Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Ali Hassan VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Farooq HaiderZafar Iqbal Mangan
2025 P Cr. L J 1675 [Lahore] Before Farooq Haider, J Ali Hassan and 3 others---Appellants Versus The State and another---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 78438 of 2022, decided on 20th June, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stealing money from the shop of the victim---As per own document of the prosecution i.e. injury statement of victim (now deceased of the case) brought on record and got exhibited, victim after becoming injured during quarrel came to the Police Post who was sent with Police Constable for medical treatment and as a result of medical examination, three injuries were mentioned in said injury statement---Perusal of injury statement revealed that victim himself came to the Police Post and after recording Rapt No. 8 dated 07.04.2019 in the daily diary, his injury statement was prepared and he was sent for medical treatment and issuance of medico-legal examination certificate, so Rapt No. 8 was the FIR regarding occurrence within purview of S.154,Cr.P.C., but same had not been brought on the record which would go against the prosecution under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days and seven hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stealing money from the shop of the victim---Occurrence took place on 07.04.2019 at 10.30 a.m., victim went to the Police Post, and Rapt No.8 was also recorded in that regard (which had not been brought on record)---Victim was vitally stable as mentioned by the Medical Officer but case was not registered on the day of occurrence---Although, there was no impediment in the way of registering the case on the day of occurrence or at least recording statement of victim regarding detail of assailants as well as occurrence but any such statement of victim was not available on record---Though application for recording statement of victim had been brought on record but it was relevant to mention here that same was not filed on the day of occurrence or on the day of medical examination of victim i.e. 07.04.2019 rather on 09.04.2019 at 5.30 p.m. and Medical Officer mentioned that patient was not fit for recording statement at the moment---So, prosecution could not provide any convincing justification that why the statement of victim was not recorded on the day of occurrence on 07.04.2019 or on the following day of occurrence i.e. 08.04.2019, therefore, on the one hand, case was registered with unexplained delay whereas on the other hand, even statement of victim (then injured, now deceased of the case) was not recorded on the day of occurrence or on the subsequent day---Such state of affair led to the conclusion that First Information Report had been recorded after consultation, deliberation as well as inducement, procurement and engagement of witnesses as well as tailoring story for the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report---Scope---First Information Report (crime report) is the cornerstone and foundational element of the case of prosecution---If First Information Report has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall---When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version and same is fatal for the prosecution case. Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068; Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 16; Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 2021 SCMR 542 and Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses evidence of---Scope---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stole money from the shop of the victim---Ocular account in this case comprised of two witnesses including complainant---Complainant was not resident of place of occurrence, therefore, he was 'chance witness' and in such circumstances, he was required to offer/explain valid reason/cause to establish his presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence---Perusal of injury statement revealed that victim all alone went to Police Post and name of complainant was not mentioned in the same as accompanying victim---So much so, name of complainant was not mentioned in the medico-legal examination certificate as person accompanying the deceased when he was brought to the hospital for medico-legal examination---No material was available on record to establish presence of the complainant at the time and place of occurrence, hence, his testimony was "suspect" evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Sugra Begum and another v. Qiaser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652; Mst. Mir and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 1850 and Sarfraz and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 rel. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Dishonest improvements by witnesses---Scope---Witness who introduced dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, could not be relied. Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 and Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stealing money from the shop of the victim---Complainant stated in his statement before Court that accused hit with butt of pistol on left temporal region of victim whereas other accused hit with brick on left side of head of victim---Similarly, eye-witness also stated that accused gave butt blow of pistol on left temporal region/kanpatti of victim and other accused hit with brick on left side of head of victim---Perusal of injuries clearly revealed that injury attributed to accused at temporal region/kanpatti was found at the time of medico-legal examination of victim on his body as injury No.2 whereas injury No.3 was active bleeding from left ear canal, and Medical Officer clearly stated during his statement before Court that injury No.2 might have led to injury No.3---So, there was no injury on the head except injury on left temporal region/kanpati (injury No.2) which was just 3.5cm above left ear and it was attributed to co-accused of the appellant---Thus, ocular account to the extent of present appellant that he hit brick on the left side of head of victim could not be supported/confirmed by the medical evidence---Eye-witness was not mentioned as eye-witness in the application for the registration of the case as well as FIR and his ocular version to the extent of appellant had not been supported/confirmed by medical evidence---Thus, ocular account produced by the prosecution to the extent of appellant had not been found as confidence inspiring or truthful, therefore, same could not be relied and was discarded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence, it cantell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant. Sajjan Solangi v. The State 2019 SCMR 872 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stealing money from the shop of the victim---Record showed that half brick/brickbat was recovered at the pointation of accused---As per own case of prosecution, occurrence took place on 07.04.2019 whereas said blood-stained half brick was recovered on 12.06.2019 after more than two months of the occurrence and that too, from vacant place---Blood disintegrated within three weeks, therefore, report of Forensic Science Agency regarding availability of human blood on the said brickbat was of no avail to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2016 SCMR 2138 rel. