PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 120
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present:
Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
JAMROZ
KHAN--Appellant
versus
STATE
etc.--Respondents
Crl. A.
No. 47572 & Crl. R. No. 60819 of 2023, decided on 16.9.2025.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge
to--Qatl-e-amd--Medical evidence--Benefit of doubt--It is trite that when
prosecution has no evidence on ocular side, other circumstances available in
this case though are not important but for sake of ascertaining their value, it
is essential to be discussed--It was duty to be discharged even in terms if
such GSR was not on hands of deceased, it could then help to rule out
possibility of suicide to some extent--Place of occurrence was also required to
be examined keenly, so as to track any other evidence available at site, but
prosecution agency was not serious to dig out such fact--Thus, it remained an
unanswered theory whether, it was a suicide or homicide which creates a doubt
in prosecution story and benefit of doubt always leans in favour of
accused--The prosecution in favour of murder theory that doctor has not
observed any exit wound on body of deceased which shows that it was not a wound
with dominant hand by deceased, but with a fire from a little distance made by
accused/appellant--Firstly, had it been a fire from a little distance it would
not have been with description of satellite wound and if such injury had been
caused by accused/appellant surely with tight hand firmly then there was every
possibility that bullet would have exited from back of skull, but when fire is
made with friendly hand, its loose control gets penetration of bullet obliquely
which causes bullet to spin in cranial cavity due to ricochet effect and in
such situation it will not be exited from skull--The prosecution has failed to
establish charge against accused/appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and it is
trite that in order to extend benefit of doubt to an accused person, it is not
necessary that there should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one
reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused. [Pp. 124, 126 & 127] A, B, C & D
2023 LHC 1090; 2024 SCMR
156; 2024 SCMR 1146; 2024 SCMR 1191; 2024 SCMR 1427 & 2024 SCMR 1507.
Mr. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan Daha and Ms. Iram Sohail,
Advocates for Accused/Appellant.
Mr. Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Complainant in Person.
Date of hearing: 16.9.2025.
Judgment
Trial in crime report No. 1101 dated 22.10.2020, under Sections
302, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC), Police Station Ferozwala,
District Sheikhupura against Jamroz Khan, accused/appellant was
concluded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozwala, vide judgment dated
05.07.2023, and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under
Section 302(b), PPC with payment of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Ten lacs) to the legal
heirs of deceased as compensation under Section 544- A of Code of Criminal
Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.) and in case of default in payment of compensation,
further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B,
Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the accused/appellant.
The titled appeal preferred by the accused/appellant Jamroz
Khan to assail his above conviction and sentence and criminal revision filed by
the complainant for enhancement of sentence are being decided through this
single judgment.
2. As per
prosecution story recorded in the FIR, the accused Jamroz Khan contracted
marriage with Haleema Bibi, aged 19/20 years daughter of the complainant 7/8
months back, allegedly during the subsistence of earlier marriage and concealed
this fact from her, but it later stood disclosed. The accused had been keeping
both wives in one house, which led to frequent altercations between Haleema
Bibi and the accused. Eventually, after a quarrel with her husband, when she
returned to her parental home, he managed to take her back after few days. The
spouses continued to quarrel over past issues, and upon knowing this, the
complainant, along with Tuti Khan and Gull Sher, went to the accused’s house on 22.10.2020 at
about 1:00 p.m. to resolve the matter. However, Haleema Bibi was not ready to
live with the accused under any circumstances. At this, the accused became
furious, took out a pistol from his room, raised lalkara that if she could not
live with him, then she would not live with anyone else, and fired at Haleema
Bibi. The bullet struck her forehead, causing her to fall and succumb to the
injury. After firing, the accused fled away from his house. It was further
alleged that the accused committed the act on the instigation of his brother,
Shehzad.
