Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Muhammad Ibrahim VS Respondent: State Honorable Justice Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen Jamil Shah
CITATION: 2026 YLR 1995 CASE: 2026Q4013 TITLE: Muhammad Ibrahim VS State Honorable Justice Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen Jamil Shah COURT: QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: YLR ============================================================
2002 Y L R 2026 Y L R 1995 [Balochistan] Before Iqbal Ahmed Kasi and Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, JJ Muhammad Ibrahim and another---Appellants Versus The State ---Respondent Criminal Appeals Nos. 526, 550 and Murder Reference No. 19 of 2022, decided on 7th August, 2025. (a) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Chain of circumstances---Requirement---Circumstantial evidence must form a chain of events, one end whereof should be connected with the deceased and the other with the accused---If such link was missing, the entire chain collapsed---No conviction could be based on such circumstantial evidence. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging FIR after missing report---Sufficient explanation---Accused were charged with committing murder of complainant's son and taking away his motorbike after kidnapping him---Record showed that the deceased went missing on 25th May, 2019---After searching for him and when he did not return home throughout the night, complainant, being father of the deceased, lodged a missing report at the police station on the next day---After extensive search and after waiting several days for his son's safe return, complainant lodged the FIR on 31st May, 2019---In such circumstances, family of the deceased, with police assistance, attempted to locate the missing person and lodged the FIR only when such efforts remained unsuccessful---Such fact sufficiently explained delay in registration of FIR---Delay was not fatal, particularly when missing report had been lodged the very next day, thereby reducing likelihood of fabrication, deliberation or consultation---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 394 & 34 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material pursuant to disclosure/pointation by accused---Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. and evidentiary value under Art. 40, Qanun-e-Shahadat---Accused were charged with committing murder of complainant's son and taking away his motorbike after kidnapping him---Upon arrest, appellants disclosed that on 25th May, 2019, they had travelled with the deceased from Q. (Quetta) to M. (Mastung) on his motorbike; on the way back, they had iftar; and at about 9.00 p.m. they dragged the deceased, who was then alive, into a deserted well---They further disclosed that they could point out the well, the paint shop where the motorbike had been taken for painting after payment of Rs. 7,000 to the painter, and the place from where registration documents of the motorbike could be recovered---Witness of disclosure memo deposed that Registration Book of deceased's motorbike was recovered, pursuant to appellants' disclosure, from house of one appellant through recovery memo--- Appellants also led police to a paint shop from where deceased's motorbike was recovered---Painter stated that accused/appellants had given him motorbike for painting---Though the witness did not identify the accused in Court, such lapse was attributable to passage of about two and a half years between entrustment of motorbike and his deposition; he nevertheless testified that accused present in Court had handed over the motorbike for painting---Defence objection regarding violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C. for not associating two respectable inhabitants of locality during recovery was without force---No search warrants had been issued by Magistrate for house or shop, nor did police conduct searches on their own---Appellants themselves led police to places from where registration book and motorbike were recovered---Section 103, Cr.P.C. applied when police searched a house for a specific article, not when discovery was made on information furnished or pointation made by accused---Recovery based on accused's pointation was relevant under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat---In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, discovery of incriminating articles connected with deceased, pursuant to disclosure under Art. 40, Qanun-e-Shahadat, constituted a relevant link in chain of circumstances---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1995 SCMR 693 and Gul Jamal and another v. The State 1980 SCMR 654 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 394 & 34 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of dead body pursuant to pointation by accused---Reliability---Accused were charged with committing murder of complainant's son and taking away his motorbike after kidnapping him---When appellants led police to place where the dead body was lying, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased, complainant/father of the deceased, Medical Officer and Judicial Magistrate were present and witnessed extraction of body from the well---Such witnesses were impartial and no grudge was shown that could lead to false implication of the appellants---Prosecution also produced a witness, who had arranged another witness to assist in extracting the body---Presence of said private and independent witnesses during extraction of body, pursuant to appellants' pointation, could not be doubted---Particularly, presence of Judicial Magistrate and Police Surgeon, which was not challenged, strengthened credibility of prosecution case and lent reliability to the evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 40---Joint disclosure/ pointation by accused---Scope---Plurality of information received before discovery did not, by itself, exclude such information from the