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c), 379, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, theft, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant and also stealing money from the shop of the victim---As per own case of prosecution mentioned in application and FIR, motive was attributed to co-accused and not to the present appellant---Even otherwise, when substantive evidence in the form of ocular account had not been found as confidence inspiring, then motive on the one hand could not cure said defect of the case of prosecution whereas on the other hand, it lost its significance because as alone, it could not be made basis for sustaining the conviction---Motive was neither substantive nor direct or corroborative piece of evidence rather only circumstance leading to the offence---Furthermore, motive was the double-edged weapon and could cut both sides and also could be equal reason for false implication of the accused---So, alleged motive was of no help to prosecution against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Akbar Ali v. The STate 2007 SCMR 486 and Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal of accused. Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 rel. Zafar Iqbal Mangan for Appellants. Nisar Ahmad Vir, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Mehram Ali Bali, along with Fatehyab Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2025. Judgment Faroor Haider, J.---This appeal has been filed by Ali Hassan, Amjad Ali, Imran Ali and Asad Nazar (appellants) against the judgment dated: 29.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore/trial court whereby in case arising out of FIR No.1148/2019 dated: 09.04.2019 registered under Sections 324, 379, P.P.C (subsequently, offences under Sections 452, 148, 149, P.P.C were added and then Section 302, P.P.C was also added whereas offence under Section 379, P.P.C was deleted) at Police Station: Kahna, Lahore, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- ASAD NAZAR
Convictions
Sentences
Under Section: 302(c), P.P.C
"Sixteen Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" along with compensation of Rs.500,000/- under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Fiaz which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo S.I. for six months.
Under Section: 452, P.P.C
"Seven Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 148, P.P.C
"Three Year's Rigorous Imprisonment".
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. ALI HASSAN
Convictions
Sentences
Under Section: 302(c), P.P.C
"One Year Simple Imprisonment" along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Fiaz which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 452, P.P.C
"One Year Simple Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 148, P.P.C
"One Year Simple Imprisonment".
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. IMRAN ALI
Convictions
Sentences
Under Section: 302(c), P.P.C
"Three Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Fiaz which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 452, P.P.C
"Three Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 148, P.P.C
"One Year Rigorous Imprisonment".
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. AMJAD ALI
Convictions
Sentences
Under Section: 302(c), P.P.C
"Two Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Fiaz which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 452, P.P.C
"Two Year's Rigorous Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section: 148, P.P.C
"One Year Rigorous Imprisonment".
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section: 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to all the convicts. It is pertinent to mention here that today learned counsel for the appellants did not press rather withdrew this appeal to the extent of Ali Hassan, Amjad Ali, Imran Ali (Appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively), hence, it has already been dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed to their extent vide separate order of even date whereas same is alive only to the extent of Asad Nazar (Appellant No.4, hereinafter to be referred as "appellant"). 2. Briefly, the facts are that Abdul Rasheed (complainant/ PW-2) moved application (Ex.PB) for registration of case; for ready reference, same is hereby scanned below: - On the basis of aforementioned application (Ex.PB), First Information Report (FIR/Ex.PU) was recorded on 09.04.2019 at Police Station: Kahna, Lahore. However, subsequently, Abdul Rasheed (complainant/ PW-2) moved another application (Ex.PC), which is also scanned as under: - 3. After investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court; appellant and his co-accused persons were sent for trial; charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was summoned; after recording of prosecution evidence, appellant and his co-accused persons were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. but they refuted the allegations levelled against them; they did not appear as their own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however, produced some documents as evidence in their defence. Trial Court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant and his co-accused persons (as mentioned above) through impugned judgment dated: 29.11.2022. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to Asad Nazar (appellant No.4) through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' of the case; case was registered with delay; ocular account is not supported by medical evidence; recovery is inconsequential; prosecution has remained unable to prove its case. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of said appellant. 5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against Asad Nazar (appellant No.4) through cogent and reliable evidence and prayed for dismissal of appeal to his extent. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence took place on 07.04.2019 at 10.30 a.m., however, case was registered on 09.04.2019 at 5.25 p.m. but any plausible/convincing reason to explain said delay is not available on the record, therefore, case has been registered with unexplained delay. It is very much important to mention here that as per own document of the prosecution i.e. injury statement of Muhammad Fayyaz (now deceased of the case) brought on record and got exhibited as Exh.PS (copy whereof is available at page No.203 of the paper-book), Muhammad Fayyaz after becoming injured during quarrel came to the Police Post who was sent with Shah Muhammad Constable No. 2028 for medical treatment and as a result of medical examination, three injuries were mentioned in said injury statement which is hereby scanned below:- Perusal of aforementioned injury statement (Exh.PS) reveals that Muhammad Fayyaz (then injured, now deceased of the case) himself came to the Police-Post and after recording Rapt No.8 dated 07.04.2019 in the Daily Diary (Roznamcha), his injury statement was prepared and he was sent for medical treatment and issuance of medicolegal examination certificate, so Rapt No.08 was the First Information Report regarding occurrence within purview of Section 154, Cr.P.C. but same has not been brought on the record which goes against the prosecution under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is relevant to mention here that perusal of Exh.PS (injury statement) further reveals that it is nowhere recorded in the same that Fayyaz was accompanied by complainant or any other cited eye-witness when he came to police post. He was got medically examined by Shah Muhammad constable, his medicolegal examination certificate (Exh.PAA) is available at pages Nos. 215 and 216 of the paper-book, perusal whereof reveals that he was mentioned as vitally stable by the Medical Officer Dr. Haris Siddiqui (PW-12) who conducted his medicolegal examination. Dr. Haris Siddiqui ( PW-12) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that vitally stable means patient's blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate was within normal limits; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced:- "Vitally stable means patient's blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate was within normal limits." In spite of the fact that Fayyaz was vitally stable, he did not mention name of the appellant as assailant and relevant portion of statement of PW-12 is hereby reproduced:- "In the brief history, there is no mention of name of any assailants." It is relevant to mention here that occurrence took place on 07.04.2019 at 10.30 a.m., Fayyaz went to the Police Post, Rapt No.8 was also recorded in this regard (which has not been brought on record). He was vitally stable as mentioned by the doctor but case was even not registered on the day of occurrence. Although there was no impediment in the way of registering the case on the day of occurrence or at least recording statement of Fayyaz regarding detail of assailants as well as occurrence but any such statement of Fayyaz is not available on record. Though application for recording statement of Fayyaz has been brought on record (Exh.PT available at page No.204 of the paper-book) but it is relevant to mention here that same was not filed on the day of occurrence or on the day of medical examination of Fayyaz i.e. 07.04.2019 rather on 09.04.2019 at 5.30 p.m. and medical officer mentioned that patient was not fit for recording statement at the moment which application is scanned below for ready reference:- So, prosecution could not provide any convincing justification that why the statement of Fayyaz was not recorded on the day of occurrence on 07.04.2019 or on the following day of occurrence i.e. 08.04.2019, therefore, on the one hand, case was registered with unexplained delay whereas on the other hand, even statement of Fayyaz (then injured, now deceased of the case) was not recorded on the day of occurrence or on the subsequent day and this state of affair leads to the conclusion that First Information Report has been recorded after consultation, deliberation as well as inducement, procurement and engagement of witnesses as well as tailoring story for the prosecution. By now it is well settled that First Information Report (Crime report) is the cornerstone and foundational element of the case of prosecution and if same has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State" (2019 SCMR 1068), Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 16) and "Ghulam Mustafa v. The State" (2021 SCMR 542). It is also well settled that when there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version and same is fatal for the case of prosecution. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others" (PLD 2019 SC 64); relevant portion from paragraph No.29 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "There is no cavil to the proposition, however, it is to be noted that in absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always considered the delay in lodging of FIR to be fatal and castes a suspicion on the prosecution story, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. It has been held by this Court that a FIR is always treated as a cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those involved in a crime; thus, it has a significant role to play. If there is any delay in lodging of a FIR and commencement of investigation, it gives rise to a doubt, which, of course, cannot be extended to anyone else except to the accused " hence, First Information Report in this case has lost its legal efficacy and is of no help to the case of prosecution. 8. Ocular account in this case comprises of Abdul Rasheed (PW-2) and Niaz Ali (PW-3). So far as Abdul Rasheed (PW-2) is concerned, he is resident of Choongi Ammer Sidhu, Lahore, whereas occurrence took at Aazad Town, Lahore, therefore, he was 'chance witness' and in such circumstances, he was required to offer/explain valid reason/cause to establish his presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence. Perusal of injury statement (Exh.PS) reveals that Fayyaz all alone went to Police Post and name of Abdul Rasheed (PW-2) was not mentioned in the same as accompanying him (i.e. Fayyaz). So much so, his name was not mentioned in the medico-legal examination certificate (Exh.PAA) as person accompanying the deceased when he was brought to the hospital for medicolegal examination. No material is available on record to establish presence of the complainant at the time and place of occurrence, hence, his testimony is "suspect" evidence and cannot be accepted without pinch of salt; guidance in this regard has been sought from the case of "Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others" (2015 SCMR 1142) and relevant portion from paragraph No.14 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.