3. Upon registration
of the FIR, the police initiated and completed the investigation, culminating
in the submission of a challan/report under Section 173 of the, Cr.P.C. before
the trial Court. The accused was formally charge-sheeted for the offence
alleged against him. Upon framing of the charge, accused denied the
allegations, pleaded innocence, and opted to face trial. In support of its
case, the prosecution produced the evidence, on close whereof the
accused/appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied
the allegations and claimed that Haleema Bibi had committed suicide. However,
the accused opted not to appear as witness in his own defence under Section
340(2), Cr.P.C., however he produced Ex.DA & EX.DB during the statement of
CW-1 and the trial on conclusion, resulted in the conviction and sentence as
forecited.
4. Heard. Record
perused.
5. To
prove the murder of Haleema Bibi, the prosecution has produced her father Dil
Muhammad, complainant PW-7 and Tuti Khan PW-8, the paternal cousin of the
complainant. Admittedly, both witnesses were not the residents of the house
where the occurrence took place. Their presence at the place of occurrence is
seriously doubted and the facts which culminated into building of such opinion
appeared in their depositions during cross-examination. PW-7 being father while
responding to motive of this case claimed that Haleema Bibi was taken back
forcibly by the accused from his house two days prior to the occurrence but
admitted that he did not report the matter to the police despite the fact that
before marriage he had no earlier acquaintance with accused/appellant. His
daily routine was to start work at 9.00 p.m. in Mandi and return back home in
the morning. He did not specifically tell the purpose of his visit to the house
of her daughter when no urgency was reported to him. Time of occurrence he
claimed as 1.00 p.m. He further claimed the he alone went to police station for
reporting the crime and took the police back to the place of occurrence where
the dead body was lying. Almost on the same lines PW-8 deposed before the
Court.
The above facts stand contradicted
by two aspects appeared in this case. Firstly, accused/appellant himself took
the dead body of Haleema to the THQ Hospital Ferozwala at about 11:40 a.m. on
the same day with the stance that Haleema Bibi had committed a suicide as
conceded by CW-1 Dr. Muhammad Zaheer-ud-Alvi, but on suspecting that death seems
homicidal, he informed the police on 15 Police emergency call, but by the time
accused/appellant took the dead body away from the hospital. Reaching of dead
body to THQ hospital at 11:40 was also confirmed by Shah Faisal, investigating
officer PW-9 during his cross examination as under;
“It is correct that when the doctor of THQ
hospital, Ferozewala informed me then it came to my knowledge that dead-body of
deceased was first brought to THQ Hospital, Ferozewala.”
This situation
clearly indicates that accused/appellant did not escape his duty to attend his
wife nor opted to run away from the place of occurrence in fear of crime
committed by him, rather with a natural human behavior, he took Haleema Bibi to
the hospital and tried to justify his response to an event happened in his
house. Further claim of CW-1 that on suspecting homicidal injury he called the
police at 15 but accused/husband took the dead body away is without any proof.
Defence in order to negate such version of CW-1 has brought on record the OPD
ticket as Ex. DA, which carries the fact of receiving Haleema Bibi as dead.
What it mentions is as follows:
Pt received dead at 11:40 am on 22/10/2020.
Brought by his husband who says she shot herself but highly doubtful since
entry wound of bullet on centre of forehead which suggests homicide. (to be
confirmed on autopsy). Police informed on 15 call at 11:52 a.m. 22.10.2022.
Ex. DB is also carrying a note
“Received dead”. There is no other document which could suggest that dead body
was taken away by the accused/appellant before arrival of police. Thus, under
the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) a witness may
tell a lie but document does not, the CW-1 has not stated the whole truth. Even
otherwise once the dead body was received by the hospital, its misplacement is
a criminal act to be reported by the concerned staff immediately, which has not
been done in this case.
6. This difference in timelines of death of
deceased makes the case of prosecution doubtful and favours the defence. Doctor
conducted the postmortem examination of dead body at 9:45 p.m. (same day) and
mentioned the probable duration between death and postmortem examination as 12
to 24 hours which in no case coincide with the time of death at 1:00 p.m. Thus,
absence of witnesses at the crime scene is apparent. Even otherwise being
chance witnesses their statements under the law are required to have
corroboration, plausible explanation, consistent testimony coupled with
bahaviour and demeanour, lack of motive and bias, otherwise it cannot be the
sole basis of conviction. It has been observed that Tuti Khan PW-8 was informed
by the complainant PW-7 that her daughter had a quarrel with her husband, and
they are to go for settlement, but both the witnesses did not disclose the
source of such quarrel nor produced any call detail record in this respect.
