Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4903
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: Tanveer . vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4903. In this matter between Tanveer . and The State etc., 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 Tariq Saleem Sheikh) DECISION DATE: 19-01-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 7335/22 ============================================================ Stereo. HCJDA 38 JUDGMENT SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Criminal Appeal No.7335/2022 Tanveer Vs. The State and another Criminal Revision No.26176/2022 Mian Khan Vs. The State and another
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 19.01.2026 For the Appellant: Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate. For the State: Rana Tasawar Ali Khan, Additional Prosecutor General. For the Complainant: Mr. Khawar Nawaz Bharwana, Advocate. Research assistance: Mr. Muhammad Abid, Research Officer, LHCRC.
Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J . – Through this co nsolidated judgment, I propose to decide Criminal A ppeal No. 7335/2022 and Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022, which arise from the judgment dated 17.01.2022 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. 2. On 18.05.2020, Mian Khan (PW -1) s ubmitted a written application (Exh. PA) to Zafar Iqbal /Inspector (CW-7), for the registration of an FIR while he was at the place of occurrence. He stated that about four years earlier, his sister, Nasreen Bibi, had married Tanveer, and a daughter, Zahra Fatima, aged about 2½ years, was born from the wedlock. Nasreen was residing in her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. Tanveer had previously been employed at a petrol pump, but he h ad developed a habit of gambling and frequently sold household items. When Nasreen objected, he beat her. A few days before the incident, Tanveer sold Nasreen’s gold earrings, which led to a quarrel between them. PW Mian Khan further stated that on 17.05.2020, at the time of Iftar, he went to Nasreen’s house to resolve Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 2 - the matter , but remained worried about her. The following morning, i.e., on 18.05.2020, at the time of Sehri, his brother Muhammad Azam (PW-2) and Falak Sher (not produced) came to his house to disc uss the latest quarrel between Nasreen and Tanveer. During the meeting, they decided to go to Nasreen ’s house immediately. Wh en they reached the entrance, they heard her cries from inside. They knocked at the door but received no response, so they climbed over it and entered the house. Inside the room, they allegedly saw Ali Hassan holding Nasreen by her legs and Ahmad Yar by he r arms, while Tanveer was strangulating her by tying a Dupatta around her neck. When Mian Khan and his companions attempted to inte rvene and rescue Nasreen, Ali Hassan took out a pistol, aim ed it at them, and extended threats to their lives. Thereafter, th e accused fled the scene. Mian Khan and the witnesses attended to Nasreen, but she was dead. 3. After recording the police ka rwi on the application (Exh. PA), Zafar Iqb al/Inspector (CW-7) sent it to the City Chiniot police station through Haq Nawaz 143/C . Based on this application, Munawar Hussain 272/HC (CW-5) registered FIR No. 396/2020 (Exh. CW-5/PA-1) under sections 302 and 34 PPC. 4. During the investigation, the police found that Ali Hassan and Ahmad Yar were not involved in the occurrence. Dissatisfied with this finding, Mian Khan (PW -1) filed a private complaint Exh. PB (titled: “Mian Khan v. Tanveer etc.”). The Additional Sessions Judge recorded c ursory ev idence and summoned Tanveer, Ali Hassan , and Ahmad Yar for trial. O n 06.10.2020, he indicted them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 5. To prove the charge, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Mian Khan (PW-1) and Muhammad Azam (PW-2) furnished the ocular account. Khalid Hussain (PW-3) identified Nasreen’s dead body. PW Falak S her was given up as unnecessary. Besides, the Additional Sessions Judge examined seven persons as Court Witnesses. Riaz Ahma d/Draftsman (CW-1) prepared the scaled site pl an (Exh. CW -1/A and Exh. CW -1/B). Abida Bibi 1182/LC (CW -2) escorted Nasreen’s body t o the mortuary for autopsy. She was also a Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 3 - marginal witness of the Recovery Memo Exh. CW -2/A. Nasir Ali, Computer Operator (CW -3), re ceived an email containi ng the call detail records (CDRs) of SIM Nos. 0349 -5972113, 0342-0322613, and 0303-2461739. After o btaining printouts thereof, he handed them over to the Investigating Officer, who took the same into his possession through Recovery Memo Exh. CW -3/A. Muhammad Younas 475 /C (CW-4) testified about the recovery of Dupatta (P-7) on the pointing out of Tanveer . Munawar Hussain 272/HC (CW -5) registered FIR No.396/2020 (Exh. CW-5/PA-1). He also testified about receiving a sealed parcel containin g the last-worn clothe s of the de ceased, six sealed ja rs, and three sealed envelopes , and subseq uently giving them to th e Investigating Officer for delivery at the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA). Dr. Amna Qureshi (CW-6) furnished medical evidence. Zafar Iqbal/Inspector (CW-7) provided the details of his investigation. The public prosecutor gave up PWs Wahee d Abbas 513/C and Allah Ditta as unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering the forensic reports, Exh. PD and Exh. PE. 6. After the prosecution co mpleted its evidence, the trial court recorded the statements of Tanveer, Ali Hassan, an d Ahmad Yar under section 342 Cr.P.C. and confronted them with the incrimi nating material brought against them during the trial. They denied the allegations and profess ed innocence. They did not opt to make a statement on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. or to produce any defence evidence. 