Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3900
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem)
Parties: Muhammad Azam etc vs The State etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3900. In this matter between Muhammad Azam etc 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 Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) DECISION DATE: 23-06-2026 TAGLINE: 1. The failure of the prosecution to substantiate its case through an ocular account does not mean the accused can go scot-free; rather, they can be legally convicted to the extent of the incident conclusively established on the sole basis of an unedited video film. 2. Since admitted facts need not to be proved, a photogrammetric test is only essential when identity is disputed, rendering it entirely redundant when the defense categorically admits the presence and identity of the accused in the video film. 3. An unedited video film serves as an incorruptible silent witness that overrides discredited eyewitness narratives, successfully redefining criminal liability and securing a conviction for proven events?such as an involuntary gunshot during a struggle?even when the broader prosecution case collapses. CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 67344/22 ============================================================ Stereo HCJDA-38 JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Appeal No. 67344 of 2022 (Muhammad Azam and another versus The State and another)
& Crl. Revision No. 60054 of 2022 (Mukhtar Ahmad versus Muhammad Azam and 2 others)
JUDGMENT Dates of hearing 07-05-2026, 12 -05-2026, 20 -05-2026 and 03-06-2026 Appellants by: M/s Ch. Muhammad Lehrasib Khan Gondal and Ramzan Khan Dhudhi, Advocates State by: Mr. Muhammad Naveed Umar Bhatti , Deputy Prosecutor General Complainant by: M/s Rai Bashir Ahmad, Syed Kashif Husnain Sherazi and Rai Usman Ahmad, Advocates Amicus Curiae: Mr. Muhammad Talha Mushtaq, Advocate
Muhammad Tariq Nadeem . J:- Muhammad Azam and Azmat Naeem appellants along with Umar Hayat, Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Kaneez Bibi, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, Muhammad Adnan @ Mani, Irfan Mushtaq and Yasir co-accused, were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, in a private complaint bearing Sessions Case No.96 of 2019 and Sessions Trial No.19 of 2021, for the offences under sections 302, 324, 337F(i ii), 148, 149 PPC, Police Station Malakwal, District Mandi Bahauddin , and after conclusion of trial in the said case, vide judgment dated 27.06.2022, the trial court while acquitting Umar Hayat, Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Kaneez Bibi, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, Muhammad Adnan @ Mani, Irfan Mushtaq and Yasir co -accused, convicted Muhammad Azam and Azmat Naeem appellants under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life on two counts each for committing the murder of Muhammad Aslam and Shahid Imran (deceased) with the direction to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for each deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to be paid to the legal heirs of both the deceased or in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. They were further convicted under Section 324 PPC and Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 -years each along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each or in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. They were also convicted under Section 337F(iii) PPC and sente nced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03-years each with the direction to pay Daman in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each to be paid to the injured Mst. Bushra Bibi (PW.3) and they shall remain in jail till the payment of Daman amount. However, all the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to them. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, Muhammad Azam and Azmat Naeem appellants have filed the titled criminal appeal before this Court whereas Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner/complainant has filed a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence s of Muhammad Azam and Azmat Naeem respondents/convicts. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, above mentioned matters are being decided together by means of this single judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated by Mukhtar Ahmad complainant (PW.1) in private complaint (Exh.PC) are that he was a resident of Cho at Dheeran, Tehsil Malakwal and was an agriculturist by profession, whose brother-in-law (sister ’s husband), Shahid Imran son of Mukhtar Ahmed, caste Awan, resident of Kathiala Khurd, used to work abroad in Saudi Arabia for labour/employment and since the residence of the complainant ’s brother-in-law, Shahid Imran, and his uncle Muhammad Azam son of Jan Muhammad, resident of Kathiala Khurd, was situated within the same boundary wall, the said Muhammad Azam used to harass the complainant ’s sister, Mst. Bushra