ambit of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Tariq Hameed Paracha and others v. Danish Ahmed and another 2019 YLR 2246; Nazir Shehzad v. The State 2009 SCMR 1440; Naresh Candhra Das and another v. Emperor AIR (29) 1942 Cal. 593 and Ajab alias Rajab and another v. The State 2004 MLD 180 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence---Non-material discrepancies---Accused were charged with committing murder of complainant's son and taking away his motorbike after kidnapping him---Defence contended that numerous contradictions existed in prosecution testimony regarding time and dates of pointation and extraction of dead body from the well---However, prosecution witnesses corroborated one another as well as prosecution case, and discrepancies, if any, were minor and not material and could be disregarded---No personal enmity towards accused or any reason for falsely implicating them was shown---Motive for murder was supported by substantial evidence showing that deceased had been killed in order to take away and sell his motorbike---Since appellants were familiar with deceased, they had reason to eliminate him before selling the motorbike---Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Jamil Shah for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2022). Ms. Kalsoom Langove for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2022). Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2022). Ms. Kalsoom Langove for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2022). Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2022). Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel for the State (in Murder Reference No. 19 of 2022). Jamil Shah for Convict No. 1 (in Murder Reference No. 19 of 2022). Ms. Kalsoom Langove for Convict No. 1 (in Murder Reference No. 19 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Complainant (in Murder Reference No. 19 of 2022). Date of hearing: 25th June, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, J .--- This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 526/2022, 550/2022 and Murder Reference No. 19/2022, as both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31st October 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sariab Division, Quetta in sessions case No. 38/2020, whereby the appellants Muhammad Ibraheem son of Muhammad Ismail and Manzoor Ahmed son of Muhammad Meer were convicted and sentenced in the following terms: 1. Under sections 302 (b) and 34 P.P.C to suffer capital punishment of death as Tazir each for committing Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Sajid Ali son of Muhammad Ramzan, and to pay compensation Rs.500,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, in default, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months each; 2. under section 365 P.P.C to suffer imprisonment for seven years each with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months each; 3. under section 394, P.P.C to suffer imprisonment for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months each; All the sentences to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The trial court, has sent the Murder Reference No. 19/2022 for confirmation of the sentence of death recorded against the appellants (convicts). 2. Facts of the case are that pursuant to the report (Ex: P/11- B) of complainant Muhammad Ramzan (PW-11), a criminal case, vide FIR No. 43/2019 (Ex: P/16-A), dated 31st May 2019, under sections 365 and 34, P.P.C was registered at P.S. Manzoor Tareen Shaheed Quetta, wherein he alleged that on 25th May 2019, at the time of Iftar he contacted his son Hafiz Sajid Ali, who informed him that he is invited at Iftar and will return home after prayer. Thereafter mobile phone of Hafiz Sajid Ali became off, on 26th May 2019, the complainant informed the police authorities about missing of Hafiz Sajid Ali through Ex: P/11-A and was also trying to find his whereabouts, but failed; therefore, he approached the concerned Police Station for registration of the FIR. 3. During investigation, on the basis of CDR, the friends of Sajid namely Manzoor Ahmed and Muhammad Ibraheem (appellants) were arrested, who made disclosure that they had thrown Sajid Ali in a well and taken away his motorbike; hence, section 302 P.P.C was inserted in the challan. After completion of the investigation, challan (Ex: P/7-A) was submitted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Sariab Division took cognizance of the case, framed charge and readover the same to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate accusation, the prosecution produced and examined the following evidence: PW-1 Mumtaz Tanoli ASI, who produced disclosure memo of appellants (Ex: P/1-A), recovery memo (Ex: P/1-B) of registration book of motorbike (Article-P/1); recovery memo (Ex: P/1- C) of CDR (Article-P/2 to P/7); site inspection memo (Ex: P/1-D) and recovery memo (Ex: P/1-E) of motorbike (Article-P/8); PW-2 Rashid Ali (brother of deceased), in his presence dead body of deceased Hafiz Sajid Ali was recovered from a well; PW-3 Barkat Ali son of Ali Muhammad (maternal uncle of deceased), who was present with PW-2 and PW-11 at the time of recovery of dead body from a well; PW-4 Abdul Salam son of Ghulam Sarwar, motorbike painter, to whom the accused brought the motorbike for paint; PW-5 Dr. Aisha Faiz, Police Surgeon, who conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased Sajid Ali and issued postmortem certificate (Ex: P/5-A); she also produced correction certificate of the name of deceased (Ex: P/5-B); PW-6 Ehsanullah Constable, produced recovery memo (Ex: P/6-A) of news cuttings (Article-P/9 to P/17); PW-7 Umar Daraz Shah, IP is the investigation officer, who produced challans (Ex: P/7-A to P/7-C); PW-8 Abdul Qayyum son of Haji Abdul Rahman, who provided a labour to the Police authorities, to bring the dead bodies out of the well and in his presence, dead body of Sajid Ali was recovered from