Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4313
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: TANVEER AHMAD vs STATE
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4313. In this matter between TANVEER AHMAD 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 Sadiq Mahmud Khurram) DECISION DATE: 01-04-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 209-24 ============================================================ Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 (The State Vs. Tanveer Ahmad)
Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 (Tanveer Ahmad Vs. The State .)
Date of hearing: 01.04.2026
Appellant by:
Hafiz Shahid Nadeem , Advocate. State by: Complainant by :
Mr. Muhammad Riaz Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General. Mr. Zeeshan Haider, Advocate.
JUDGMENT.
SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.– Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar (convict) was tried along with Zaheer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar, since acquitted , by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, /Model Criminal Trial Court ,Bahawalnagar in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “ Shamim Akhtar Vs. Tanver Ahmad and another” filed in respect of offences under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C. (related to the F.I.R. No. 472 of 2023 dated 10.07.2023 at the Police Station Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar), for committing the Qatl-i- Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 2
Amd of Muhammad Ramiz son of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased). The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 30.03.2024, convicted Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar: Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Ramiz son of Muhammad Ashraf(deceased) and directed to pay Rs. 1,000,000/- as compensation under section 544 -A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default thereof, the convict was directed to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment.
The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead.
Zaheer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad,the co-accused of the convict, was however, acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar lodged the Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.15 of 2024 under section 374 Cr.P.C., seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 and Murder Reference No.15 of 2024 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2), the eye witness of the incident, are as under:- “States that on 10.07.2023 at about 08:25PM, I alongwith Muhammad Ashraf was proceeding towards market from our houses. At about 08:25PM, we reached near Ghazi Dug Service. Rameez Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 3
(deceased) was proceeding to his house. Suddenly a car 125 stopped nearby Rameez boarded by Tanveer Ahmad and Zaheer Ahmad, accused present before the court. Accused raised lalkara against Rameez. Accused raised lalkara and then brought out pistols 30-bore. Firstly, Tanveer Ahmad, accused made two consecutive fire shot at Rameez which landed at his head and chest. Zaheer Ahmad, accused made two fire shots with his pistol which landed at Rameez at his abdomen and right arm. After receiving fire shots Rameez fell down. I and Muhammad Ashraf witnessed the occurrence. We de - boarded our car and attended Rameez in injured condition, accused while uttering abuses and causing firing fled from the spot. Tanveer Ahmad, accused fled from the spo t boarding car motorcycle 125 , Zaheer Ahmad accused fled in the nea rby street taking advantage of darkness. We boarded Rameez in injured condition in car and took him to THQ. Hospital, Minchinabad where he succumbed to injuries. Two days earlier to this occurrence, some altercation occurred between accused and a boy named Ahmad Raza , where accused was beating him where Rameez (deceased), I and Ashraf, PW intervened. When Rameez (deceased) rescued said boy Ahmad Raza. accused uttered him abuses but we patched up the matter at the spot. Due to said grudge, accused murd ered Rameez (deceased) making fire shots at him. I informed Mst. Shameem Akhtar, mother of deceased about occurrence She came at hospital. She got written application which was moved to police for registration of FIR. Police also came at hospital and received application. In my presence, police visited place of occurrence. Investigating officer collected blood-stained soil from spot, made it into sealed parcel and secured it through recovery memo (Exh.PC) witnessed and signed by me and Muhammad A shraf. During spot inspection, investigating officer also collected six empties, made them into sealed parcel and secured empties through recovery memo (Exh.PD) witnessed and signed by me and Muhammad Ashraf. Investigating officer recorded our statements in this regard.” 4. The accused were summoned to face trial in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled “Shamim Akhtar Vs. Tanver Ahmad and another” filed in respect of offences under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C. Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 4
(related to the F.I.R. No. 472 of 2023 dated 10.07.2023 at the Police Station Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar), for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Ramiz son of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased). The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 24.02.2024, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The complainant of the case in order to prove his case got recorded statements of as many as four witnesses. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3). Muhammad Arshad (PW-4) stated that on 10.07.2023, he identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination and the Medical Officer handed ove r the last worn clothes of the deceased to the police official. 6. The learned trial court recorded the statements of as many as seven court witnesses. Farhat Ali, SI (CW -1) stated that on 10.07.2023, he got recorded the formal F.I.R. (CW -1/A). Muhammad Ikram 1683/C (CW -2) stated that on 10.07.2023, he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the decease d from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Muhammad Tayyab Hussain 1550/HC (CW -3) stated that on 11.07.2023, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him sealed parcels and on 17.07.2023, he handed over the said sealed parcels to Muhammad Ali, SI (CW-5) for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 30.07.2023, the Investigating Officer of the case handed over to him a sealed parcel said to cont ain a pistol which on Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 5