Bibi, on daily basis. A few days prior to the incident, the complainant’s brother -in-law, Shahid Imran, returned to his home in Pakistan from Saudi Arabia and intended to construct a partition wall between his residence and the residence of Muhammad Azam, upon which Muhammad Azam engaged in a verbal altercation with Shahid Imr an and restrained him from constructing the wall and knowing that Shahid Imran would proceed with constructing the wall, Muhammad Azam, with mutual consultation and connivance, seated the accused persons armed with Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 3 firearms inside a room, a fact which was not known to anyone . The complainant along with Nazir Ahmed son of Bashir Ahmed and Ghulam Haider son of Sher Muhammad, residents of Cho at Dheeran, were present there for the purpose of reconciliation and at about 9:30 a.m. while the complainant’s brother -in-law, Shahid Imran, was busy constructing the wall, the accused persons came out of the room in the meanwhile, whereupon the said Muhammad Azam raised a lalkara to teach Shahid Imran a lesson for constructing the wall and simultaneously fired f rom his weapon which hit Shahid Imran on the chest, below the left nipple while the said Azmat fired from his weapon which hit Shahid Imran on the left side of his abdomen . When Mst. Bushra Bibi stepped forward to rescue him, Muhammad Azam fired from his w eapon which hit Mst. Bushra Bibi near her left breast, the said Azmat fired from his weapon which hit Mst. Bushra Bibi on her left flank and Umar Hayat fired from his weapon which hit Shahid Imran on the left side of his back, causing both Shahid Imran and Mst. Bushra Bibi to sustain injuries and fall to the ground . Muhammad Aslam son of Sher Muhammad, caste Gondal, resident of Cho at Dheeran, originally from Bosal, who was also the complainant ’s brother-in-law, had just reached near the gate to enter Shahid Imran’s house, when Umar Hayat fired from his weapon which hit Muhammad Aslam on the left flank, Atif alias Jurnal fired from his weapon which hit Muhammad Aslam on his left flank and Azmat fired from his weapon which hit Muhammad Aslam on the left side o f his flank while the other accused persons kept their weapons pointed and kept raising lalkaras that if anyone came near, they would meet the same fate. Motive behind the incident was the dispute over the construction of wall and the accused persons fled from the spot while firing and raising lalkaras, resulting in Shahid Imran and Muhammad Aslam succumbing to their injuries and dying on the spot whereas Mst. Bushra Bibi, in a severel y injured condition, was shifted through Rescue 1122 to THQ Hospital Malakwal for medical treatment The complainant submitted an application before the police at the spot, upon which FIR No.13 of 20 19 was registered at Police Station Malakwal and Mst. Bushra Bibi was medically examined at THQ Hospital Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 4 Malakwal from where she was referred to DHQ Hospital Mandi Bahauddin. Post-mortem examinations of the deceased persons were also conducted at THQ Hospital Malakwal . The complainant nominated accused namely Aslam, Mst. Kaneez Bibi and Mst. Shehnaz Bibi on the same day through a separate application, but during the investigation, the investigating officer of the case, in collusion with the accused persons, declared Atif, Imran Mushtaq, Basharat Ahmed and Yasi r Naveed as innocent, thereby denying justice to the complainant, due to which the necessity of filing private complaint (Exh.PC) had arisen. 4. After recording cursory evidence and hearing the arguments from complainant side, the appellants and their co -accused were summoned by the trial court to face trial in the private complaint . On indictment, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosec ution got examined five witnesses whereas the trial court also recorded the statements of nine persons as court witnesses. The detail of the evidence from prosecution ’s side is duly mentioned in Paragraphs No.1 to 3 of the judgment under attack, which , after extraction, is reproduced hereunder for the purpose of facilitation:- Pw-1, Mukhtar Ahmed , complainant/eye -witness, who got exhibited application Ex.P-A, recovery memo Ex.P-B of blood stained clothes of Mst. Bushra Bibi i.e Qameez P-1 & Shalwar P-2 and private complaint Ex.P-C. Pw-2, Nazir Ahmed , eye -witness, who got exhibited recovery memos Ex.P-D, Ex.P-E & Ex.P-F of collection blood stained earth of Shahid Imran, Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Bushra Bibi, recovery memo Ex.P-G of 12 crime empties of rifle 44 bore, pistol 30 bore & 12 bore gun P-3/1-12 and recovery memo Ex.P-H of Kassi P-4 & 05 Bricks P-5/1-5. Pw-3, Mst. Bushra Bibi, injured eye-witness. Pw-4, Muhammad Riaz , who identified dead bodies of deceased Shahid Imran and Muhammad Aslam, who got exhibited recovery memo Ex.P-J of last worn clothes of deceased Shahid Imran i.e Qameez P-6, Shalwar P-7 & Vest P-8 and recovery memo Ex.P-K of last worn clothes of deceased Muhammad Aslam i.e Qameez P-9, Shalwar P-10, Garam Chadar P-12 and Cap P-13. Pw-5, Mukhtar Ahmed (S/O Bashir Ahmed) , recovery witness, who got exhibited recovery memo Ex.P-L of 12 bore gun bearing No. 12470 P-14 and Jhola P-15 alongwith 05 live rounds P-16/1-5 got recovered by accused Muhammad Azam, recovery memo Ex.P-M of Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 5 rifle 44 bore P-17 alongwith 04 live rounds P-18/1-4 got recovered by accused Azmat Naeem and recovery memo Ex.P-N of pistol 30 bore P-19 alongwith 03 live rounds P-20/1-3 got recovered by accused Umar Hayat. 