the well; PW-9 Muhammad Afzal, Judicial Magistrate, in whose presence, Muhammad Haneef went inside the well and brought out the dead bodies including the dead body of deceased Sajid Ali; PW-10 Muhammad Haneef, he brought out the dead body of deceased; PW-11 Muhammad Ramzan (complainant), who produced his applications (Ex: P/11-A and P/11-B); PW-12 Wali Muhammad son of Ghulam Rasool, in whose presence, Muhammad Haneef brought out the dead body of deceased Sajid Ali; PW-13 Muhammad Qasim son of Muhammad Ishaq is also witness of recovery of Sajid Ali s dead body from a well; PW-14 Syed Waseem Mumtaz, Head Constable is witness of recovery memo (Ex: P/14-A) of parcel (Article-P/18) containing sample of seal (Article-P/19) and CD (Article-P/20); PW-15 Muhammad Shahbaz IP, who produced his report (Ex: P/15-A); PW-16 Khair Muhammad SI, who produced copy of FIR (Ex: P/16-A), site map (Ex: P/16-B), Merg report of Sajid Ali (Ex: P/16-C-1/5 to P/16-C-5/5). On closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court recorded the statements of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein they disputed the prosecution story and pleaded their innocence; however, they did not opt to record their statements on oath provided under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, nor produced any witness in defence. 4. On completion of trial, the learned trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-I Sariab Division, Quetta), vide impugned judgment dated 31st October 2022, found the appellants guilty, as such, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence, these appeals with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and to acquit the appellants of the charge. Similarly, the learned trial court sent Murder Reference for confirmation of death penalty awarded to the appellants (convicts). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay, and no satisfactory explanation has been provided; therefore, deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out. However, the learned trial court did not consider this delay when deciding the case. They further contended that the prosecution's case relies on the joint extrajudicial confession of the appellants, which is inadmissible evidence; nonetheless, the learned trial court erred in law by relying on inadmissible evidence when sentencing the appellants. They also argued that during recoveries, the investigation officer did not call private witnesses to support the recoveries, violating the provisions of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. Lastly, they requested that due to material contradictions and the cumulative effects of legal and factual issues in the case, by extending the benefit of doubt, the judgment of the trial court should be set aside, and the appellants should be acquitted. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant was assisted by the learned State Counsel, who argued that the complainant had adequately explained the delay by filing a report soon after the disappearance of his son; therefore, the delay has caused no prejudice to the appellants. They further argued that the deceased's dead body had been recovered based on the appellants pointation. Such pointation falls under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, which is admissible as evidence. The dead body has been duly identified, and thus the trial court correctly convicted the appellants. They lastly requested that the trial court's speaking judgment be upheld. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned State counsel, and the learned counsel for the complainant, and we have reviewed the record with their valuable assistance. Brief facts of the case as given in FIR No. 43/2019 dated 31st May 2019, reported by complainant Muhammad Ramzan at Police Station Manzoor Tareen Shaheed Quetta, states that the complainant's son, Hafiz Sajid Ali, aged 29 years, who worked as a laborer, went for routine work on 25th May 2019. When he did not return home on time, the complainant called him on his cell phone and asked why he was delayed. Hafiz Sajid Ali replied that he would come after Iftari
and prayer. When he did not return after prayer, the complainant called him again, but his cell phone was off. And when Sajid Ali had not returned home, on 26th May 2019, the complainant reported his son's disappearance to the police through Ex: P/11-A. On 31st May 2019, the complainant, after searching for his son, Sajid Ali, through his relatives and friends, and after waiting a long time for his return home, when he lost hope of his return, he again approached the police station. He lodged the FIR against unknown persons under sections 365 and 34 of the P.P.C. 7. Admittedly, Sajid Ali's murder went un-witnessed, and the case depends on circumstantial evidence. We recognize that cases relying on such evidence require special care and caution. Therefore, while re-examining the evidence, we have taken every possible precaution to prevent and eliminate any false conclusions, as there is always a risk of fabricating circumstantial evidence. As the apex court has held, circumstantial evidence is not always reliable, and depending on it entirely can be risky. The evidence must form a chain of events, with one end connected to the deceased and the other to the accused. If this link is missing, the entire chain collapses. No conviction can be based solely on such circumstantial evidence. 8. Dealing with the issue of alleged delay in lodging the FIR, usually, such a long delay would be fatal to the prosecution, but in this case, Sajid Ali went missing on 25th May 2019. After searching for him and not returning home all night, the complainant, PW-11, who is also Sajid's father, filed a missing report at the police station the next day. After an extensive search and waiting several days for his son's safe return, the complainant finally lodged the FIR on 31st May 2019. Under these circumstances, where Sajid Ali's family, with police assistance, attempted to locate their missing son on their own and only filed the FIR after they were unsuccessful, we believe this provides a sufficient explanation for the delay in registration of FIR. Therefore, we do not consider the delay to be fatal to the case, especially since the missing report was filed the very next day, thereby reducing the likelihood of any fabrication, deliberation, or consultation. 