01.08.2023, he handed over to Muhammad Ali, SI (CW -5) for its onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore . Muhammad Din Abid draftsman (CW-6) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.CW-6/A). Muhammad Ali, SI (CW-5) investigated the case from 10.07.2023 till 17.08.2023, arrested the appellant on 23.07.2023 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 7. The learned trial court also recorded the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim (CW-4) who on 10.07.2023 was posted as Medical Officer at the THQ hospital Minchinabad and on the same day had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Ramiz son of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased). On conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Ramiz son of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased), Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim (CW-4) observed as under :- “1-A. A lacerated wound measuring 1cm X 1cm X brain deep with black, smoked inverted margin on left side of head interiorly. 1-B. A lacerated wound measuring 4cm X 1cm X brain matter coming out on left side of head posteriorly. (Exit) 2-A. A lacerated wound measuring 1cm X 1cm X muscle deep on left side of lower abdomen. The margins were inverted and smoked. 2-B. A lacerated wound measuring 5cm X 1cm with everted margins on right side of lower abdomen 6cm from umbilicus (exit of 2-A). 3-A. A lacerated wound measuring lcm X lcm on dorsal surface distil part of right forearm. The margins inverted and smoked. Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 6
3-B. A lacerated wound measuring 2cm X 1cm with everted margins on ventral surface of digital right forearm (Exit of 3-A). 4. A lacerated wound measuring 2cm X 1cm with everted margins on right side of chest posteriorly near shoulder. 5. A lacerated wound measuring 1cm X 1cm X DNP with inverted smoked margins on left side of chest laterally 8cm from axially. On exploration of No.1-A left skull bone fractured, brain matter tered and blood coming out. On exploration of No.5 right and left lungs injured and blood in both chest cavities. ……………. REMARKS OF MEDICAL OFFICER:- After complete external and internal postmortem examination, I was of the opinion that death occurred due to injuries No.1 and 5, that caused damage to brain and lungs which were vital organs and death occurred. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by fire arm from within 06-feet.”
8. On 11.03.2024, the counsel for the complainant gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Umar Daraz and Nadeem Akhtar as being unnecessary. On 25.03.2024, the learned tendered in evidence the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PH).
Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 7
9. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant , namely Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you , he replied that he had been involved in the case falsely and was innocent. The appellant namely Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 10. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, /Model Criminal Trial Court Bahawalnagar convicted and sentenced the appellant namely Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar as referred to above. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant precisely was that the whole case was fabricated and false and the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not pr oduce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellan t further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence due to suspicion alone. The learned cou nsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt. Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 8
12. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the com plainant, contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of a doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant, further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3). The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the recover ies of the Pistol (P -3) and the motorcycle (P -5) from the appellant namely Tanveer Ahmad son of Foji Muhammad Asghar also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the r eal offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly, they prayed for the rejection of the appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their able assistance, perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 14. It is an admitted fact of the case of the complainant that the prosecution witness namely Shameem Akhtar (PW -1) had not herself Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 9
witnessed the incident rather, she was told about the same by the witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) at the THQ hospital Michinabad, where she arrived after getting information regarding the death of her son namely Muhammad Ramiz (deceased). 15. A perusal of the evidence produced by the complainant of the case reveals that the whole case of the complainant of the case as against the appellant is based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3). The relationship of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3), with the deceased is on record. Muhammad Ramiz (deceased) was the maternal nephew of the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) and the cousin of Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2). The prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3), both of them had their residences at a distance from the place of occurrenc e. During cross -examination, Shameem Akhtar (PW-1), the complainant of the case, admitted as under:- “Sarfraz, PW is my nephew. Distance between place of occurrence and house of Sarfraz. PW is one and half acre. Sarfraz, PW runs pesticide business . ………….. Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 10
Ashraf, PW is my real brother. Ashraf, PW is resident of Gangapur. Distance between Gangapur and place of occurrence is about 4/5 kilometers.”(emphasis supplied) The prosecution witness namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2), during cross - examination, stated as under:- “Rameez (deceased) is my cousin. Distance between place of occurrence and house of Rameez (deceased) is about one and half acres. My house is also at same distance from place of occurrence. ……….. Distance between my shop and place of occurrence is abou 5/6 acres..” (emphasis supplied) During cross -examination, the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3), stated as under:- “Shameem Bibi complainant is my mother-in-law. My village Ganga Pur is at a distance of about 4/5 kilometers from the place of occurrence .” (emphasis supplied) In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) can be validly termed as “chance witnesses” and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same. We have noted with grave concern that the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 11
arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place. The prosecution witness namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) stated that the reason for the arrival of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) at the place of occurrence was that the y had proceeded from their house to the market for purchasing some goods, however, on their way, they witnessed the incident. During cross -examination, the prosecution witness namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) also claimed that they had started from their house at 08.22 p.m on the night of the incident. During cross - examination, Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) stated as under:- “At the time of occurrence, I and Muhammad Ashraf. PW were proceeding for shopping in the market to purchase house hold articles. We left our house at about 08:22PM . ” (emphasis supplied) The above said reason given by the prosecution witness namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) for the arrival of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) at the place of the incident was not supported by the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ahsraf (PW-3) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) made no such statement that on the night of incident, he and Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) had left their house for the market to purchase some goods. Moreover, the r eason given by Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) for the arrival of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) at the place of the incident is even otherwise not plausible for the fact that both the prosecution Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 12