2. The following witnesses were recorded as Cws:- Cw-1, Ejaz Ahmed ASI, Scriber of FIR Ex.Cw-1/A. Cw-2, Gulzar Ahmed , draftsman, who got exhibited scaled site plan Ex.Cw-2/A & Ex.Cw-2/B. Cw-3, Zafar Iqbal 305/C , who got conducted postmortem of both the deceased and got exhibited recovery memo Ex.P-J of last worn clothes of deceased Shahid Imran i.e Qameez P-6, Shalwar P-7 & Vest P-8, recovery memo Ex.P-K of last worn clothes of deceased Muhammad Aslam i.e Qameez P-9, Shalwar P-10, Swetter P-11, Garam Chadar P-12 and Cap P-13, recovery memo Ex.P-B of blood stained clothes of Mst. Bushra Bibi i.e Q ameez P-1 & Shalwar P-2 and recovery memo Ex.Cw-3/A of mobile phone Samsung with IMEI No.357112/09/974840/4 C-1. Cw-4, Dr. Atiya Maryum , WMO, who medically examined injured Mst. Bushra Bibi and got exhibited MLC Ex.Cw-4/A, diagrams of injuries Ex.Cw-4/A/2, certified copy of MLC alongwith diagrams Ex.Cw-4/B/1 & Ex.Cw-4/B/2, attested copy of report dated 11-01-2019 Ex.Cw-4/C, attested copy of daily progress sheet Ex.Cw- 4/D, surgeon expert opinion dated 11 -01-2019 Ex.Cw- 4/E, attested copy of ultrasound report Ex.Cw-4/F, attested copy of blood report Ex.Cw-4/G, attested copy of discharge slip of injured Ex.Cw-4/H, referral letter Ex.Cw-4/J, attested copy of ultrasound image Ex.Cw- 4/K and Radiologist report Ex.Cw-4/L with report dated 21-01-2019 Ex.Cw-4/L/1. Cw-5, Dr. Farrukh Mehmood , Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of the deceased Shahid Imran and Muhammad Aslam and got exhibited copy of PMR Ex.Cw-5/A, diagrams Ex.Cw-5/A/1-2, copy of PMR Ex.Cw-5/B & diagrams Ex.Cw-5/B/1-2. Cw-6, Ghazanfar Ali ASI, Moharrar. Cw-7, Hammad Hassan , witness of making of video of the occurrence, who got exhibited recovery memo Ex.Cw-3/A of Samsung mobile phone C-1. Cw-8, Azhar Iqbal, Sub -Inspector, Investigating Officer. Cw-9, Sajjad Azam, Sub -Inspector, Investigating Officer, who got exhibited application Ex.P-A, injury statement Ex.Cw-9/A, inquest report Ex.Cw-9/B. application for postmortem Ex.Cw-9/C of deceased Shahid Imran, injury statement Ex.CW-9/D, inquest report Ex. CW-9/E, application for post mortem Ex. Cw- 9/F of deceased Muhammad Aslam, recovery memo Ex.P-G of 12 sealed parcels prepared by CSIU team alongwith exhibit sheet C-2, recovery memos Ex.P-D, Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 6 Ex.P-E & Ex.P-F of collection blood stained earth of Shahid Imran, Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Bushra Bibi, recovery memo Ex.P-H of Kassi P-4 & 05 Bricks P-5/1- 5, rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex.Cw-9/G, recovery memo Ex.P-J of last worn clothes of deceased Shahid Imran i.e Qameez P-6, Shalwar P-7 & Ve st P-8 and recovery memo Ex.P-K of last worn clothes of deceased Muhammad Aslam i.e Qameez P-9, Shalwar P- 10, Garam Chadar P-12 and Cap P-13, application Ex.Cw-9/H for permission to get record statement of injured Mst. Bushra Bibi, application dated 12 -01-2019 Ex.Cw-9/J for permission to get record statement of injured Mst. Bushra Bibi, recovery memo Ex.P-B of blood stained clothes of Mst. Bushra Bibi i.e Qameez P-1 & Shalwar P-2, scaled site plan Ex.Cw-2/A & Ex.Cw- 2/B, recovery memo Ex.Cw-3/A of mobile pho ne Samsung 4 C-1, recovery memo Ex.P-L of 12 bore gun bearing No. 12470 P-14 and Jhola P-15 alongwith 05 live rounds P-16/1-5 got recovered by accused Muhammad Azam, unscaled site plan of place of recovery Ex.P-L/1, recovery memo Ex.P-M of rifle 44 bore P-17 alongwith 04 live rounds P-18/1-4 got recovered by accused Azmat Naeem, unscaled site plan of place of recovery Ex.P-M/1, recovery memo Ex.P-N of pistol 30 bore P-19 alongwith 03 live rounds P-20/1-3 got recovered by accused Umar Hayat and unscaled site plan of place of recovery Ex.P- N/1. 3. The learned DDPP Rana Sultan Sullahudin Khan closed the prosecution evidence by tendering following documents:- i). Report of Forensic DNA & Serology Analysis dated 17-01-2019 as Ex.P-P, ii). Report of Computer Forensic Analysis dated 06-02-2019 Ex.P-Q/1-2 alongwith DVD as Ex.P-Q/3, iii). Report of Firearms & Toolmarks Examination dated 22-03-2019 as Ex.P-R/1-2, and iv). Report of Audio Visual Analysis dated 18 -04-2019 as Ex.P-S. 5. Thereafter, the appellants and their co -accused were examined in terms of section 342 Cr.P.C. the detail of which is mentioned in Paragraph No.4 of impugned judgment, which is reproduced as infra:- 4. Accused did not opt to produce defence witnesses. Accused while recording their statements u/s 342 Cr.P.C had answered the question “why this case against you and why witnesses deposed against you” as following:- 1). Muhammad Azam. “Pws are closely related inter-se and to the deceased persons, they have falsely deposed against me to justify the wrong committed by Shahid Imran deceased. Actually, the real facts do contain in the video. