the entire evidence, the prosecution has explained the reason for such delay in reporting the matter to the police. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty on the part of the complainant and th at it was lodged with del iberation and consultation. Therefore, I hold that this inordinate delay in setti ng the machinery of law in motion speaks volumes against the veracity of prosecution version. In the case of “Mehmood Ahmed & others vs. The State & a nother” (1995 SCMR 127) , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that: “Delay of two hou rs in lodging the F IR in t he particular circumstances of the case had assumed great significance as the same could be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing the report keeping the names of the accused open for roping in such persons whom u ltimately the prosecution might wish to implicate.”
Reliance is also placed upon the case reported as “Muhammad Siddique and another vs. The State and others” (2026 SCMR 783). 8. Dr. Atiq-ur-Rehman while appearing before the learned trial Court as (CW-02) stated that he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Saif-ul- Malook (deceased) on 09.09.2024 at 11:00 p.m. He opined that probable time that elapsed bet ween injuries and deat h was less than 10 minute s and between death and postmortem was less than 10 hours, thus, there is a delay of about 07 hours in conducting autopsy on the dead body of t he deceased. At the same time, it has been noticed that the occurrence had taken place on 09.09.2024 at 04:00 p.m . and th e F.I.R was registered at 11:00 p.m. whereas the police papers were received by the doctor at 10: 55 p.m. and the postmortem was also conducted at 11:00 p.m. then how it could be possible for the Investigating Officer to prepare the police papers before lodging the F.I.R. and how the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted and the F.I.R was lodged at the same time at 11:00 p.m. There is no explanation at all available on record for such de lay. No doubt, the noticeable delay in post mor tem examination of the dead body is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye -witnesses before preparing police papers necessary for the same. Furthermore, th is fact suggests that nob ody was present at the spot due to which the dead -body remained lying unattended at the spot for a long time. This fact also creates dent about the veracity of Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 6 prosecution story. I may refer here the case of “ Irshad Ahmed v. The St ate” (2011 SCMR 1190), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- “We have further observed that the post -mortem examination of the deadbody of Shehzad Ahmed deceased had been conducted with a noticeable de lay and such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye -witnesses and in cooking up a stor y for the prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a post-mortem examination of the dead body conducted.”
Reliance is also placed upon the case reported as “Mushtaq Ahmad vs. The State” (2026 SCMR 60). 9. The ocular account has been furnished by Haji All ah Ditta, complainant (PW -01), Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW -02), Muhammad Mohsin, injured (PW -03), Mst. M aqbool Bibi, injur ed (PW -04), Abdul Shakoor, injured (PW -05), Allah Rakha, injured (PW -06) and Ghulam Rasool (PW -07) whose testimonies are fraught with major contradictions, material improvements, and inherent improbabilities which in the absence of independent corroboratio n, are inherently suspect and must be scrutinized with extreme caution. 10. I have carefully examined the statements o f the se PW s in order to reach a just deci sion in the case. It has been no ted with great impor tance that while ap pearing in the dock all the eyewitnesses contradicted each other o n material aspects of the case as well as m ade dishonest improvements and omissions as well. It was the case of the prosecution as narrated by Haji Al lah Ditta, complaina nt (PW -01) in writt en comp laint (Exh.PA) and in Private Complaint (Exh.PB) as well as in their statements got recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. by Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW-02), Muhammad Mohsin, inj ured (PW -03), Mst. Maqbool Bibi, injured (PW -04), Allah Rakha, injured (PW-06) that Allah Wasaya alias Waseem (appellant) made a fire shot with his repeat er 12 bore which hit Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW-02) on his l eft e ye, right shoulder, left elbow, wris t, chest and belly but while appearing before the learned trial Court, all the aforesaid injured eyewitnesses in their examination-in-chief improved their statements by changing the role ascribed to Allah Wasaya alias Waseem (appellant) and stated that he made first fire shot with his repeater gun which la nded at the lef t eye, right shoulder and left elbow of Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW-02) and his left eye was spoiled whereas the Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 7 second fire shot made by him hit Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW-02) at his wrist, belly (umbilicus) and chest. I have f urther not iced that Haji Allah Ditta, complainant (PW -01) in written complaint ( Exh.PA) and in Private Complaint (Exh.PB) as well as in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW -02), Muhammad Mohsin, injured (PW-03), Mst. Maqbool Bi bi, injured (PW-04), Allah Rakha, injured (PW - 06) stated that Muhammad Ismail (appellant) ma de a fire shot with his .12 bore gun which hit Ma qbool Bibi, injured ( PW-04) on her left chee k and head but while appearing before the learned t rial Court , they all in their examination-in-chief improved their statements by changing the role ascribed to Muhammad Ismail by stating that the fire shot mad e by Muhammad Ismail (a ppellant) hit Maqbool Bibi , injured (PW -04) at her right cheek and head. Muhammad Ismail, SI/I.O. (CW-11) admitted before the learned trial Court that “Maqbool Bibi was not injured during this occurrence rather prior to occurrence, she was injured by Abdul Rehman, Ismail accused when she was cutting fodder with her s on Mohsin wh o had made fire shot at the accused.” 