9. After registering an FIR, the investigation officer collected the Call Detail Record (CDR) (Article-P/2- P/7) through memo (Ex: P/1-C) of the missing Sajid Ali and appellants. The appellants were found to be connected with Sajid Ali on the day he went missing. Subsequently, Sajid Ali's phone number went offline, and two days later, the mobile was found to be in use by Ibrahim, one of the appellants. Since both appellants had been in contact with Sajid Ali, they were called by the police to provide information about Sajid Ali. However, their responses were unsatisfactory, and as a result, they were formally arrested on 11th June 2019. Upon their arrest, the appellants made an extrajudicial confession, revealing that on 25th May, 2019, they went with Sajid Ali from Quetta to Mastung Daringar on Sajid Ali's motorbike. On the way back, they had Iftar at Dasht. Around 9 PM, they dragged Sajid Ali alive into a rotten, deserted well near Link Mian Ghundi Dasht. From there, they returned to Quetta and were able to point out the well where Sajid Ali was held. Sajid Ali's motorbike was handed over to a paint shop to be painted, and he paid 7,000/- to the painter on Spini Road, Quetta, and can identify the shop. They further disclosed that the documents related to Sajid Ali's motorbike are kept by the accused (appellant) Manzoor Ahmed, at his house with his mother, and can be recovered. The motorbike, which was taken to the paint shop for painting, is still at the paint shop. To establish the disclosure of the appellants (Ex: P/1-A), PW 1 Mumtaz Tanoli testified that the Registration Book of Sajid Ali's motorbike was recovered on the disclosure of the appellants from the house of appellant Manzoor through a recovery memo (Ex: P/1-B). Following the disclosure by the appellants, they also led police to a paint shop on Spini Road, where Sajid Ali's motorbike (Article-P/8) was recovered, documented with a recovery memo (Ex: P/1-E). Abdul Salam, PW-4, stated that the accused (appellants) had given him a motorbike for painting. Although he did not identify the accused in court, it was likely due to the passage of about two and a half years between the time the motorbike was given and his court testimony. However, he also testified that the accused present in court handed him the motorbike for painting. The objection raised by the learned counsel regarding the violation of section 103, Cr.P.C, by not involving two respected members of the locality as witnesses during the recovery is unfounded. In this case, no search warrants were issued by the Magistrate for the house or shop, nor did the police conducted searches on their own. The appellants themselves led the police to the locations where the registration book and motorbike were recovered. According to section 103, Cr.P.C, this rule applies when the police search a house to find a specific item, not when something is discovered based on information provided by or pointed out by the accused. Such recovery based on the accused's pointation is relevant under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The involvement of two respectable local residents is unnecessary when the accused himself guides the police to a specific location, leading to the recovery based on his information or pointation. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Akbar v. The State (1995 SCMR 693). 10. In furtherance of the disclosure made by the appellants, both of them led the investigation officer, along with SP, DSP, and other police officials, to Dasht Link Road to the abandoned, rotten well where they had thrown alive Sajid Ali. This discovery, based on the information provided by the appellants, resulted in the recovery of Sajid Ali's dead body from the well. It is clear that before the appellants provided this information, no one knew Sajid Ali's whereabouts. Moreover, the place where the murder of the deceased was committed was also not known to anyone until the prosecution witnesses were led to the crime scene by the appellants in consequence of their disclosure. The information given by the appellants to the investigation officer can be used against them under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, when a discovery is made as a result of a confession made under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, it is expected that evidence connected to the deceased will be found. Reliance is placed on the case of Gul Jamal and another v. The State (1980 SCMR 654) where it was held: The cases of Faqira and others v. Emperor and Rafiqueddin Ahmad and others v. Emperor were decided on the premise that the statements made by the accused persons did not show any particularity as to from whose information the recovery was effected so as to fasten the statement with the act in terms of Explanation 1 to section 8 and also for the reason as to who was the first to give that statement which led to the recovery of the article as in that eventuality the statement of the other could not be linked with the act as the fact had already been discovered. In these cases, however no distinction was attempted to be drawn between an act simplicitor and the statement accompanying the act and, therefore whatever was said was in the context of the facts of those cases. Here in so far as the seizure of the dagger is concerned, the act of Gul Jamal in picking it up from under the box cannot be excluded for it is a piece of relevant conduct under section 8. Similarly, the joint leading…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.