witnesses namely Sar fraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) had different residences, which residences were separated by a distance of as much of 4 -5 kilometers and in this manner this claim of Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) that he and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) left their house together at 08.22 p.m is not proved. The prosecution witness namely Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) did not even claim that on the night of occurrence, he had left in the company of Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) from the house of Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and also did not make any s tatement regarding his reason for travelling with Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2). The proven failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) to provide a reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence, on the night of the incident, has repercussions, proving that there was no reason actually for the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) to be visiting the place of occurrence. The very inception of the prosecution case is thus put in doubt due to the said abject failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3). 16. We have also noted that though it was c laimed by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) that they had gone to the place of occurrence on a car owned and driven by Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) however, during the course of the investigation as well as before t he learned trial court, the said car, allegedly used by prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3), to arrive at the place of occurrence, was not produced. The Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 13
car used by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) to arrive at the place of occurrence was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case. During cross - examination, the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) admitted that the car used by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) to arrive at the place of occurrence was not handed over to the police. During cross-examination, Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3), admitted as under:- “ In my presence, Sarfraz, PW did not produce said car to police during investigation. ” (emphasis supplied) Muhammad Ali, SI (CW -5), the Investigating Officer of the case also admitted during cross -examination that no car used by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) on the night of occurrence to arrive at the place of occurrence and also to transport the deceased in an injured condition to the THQ hospital Minchinabad was produced before him or taken into possessi on during the investigation of the case. During cross -examination , Muhammad Ali SI (CW-5), the Investigating Officer of the case, stated as under:- “ During whole investigation PWs did not produce to me any car having blood stain.” The non -production and the non -availability of the car used by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) to arrive at the place of occurrence and the failure of prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 14
Ashraf (PW-3) to produce the same before the Investigating Officer of the case, leads to only one conclusion and that being that no such vehicle was available. Had such a vehicle been used by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) to arrive at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of Muhammad Ali, SI (CW -5), the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case but it was not and it proves that a false claim was made by the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) that they had arrived at the place of occurrence on a car. In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) failed miserably to prove that they had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, prior to the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of “Muhammad Ali Vs. The State” (2015 SCMR 137) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- “The Investigating Officer during the cross-examination has admitted that the 'Dala' was not present when he visited the spot and he had not taken into possession the said 'Dala' during investigation. So the story introduced by the eye -witnesses that they were travelling on the 'Dala' when the incident took place is not supported by any connecting material.” The prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and the mode through which they arrived at the place of occurrence. The prosecution was under a Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 15
bounden duty to establish not only that the p rosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) had a reason to proceed to the place of occurrence but also to prove the mode through which the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) arrived at the place of occurrence. The failure of the prosecution to prove the said facts has vitiated our trust in the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW-2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) as being truthful witnesses. In this respect, reliance is placed on the cases of “Muhammad Rafiq v. State” (2014 SCMR 1698) , “Usman alias Kaloo v. State” (2017 SCMR 622) and “Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State” (2017 SCMR 724). 17. We have also noticed that despite the claim of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3) that their clothes were stained with the blood of the deceased still the said clothes were never taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case. Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) also admitted during cross -examination as under:- “ Sarfraz, PW was driving car when we shifted Rameez to hospital. I was having Remeez in my lap. My clothes as well as car were stained with blood. I did not produce my blood stained clothes and afore referred car to police.”(emphasis supplied) During cross -examination, Muhammad Ali SI (CW -5), the Investigating Officer of the case, stated as under:- Murder Reference No. 15 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. 209-J of 2024 16
“They also did not produce to me any blood stained clothes of PWs and same were not shown to me as well.” If Muhammad Ali, SI (CW-5), the Investigating Officer of the case had taken the clothes of the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW- 2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW -3), which clothes according to the prosecution witnesses namely Sarfraz Ahmad (PW -2) and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-3) were stained with blood,…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.