11. It has a lso been noticed with grave concern that Taj S haheen, SI (CW-08) recorded police proceedings at the bottom of Complaint (Exh.PA) that he along with police contingent on receiving the information reached at the place of murder of Saif-ul-Malook (deceased) where Haji Al lah Ditta, complainant (PW -01) presented Complaint (Ex h.PA) before him but Muhammad Bilal, injured (PW -02) in his cross -examination stated that his father moved written application before the I nvestigating Officer at th e hospital. He further stated that he informed the PF SA Team about the occurrence and at that time all the injured persons were also present at the place of occurrence and after making their injury statements, they all were shifted to the hospital through official vehicle of Rescue-1122. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 09.09.2024 at 04:00 p.m. and it was reported to the po lice on the same day at 11:00 p.m . Injury statement (Exh.CW- 01/E) of Mst. Maqbool B ibi was prepared by Taj Shaheen, SI ( CW-08) on 09.09.2024 at 06:50 p.m. whereas Nida Akbar, WMO (CW-01) medically examined h er on 10.09.2024 at 12:30 AM ; prepared Injury statement (Exh.CW-02/D) of Muhammad Bilal, injure d (PW-02) on 0 9.09.2024 at 06:50 p.m . whereas Dr. Atteq-ur-Rehman (CW-02) m edically examined him at 06:50 p .m.; prepared Injury statement (Exh.CW-02/F) of Muhammad Mohsin, injure d (PW-03) on 0 9.09.2024 at 06:5 0 p.m. Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 8 whereas Dr. Atteq-ur-Rehman (CW-02) medically examined him at 06:50 p.m. and prepared injury statement (Exh..CW-2/J) of Allah Rakha, injured (PW-06) on 09.09.2024 at 0 6.50 p.m. whereas Dr.Atteq-ur-Rehman (CW- 02) m edically examined him at 06:50 p.m. Here it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of statement of M uhammad Bilal, injured (PW-02) which he admitted during cro ss-examination t hat “My father moved written application at hospital. ” It is very strange that the time of preparing injury statem ents of the aforesaid injured PWs and their medical examination except Mst. Maqbool B ibi, injured (PW-04) by the doc tor is the same which fact strongly led this Court to believe that the statements of the injured PWs were recorded at the hospital and more so , the cru cial as well as noticeable fact of the case is that F.I.R (Exh.PA) was lo dged a t 11:00 p.m. after medical examination of the injured PWs , therefore, the element of consultation and deliberation in planting the eyewitnesses as well as photogenic description of injurie s sustained by the injured PWs as well as the deceased cannot be ruled out. Sadia Manzoor, 19 62/LC (CW-04) in he r examination-in-chief stated that on 09.09.2024, she associate d Taj Shaheen, SI (CW-08) and after having information about the occurr ence, they reached at the pla ce of occurrence, where Taj Shahe en, SI (CW-08) handed over to her police papers of Mst . Maqb ool Bib i, injured (PW -04) and Mst. S hahwan Bibi (since given up PW) for their medical examination and she escorted them to DHQ Hospital, Bahawa lnagar and produced them before Dr. Nida Akbar, WMO (CW-01). She in her cr oss-examination further admitted th at t hey got information of the occurrence at about 04:00 / 05:00 p.m. and at about 05:00 p.m. they reached at the spot and after 30 minute s she esc orted the injured persons to hospital but in the poli ce proceeding recorded by Taj Shaheen, SI (CW-08) at the bottom of complaint(Exh.PA), he narrated that he shifted all the injured persons to hospital through ambulance o f Rescue- 1122. At the same time, Sadia Manzoor, 1962/LC (CW-04) also admitted that she along with Investigating Officer reached at the spot at 10:00 p.m. Binyamin, 906-C (CW-05) in his examination-in-chief stated that on 09.09.2024 after having information, he reached at the place of occurrence along with Taj Shaheen, SI (CW-08) who handed over to him pol ice papers and dead body o f Saif -ul-Malook (deceased) and injured persons to DHQ Hospital, Bahawalnagar and he produced the dead body of deceased and injured persons before Dr. Attiq-ur-Rehman, MO . Whereas Taj Shaheen, Crl. Appeal No.507-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.508-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.509-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.510-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.511-J of 2025 Crl. Appeal No.512-J of 2025 Crl. Revision No.199 of 2025 9 SI/ I.O. ( CW-08) in his cross -examination t hat Binyamin, 90 6-C carried injured and dead body separately. Binyamin, 906-C (CW-05) in his cross- examination admitted th at he did not remember the exact time when he produced the injured persons before the medical officer. Adeel-ur-Rehman, 1524 -C (CW-06) in his examinati on-in-chief stated that on 09.09.2024 he visited the place of occurrence along with Taj Shaheen, SI/ IO (CW-08) who handed over to him complaint (Exh.PA) for its transmission to the police s tation which he handed over to Muhammad Murtaza, ASI and thereafter he returned to the place o f occurrence with police file. Du ring cross -examination, he admitted that he re ceived complaint (Exh.PA) from Taj Shaheen, SI/ I.O. (CW-08) at about 10:00 p.m. and at that time dead body of the deceased as well as the injured persons were present at the spot. He further admitted that he reached at the place of occurrence at 04:00/ 04:30 p.m. Taj Shaheen, SI/ I.O. ( CW-08) in his examination -in-chief stated that on 09.09.2024, on receiving information of the occurrence, he reached at the place of occurrence where dead body of Saif -ul-Malook (deceased) was present and he prepared his injury stateme nt and inquest report and also prep ared injury statements of the injured PWs. He in his cross - examination admitted that he reached at the spot at about 05:00/ 05:15 p.m. whereas the officials of Crime Scene Unit visited the place of occurrence at about 10:00 p.m. He further admitted that before arrival of Crime Scene Unit, injured persons had already le ft for hospital whereas dead body was sent to DHQ Hospital upon its examination by the Crime Scene Unit. He further admitted that he sent co mplaint (Exh.PA) to the police station after 10:00 p.m. It was also admitted by him that in the police proceedings date was referre d but time was omitted. Th e mo st important portion o f his admission in his cross -examination was that “Till medico…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.