7. When questioned about his implication in this case and why the prosecution witnesses deposed against him, Tanveer stated that they were closely relat ed inter se and bore personal enmity towards him. He maintained th at he had a cordial relationship with his wife, Nasreen, and that they were living together happily. On the night of the incident, he claimed that he was on duty at the Sarhad Meran Shah Petrol Pump on Jhang Road, located about 7 to 8 kilometres from his residence. Upon receiving information about the incident while at work, he returned home, where he learned of his wife ’s death. He further stated that Nasreen had been alone in the house at t he Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 4 - relevant time and had been murdered by unknown persons. His fat her, Ahmad Yar, informed Mian Khan about the incident, who then proceeded directly to the hospital. Tanveer denied the allegation that he had a gambling habit or that any FIR had ever been r egistered against him in that regard. He contended that he had int ended to have a case registered against unknown persons for Nasreen ’s murder , but was falsely implicated in this case due to collusion between the police and the complainant party. 8. On th e conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 17.01.2022, the Additional Session s Judge acquitted Ali Hassan and Ahmad Yar , extending them the benefit of doubt . However, he convicted Tanveer under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a direction to pay Rs. 400,000/- to Nasreen’s legal heirs as compensation in terms of sectio n 544-A Cr.P.C. and, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further one year. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to him. 9. Tanveer (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) has challenged his convicti on and sentence be fore this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 7335/2022, while Mian Khan (PW -1) has filed Criminal Revision No.26176/2022 seeking enhan cement of his sentence. 10. In support of Crl. Appeal No.7335/2022, Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate, contended that the Appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated. She argued that the prosecution evidence was riddled with material contradictions w hich the trial court failed to properly eval uate. Although the occurrence allegedly took place at about 3:45 a.m. on 18.05.2020, the matter was reported to the police only at 9:15 a.m. This unexplained delay of nearly six hours, according to her, provided sufficient opportunity for consultation and fabrication. She further submitted that PWs Mian Khan and Muhammad Azam had not witnessed the occurrence and had not offered any plausible explanation for their presence at such an unusual hour . The prosecution had introduced them to strengthen an otherwise weak case. Counsel contended that the medical evidence was inconsistent wit h the Injury Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 5 - Statement (Exh. CW -6/C) and the Inquest Report (Exh. CW -6/D) prepared by the Investigating Officer (CW -7) and, in any even t, was deficient because the Medical Officer (CW -6) did not document the classical signs ordinarily associated with death by strangulation. Lastly, she argued that the Appellant had been convicted on the same evidence on which the co -accused were acquitted , without any independent corroboration. She maintained that there were no circumstances justifying the conviction and prayed that the appeal be accepted and the Appellant be acquitted. 11. Rana Tasawar Ali Khan, Additional Prosecutor Gener al (APG), oppos ed the appeal and supp orted the impugned judgment. He contended that the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant through reliable evidence. According to him, the ocular account furnished by PWs Mian Khan and Muhammad Azam was trustworthy and remained unshaken duri ng cross -examination. He maintained that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution version and supported the cause of death as strangulation. The APG further relied upon the Appellant’s post -occurrence conduct, namely that he did not inform the pol ice and did not take the deceased to the hospital. He submitted that the Appellant, under Article 122 of the QSO, was obligated to explain the circumstances in which his wife died an unnatural death within the matrimon ial home and h ad failed to discharge that obligation. His defence plea, the APG argued, was vague and unsubstantiated. In support of t hese submissions, he relied upon Arshad Mehmood v . The State (2005 SCMR 1524), Saeed Ahmed v. The State (2015 SCMR 710) , and Muhammad Ijaz alias Jajj v. The State (2025 SCMR 1591). He prayed that the a ppeal be dismissed and the conviction upheld. 