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment in the Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 7 courtyard of m y house, when I saw Mst. Bushra Bibi, the injured, alongwith four other ladies while throwing my wife Mst. Kaneez Bibi on the brick -heaps and Shahid Imran deceased started digging out the courtyard of my house. The occurrence would never had been committed , if Shahid Imran deceased, etc had not played havoc with us.
ii). Umar Hayat. The complainant and Pws are closely related inter se and to the deceased persons, they have deposed falsely against me just to strengthen their false case. They have roped me falsely in this false case on this very account. iii). Muhammad Adnan @ Mani. The complainant party knows very well about my innocence. Even otherwise, I have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence, but, as Azam and Azmat co -accused are my close relatives, so they have falsely entangled me too. I am innocent and had not played any role in happening of the alleged occurrence. and the remaining accused Azmat Naeem, Mst. Kaneez Bibi. Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, Yasir and Irfan Mushtaq also dep osed on the same lines in their respective answers to this question as deposed by their co-accused
6. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 27.06.2022, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Azam and Azmat Naeem appellants while acquitting Umar Hayat, Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Kaneez Bibi, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, Muhammad Adnan @ Mani, Irfan Mushtaq and Yasir co-accused as mentioned hereinabove. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants primarily argued for the acquittal of the appellants, submitting t hat the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt. It was contended that the trial court has already discredited the eye witnesses by acquitting co -accused Umar Hayat on the very same set of evidence. Assailing the ocula r account, learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that the presence of eye witnesses namely Mukhtar Ahmad complainant (PW.1) and Nazir Ahmad (PW.2), at the crime scene in village Kathiala Khurd is highly unnatural, as they were residents of village Choat Dheeran and their justification of attending a “Punchayat” (پنچای ت ) to settle a property dispute remains entirely uncorroborated by any independent evidence. He further agitated that the prosecution’s narrative is fraught with material discrepancies, particularly Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 8 highlighting that the ocular te stimony is fundamentally irreconcilable with medical evidence. He next argued that the testimony of Hammad Hassan (CW.7) was legally inconsequential, as he merely testified to the recording of a video film without deposing about the actual occurrence. He a lso submitted that firstly, the trial court wrongly exhibited certain pictures (Exh.CW7/A to Exh.CW7/H) in evidence and despite reserving its decision qua the objections raised by defence for decision at the time of final adjudication of trial, the trial court has not decided those objections. At fag- end, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that photogrammetric test was essential for the purpose of relying upon the video film and in the absence of such test, video film cannot be made basis to maint ain convictions and sentences of the appellants. Finally, while asserting that the alleged recoveries were planted and the motive remained wholly unproved, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 8. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General ably assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt through overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence. It was contended that the appellants were explicitly nominated in both the FIR and the private complaint with specific roles attributed to them. Ruling out any possibility of misidentification, learned counsel for t he complainant highlighted that the daylight incident took place in a house jointly shared by one of the deceased, the injured, and the accused persons. Repelling the defence’s contentions, learned Deputy Prosecutor General maintained that the ocular accou nt regarding the appellants is perfectly synchronized with the medical evidence and it stands firmly corroborated by the recovery of crime weapons as well. Addressing the acquittal of co-accused Umar Hayat, it was forcefully argued that under the well -settled principle of sifting the grain from the chaff, the conviction s of present appellants remain fully intact. Defending the digital