Further it was the first time Tuti Khan had visited the house of accused as
conceded by him during cross examination, therefore, his relation with
complainant could not be established because it is not expected that cousin of
the complainant had not participated in the marriage of his daughter 8/9 months
before. Further claim of complainant and Tuti Khan that dead body was first
taken to the police station and then to the hospital stands belied by the
statement of Shah Faisal, investigating officer PW-9 who transported it from
place of occurrence to the Hospital. Therefore, prosecution could not clarify
the fact that if the accused had committed the murder in the presence of PWs,
then how the dead body was taken by him to THQ hospital before CW-1 and then
how dead body was reached back to place of occurrence for his again
transportation to Hospital. Thus, prosecution has restructured the case with
dishonest intention by twisting the real facts in order to book the accused/ appellant.
It is trite that when prosecution has no evidence on ocular side, the other
circumstances available in this case though are not important but for the sake
of ascertaining their value, it is essential to be discussed.
7. The
main stance of prosecution for committing murder of Haleema Bibi was a dispute
about existence of first marriage of the accused/appellant whose first wife was
also living in the same house and prosecution witnesses claimed that due to
such reason deceased usually had quarrels with the accused/appellant but no any
material was brought on record with respect to such dispute between the spouses
and going to the house of accused/appellant by two witnesses in order to
resolve the issue was also without any substance because neither any call was
made by the deceased nor they have heard about any quarrel between the spouses
on that day. Prosecution has also not produced any witness who could have
supported the fact of quarrel between the spouses nor the investigator has
conducted the investigation on this aspect of the matter. Thus, motive in this
case remains shrouded in mystery.
8. The
medical evidence in this case is also very crucial. Dr. Komal Altaf PW-3 has
observed following injury on the person of the deceased:
1. A
firearm stellate entry wound was present in the center of
forehead about one cm above from nasal bridge (base of nose). 12 cm from right
tragus medially and 13 cm from left tragus towards medial side was present. 8 x
5 cm of wound present on the scalp and visible 2 x 1 cm injury on skull.
Blacking (sic) was present on skull. Skull bone was fractured and depressed. On
skull dissection membranes were damaged. Clotted blood was present. Brain
matter was damaged. Signle bullet was found on the base of skull. Base of skull
fractured.
A stellate
(star-shaped) gunshot wound on the forehead can be either suicidal, as the
shape is often caused by gases expanding from the firearm’s muzzle, which is
common in contact wounds, a method used in suicides. The key factors to
determine if it was a suicide or not, solely the wound’s appearance is not
sufficient but also its location, such as the forehead, which is a common
suicide site, along with the presence of a weapon, ballistic evidence,
and the victim’s own history or circumstances. As per literature available on
the subject, a stellate wound often suggests that the firearm was in direct
contact or very close proximity to the skin when fired. The gases produced by
the firing weapon escape through the skin, creating a star-like pattern around
the entry point. While not definitive, the forehead is a common site for
suicidal gunshot wounds, which is a factor to consider in the overall
assessment. This pattern is generally not seen with other types of gunshot
wounds, such as distant or accidental ones. Forensic analysis of the wound can
help determine the distance between the muzzle and the skin. The finding of a
firearm near the victim is a crucial piece of evidence. A close examination of
the skin may reveal an imprint of the firearm’s muzzle. The trajectory of the
bullet can also help indicate whether the wound was self-inflicted or inflicted
by another person. The circumstances and history of the individual are also
critical in assessing the possibility of suicide. In short, a stellate wound on
the forehead is significant but requires a comprehensive forensic investigation
to determine if it was a suicide.