12. In support of Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022, Mr. Khawar Nawaz Bharwana , Advocate, contended that the prosecution had successfully proved the Appellant’s guilt , but the punishment handed down by the trial court was not commensurate with the gra vity of his offence. He , th erefore, praye d that the App ellant’s sen tence be enhanced. Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 6 - 13. In rebuttal, Ms. Bushra Qama r contended that the precedents cited by the APG were inapplicable to the present facts. She argued th at the principle that an accused mu st explain the circumstances in which his wife dies an unnatural de ath in the matrimonial home becomes relevant only where the pro secution has first disch arged its primary b urden by produ cing reliable and cogent evidence. In the abse nce of such foundationa l proof, no part of the burden shifts to the accused. She submitted that in the present case, the prosecution had failed to establ ish a credible ocular a ccount, the medical evidence was inconclusive, and the motive remained unproven. Therefore, the Appella nt’s conviction was unsustainable. In support of her submissions, she relied upon Abdul Maj eed v. The State (2011 SCMR 941), Muhammad Jamshaid and a nother v. The State and ot hers (2016 SCMR 1019 ), Nasrullah alias Nasr o v. The State (2017 SCMR 724), Arshad Kh an v. The S tate (2017 SCMR 564), Asad Khan v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 681), and Nazir Ahma d v. The State (2018 SCMR 787). 14. Arguments heard. Record perused. 15. An examination of the application (Exh. PA), FIR No . 396/2020 (Exh. CW -5/PA-1), and the pri vate complaint (Exh. PB) shows that Mian Khan (PW -1) did not specify the exact time of occurrence in any of these documents. He allege d that on 18.05. 2020, at Sehri time, the Appellant, along with his acquitted co -accused, Ali Hassan and Ahmad Yar, in furt herance of their common int ention, murdered Nasreen by strangulation. It was only during his examination-in-chief that PW Mian Khan disclosed for the first time that the occurrence had taken place at about 3:45 a.m. Be that as it may, it is an admitted posi tion that the written application was submitted to Zafar Iqbal/Inspector (CW-7) at about 9:15 a.m., on the basis of which FIR No. 396 /2020 was regis tered at 9:40 a.m ., i.e., after a lapse of nearly six hours. Althou gh PW Mian Khan claimed that he had informed the police at about 4: 30 a.m. through the cellphone of his relative Khalid Hussain, the latter was neither associated with the investigation nor produced at trial to corroborate this assertion. On th e Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 7 - contrary, the Investigating Officer , Z afar Iqbal /Inspector (CW-7), categorically denied having received any such information and stated that he first came to know of the occurre nce at about 8:45 a.m. through wireless communication. He further admitted th at no inquir y was conducted to ascertain why PW Mian Khan or the alleged eyewitnesses did not approach the police earlier . The police station was approximately five kilo metres from the p lace of occ urrence and accessible through metalled roads. In these cir cumstances, the delay in lodging the FI R remains unexplained, which casts a serious doubt on the spontaneity and authenticity of the prosecution’s version.1 16. The postmortem report (Exh. CW -6/A) re flects that the police papers were received by the Medical Officer at 10:20 a.m., the body reached the mortuary at 10:30 a.m., and the autopsy commenced at 10:40 a.m. Although the postmortem was conducted promptly upon receipt of the requisite papers, give n that the occurrence allegedly took place at about 3:45 a.m., the unexplained interval between the alleged time of occurrence and the initiation of formal proceedings cannot be overlooked. It raises a legitimate concern that the intervening time may have been used for consultation or to procure false eyewitnesses.2 17. There are several other inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence that make the pres ence of Mian Khan (PW -1) and Muhammad Azam (PW -2) at the place of occurrence at th e relevant time doubtful. Mian Khan (PW-1) claimed that when the police arrived at the place of occurrence, he was already present there along with Muhammad Azam (PW -2) and F alak Sher (not produced). However, their names do not find mention in Co lumn No. 4 of the Inquest Report (Exh. CW-6/D), which is prepared at the earliest stage and ordinarily records the names of persons found present with the deceased. There is also a material inconsistency concerning the condition of the dead body. The Inquest Report (Exh. CW -6/D) records that the deceased’s
1 Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The Sta te (2004 SCMR 1185), Noor Muhammad v. The State a nd another (2010 SCMR 97), Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan and another (2010 SCMR 105), Zeeshan @ Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), Muhammad Rafique alias Fe eqa v. The St ate (2019 SCMR 1068), and Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others (PLD 2019 SC 64).