evidence, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that Hammad Hassan (CW.7) is a natural witness whose presence is indubitable; he admittedly recorded a video film of the incident and the same was thoroughly authenticated by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency’s report (Exh.PS), which ruled out any tampering or editing of Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 9 video film . Addressing to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants qua exhibiting of pictures and photogrammetric test, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the pictures were rightly exhibited and since the defence has categorically admitted the presence, identity and visibility o f appellants in video film, there was no need to conduct photogrammetric test. Emphasizing the sheer gravity of the offence, involving a double murder and injuries sustained by an eye witness, it was argued that the trial court erred in exercising unwarran ted leniency by withholding the normal penalty of death. Finally, it was prayed that the appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed and by allowing the connected criminal revision, the appellants’ sentences be enhanced from life imprisonment to death on both counts. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae has highlighted that the determination of criminal liability in this capital case must pivot upon the unimpeachable and objective electronic evidence, rather than the heavily embellished and medically contradicted ocular account. He added that under the progressive mandate of Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the forensic- backed video recording acts as an incorruptible silent witness, which definitively shatters the prosecution’s orchestrated multi-shooter narrative and establishes the actual, unvarnished sequence of events. 10. I have carefully weighed the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Deputy Prosecutor General who was ably assisted by the counsel fo r the complainant, as well as learned Amicus Curiae and minutely perused the evidentiary record. 11. Before evaluating the evidence on the record , it is necessary to resolve a procedural omission made by the trial court. During cross - examination on Hammad Hassan (CW.7), certain photographs were tentatively marked as Exh.CW7/A to Exh.CW7/H. The defence counsel objected to their admissibility, and the trial court noted that this objection would be decided at the time of final judgment. However, the impugned judgment shows that this objection was left undecided. Since an appeal is a continuation of the trial, this Court is competent to decide this pending issue. A careful perusal of record reflects that there is no evidence on record to establish as to who made these pictures or who inscribed the names on Crl. Appeal No.67344 of 2022 & Crl. Revision No.60054 of 2022. 10 them. Furthermore, Hammad Hassan (CW.7) did not claim to have taken these pictures or written the names himself. It is a settled principle of law that any document or photograph lacking verification and formal p roof of its maker cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the trial court erred in exhibiting these unauthenticated photographs. Resultantly, the objection of the defence is sustained and the photographs (Exh.CW7/A to Exh.CW7/H) are hereby de-exhibited and excluded from consideration. 12. Upon reappraising the evidence on record, learned counsel for all parties, including the appellants, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, the complainant and leaned Amicus Curiae, agree d on the fundamental facts o f the case. It is undisputed that the incident occurred at the stated date, time, and location, resulting in two fatalities and one person sustaining firearm injuries. The issues remaining for the Court to resolve are qua the actual presence of certain witnesses at the time and place of occurrence as well as the exact manner in which the events unfolded. The prosecution asserts that the tragedy was witnessed by Mukhtar Ahmad complainant (PW.1), Nazir Ahmad (PW.2), Mst. Bushra Bibi injured (PW.3) besides a given up witness namely Ghulam Haider and further maintained that Hammad Hassan (CW.7) recorded the video of the incident with his mobile phone . Mukhtar Ahmad complainant (PW.1), Nazir Ahmad (PW.2) and Mst. Bushra Bibi (PW.3) throughout maintained that on the day of incident i.e. 11.01.2019 at about 09:30 a.m. they were present at the crime scene to mediate a dispute between Shahid Imran (since deceased) and the appellants as the former wanted to construct a wall, separating the joint house, without the consent of the appellants and their co -accused. According to them, each accused including the appellants played a distinct and active role in the armed assault. Muhammad Azam appellant initiated the violence by raising a lalkara and then made a fire shot causing firearm injury on the chest of Shahid Imran (deceased) and subsequently he also made fire shot and caused…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.