9. In this case when
the accused/appellant dared to inform the doctor as well as the investigator,
then both were obliged to examine the dead body thoroughly and first duty was
to examine the hands of deceased lady so as to find out any gunshot residue
(GSR) in the form of soot over it. Not examining the hands by Doctor CW-1,
investigator and the doctor who later conducted postmortem examination is a
criminal negligence and thereby truth was altared at the cost of slackness or
deliberate askance. It was the duty to be discharged even in terms if such GSR
was not on the hands of deceased, it could then help to rule out the
possibility of suicide to some extent. Place of occurrence was also required to
be examined keenly, so as to track any other evidence available at the site,
but prosecution agency was not serious to dig out such fact. Thus, it remained
an unanswered theory whether, it was a suicide or homicide which creates a
doubt in prosecution story and benefit of doubt always leans in favour of
accused.
10. An expression in the mind of Court that as
to whether a woman can commit suicide with firearm weapon was primarily
responded by a book titled “Simpson’s Forensic Medicine”, Tenth Edition
compiled by Bernard Knight. It is the text of Chapter-8 (Firearm and explosive
injuries) at page 114 as under;
“Suicides shoot
themselves in “sites of election”
which comprise the mouth, the front of the neck, the forehead
or temples, or the front of the chest. Discharges into the temples are usually
on the side of the dominant hand, but this is not absolute. People almost never
shoot themselves in the eye or abdomen and naturally not in inaccessible sites
such as the back. In Britain and many other countries, women rarely commit
suicide with guns and are rarely involved in firearms accidents, so there
is a useful rule that ‘a shot woman is a murdered woman until proved otherwise.”
(Emphasis is supplied)
But the latest study, commented upon
committing of suicide by women with firearms and this trend is increasing. An
Article in New York Times [1]on
“GUN SUICIDES ARE UP AMONG WOMEN” throws light on the facts as under;
“Women are
increasingly using guns to die by suicide in the United States, challenging
long-held assumptions that they will usually resort to less lethal means,
according to data released on Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The findings, drawn
from federal health data, showed that in 2022, 20 out of every million women
used a gun to die by suicide, up from 14 women in 2002. This marks a 43 percent
increase. The report also found that suicide rates have risen among women over
the past two decades. Experts say there is not a single reason for the shift in
how women are dying by suicide, but noted that easy access to guns is a
contributing factor. In addition, a 2021 study found that firearm sales
increased significantly in 2020 and 2021, and that those who purchased a
firearm for the first time during that surge had a higher risk of suicidal
thoughts. About half of the first-time buyers were women.”
Similar trend is being seen in Pakistan as per latest news reports, thus,
there remains a possibility of suicide by woman with gunshot or firearms. It
was on the prosecution to prove that defence prospective is false and
afterthought that Haleema Bibi had committed suicide, but it was murder in all
probabilities.
11. Another aspect of the case was argued by
the prosecution in favour of murder theory that doctor has not observed any
exit wound on the body of the deceased which shows that it was not a wound with
dominant hand by the deceased, but with a fire from a little distance made by
the accused/appellant. Firstly, had it been a fire from a little distance it
would not have been with description of satellite wound and if such injury had
been caused by the accused/appellant surely with tight hand firmly then there
was every possibility that bullet would have exited from the back of skull, but
when fire is made with friendly hand, its loose control gets penetration of
bullet obliquely which causes the bullet to spin in cranial cavity due to
ricochet effect and in such situation it will not be exited from the skull.
This situation has thoroughly been explained by this Court in a case approved
for reporting titled “Bashir Ahmad versus The State” (2023 LHC 1090).
12. Though pistol stood recovered on the lead
of accused/appellant but it could not found match with the spent shell (C1)
collected from the place of occurrence, and PFSA has also not given any opinion
with respect to bullet-B1 recovered from the cranial cavity of the deceased.
Thus, recovery in this case also does not support to the prosecution version.
13. For what has been discussed above, in the
instant case the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the
accused/ appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and it is trite that in order to
extend benefit of doubt to an accused person, it is not necessary that there
should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one reasonable doubt is
sufficient to acquit an accused. Reliance is placed