2 Irshad Ah med v . The State (2011 SCM R 1190), Muhammad Ashraf v. The Stat e (2012 SCMR 419), Zafar v. The State and others (2018 SCMR 326), and Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 192). Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 8 - mouth was closed, whereas Dr. Amna Qureshi (CW -6) stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of pos tmortem examination, the mouth was found open. Upon a specific suggestion, the Medical Officer clarified that she had not opene d it herself. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency, it assumes significance and affects the credibility of the prosecution’s version. 18. The prosecution’s version regarding the m anner in which the alleged eyewitnesses ga ined access to the Appell ant’s hou se and witnessed the occurrence also raises certain doubts. PWs Mian Khan and Muhammad Azam stated that upon reaching the house, they heard Nasreen’s cries, knocked at the door and, on receiving no response, entered by sca ling the gate. According to PW Mia n Khan , the outer gate was approximately five feet high, while the outer wall was about one to one -and-a-half feet lower. In contrast , Riaz Ahmad/Draftsman (CW-1) reported the height of the outer gate to be seven feet and that of the outer wall to be six feet. Although this discrepancy in measurements is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution, the Investigating Officer did not notice an y mark s, footprints, or other signs suggestive of scaling. T he house was situated in a t hickly populated locality, and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at Sehri time during the last Ashra of Ramadan, when movement in the area would ordinarily be gre ater than usual. Yet no independent resident came forward to report hearing cries or witnessing any unusual activity, nor did the investigation disclose any neighbour, mosque attendee, or passer -by who observed the complainant party at the scene at the relevant time. 19. PWs Mian Khan and Muhamma d Azam asserted that they saw the Appell ant tying a Dupatta around Nasreen ’s neck. Simultaneously, they maintained that Ali Hassan had pointed a pistol at them and prevented their entry into the room, and that they did not enter until after the accused had fled and Na sreen was already dead. If, as claimed, they were restrained at the threshold and prev ented from entering the room, it is not explained how they were able to witness the act of strangulation with such certainty. This inconsistency affects the Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 9 - reliability of the ocular acc ount. Moreover, no firearm was recovered during the investigation. While non -recovery of a weapon is not by itself decisive, this aspect cont ributes to the overall doubt surrounding the prosecution’s ocular account. 20. During cross -examination, PW Mian K han stated that Nasreen’s body was lying on a cot when they entered the room. Th is fact is not mentioned in the application (Exh. PA ) or the private complaint (Exh. PB). Riaz Ahmad/Draft sman (CW -1) admitted that neither PW Mian Khan nor th e other witnesses informed him whether the body was lying on a cot or on the ground, nor whether the deceased had been strangulated in a standing or lying position. The Investigating Officer initially st ated that he did not make any inquiry in this regard, but later contra dicted himself by asserting that the witnesses had told him that the decease d was murdered on the cot, a fact not recorded in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. In the absence of clea r and consistent evidence regarding the deceased’s posture or pos ition, the prosecution’s version remains uncertain. 21. In this backdrop, the med ical evidence assum es particular importance. Cox summari zes t he ordinarily rec ognized medico -legal features associated with death by strangulation as follows: “Strangulation is again a term which is not exa ct in itself, as there are several types of strang ulation, ma inly manual strangulation (sometimes calle d “throttling”) and stran gulation by a ligature (sometimes called “garroting”). Apart from the mark due to the ligature a nd any pos sible ‘asphyxial’ changes, suc h as congestion, oedema, cyanosis, petechiae, and nose bleeding, certain other marks may be discovered on the skin in cases of ligature strangulation. The most frequent ones are those inflicted by the victim in an attempt to tear away the lig ature and are usually seen as scratches on the ski n of the n eck near the position of th e ligature. Most of the foregoing description applies equally to manual strangula tion as to strangulation by a ligature, but there are certain important variations. The external a ppearances are vital. In place of the li gature mark described earlier, the ne ck will almost in variably show abr asions and bruises caused by the fingers of the assailant an d again sometimes of the v ictim, wh ere atte mpts at re moving the compression have been made.”3
22. Dr. Amna Qures hi (CW -6), who conducted th e postmortem examinati on, opined tha t the deceased died due to
3 H W V Cox, Medical Jur isprudence and Toxico logy (6th edn, Law Book Company) cited in Saeed Ahmed v The State (2015 SCMR 710).
Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 10 - cardiopulmonary arrest as a result of strangulation. She noted multiple bruises aro und the neck , compression of the larynx and trachea. However, the hyoid bone was fo und intact. During cross-examination, Dr. Amna Qureshi candidly admitted that she had no t recorded several commonly recogni zed fe atures frequently associated with death by strangulation, includin g protrusion of the to ngue, swelling or congestion of the face, petechia l haemorrha ges, cyanosis of the lips , ears or fingernails, p rominence of the neck veins, congestion of the right side of the heart , or clenched hands. She further acknowledged that she had not mentioned any oozing of blood from the mouth or nose, nor had s he recorded congestion of the eyeballs. Although she volunteered that bluish discoloration was observed around the eyes and that bruises around the neck made dema rcation diff icult, these explanations were not mentioned in the postmortem report and surfaced for the first time during her oral testimony. 23. Death by strangulation may manifest with varying internal and external features depending upon the manner, force and duration of compression. The absence of one or more commonly recogni zed signs does not negate the possibility of strangulation. Similarly, the fact that the hyoid bone was found intact does n ot conclusively exclude such cause of death, though it is a factor to be considered while assessing the overall medical picture. Therefore, th e medical evidence, when examined in the cont ext of the ocular account, does not furnish the degree of corroboration necessary to sustain the prosecution’s version and instead introduces further uncertainty. 24. Another aspect of the medical evidence merits consideration. The Investigating Officer, Zafar Iqbal/Inspector (CW-7), deposed that wh ile pre paring the Inquest Report (Exh. CW -6/D), he observed four injuries on different parts of the deceased’s body, namely the left e ye, lumbar region, back, and neck. However, Dr. Amna Qureshi (CW -6) cate gorically stated that, u pon postmortem examination, she d id not observe any injury on the body of the deceased except the neck. In an attempt to rec oncile this discrepanc y, the Medical Officer offered explanations by stating that the alleged Crl. Appeal No. 7335/2022 Crl. Revision No. 26176/2022
- 11 - additional injuries were “secondary” to strangulation and that the bluish discoloration observed could be at tributed to postmortem coagulation of blood. Since t hese exp lanations were n ot mentioned in the postmortem report (Exh. CW -6/A), they affect the weight of the medical evidence and cannot cure the deficiencies apparent on its face. 25. The pros ecution al leged that the Appella nt strangulate d Nasreen with a Dupatta. However, when the Investiga ting Office r examined the body, no Dupatta was found around her neck. Even PWs Mian Khan and Muhammad Azam admitted that it was not present when they reached the deceased and that they them selves placed it on her face out of resp ect. During cross -examination, PW Mian Khan asserted for the first time that the Dupatta used for stra ngulation had been taken away by the Appellant while fleeing, a fact not mentioned in the application (Exh. PA ) or the private comp laint (Exh. PB). In any event, o nce the ocular account is fou nd to be unreliable, recovery evidence cannot in dependently establish the prosecution’s case. 4 The Dupatta (P-7), allegedly recovered on the Appellant’s pointing out, was a common household artic le bearing no distincti ve marks an d was not sent to the P…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.