PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 7
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]

Present: Muhammad Jawad Zafar, J.

ABDUL RAUF--Appellant

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. A. No. 738 & Crl. Rev. No. 317 of 2024, heard on 03.9.2025.

Delay of FIR--

----This delay also puts a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously assess and scrutinize prosecution’s evidence--Generally, such belated lodging of FIR shatters sanctity of same and reflects that same was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting, and concocting a false story, where no plausible justification or adequate explanation is furnished.                                                                        [Para 7] A

2024 SCMR 1741.

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--

----Art. 46--”Dying declaration”--The investigating officer did not record his statement under Section 161 of Code, which may have been later termed as a dying declaration in terms of Article 46 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 (“QSO”)--The deceased, in injured condition, was medically examined and despite being fully conscious and well-oriented with stable vitals, he did not opt for recording of his statement and same was taken as an adverse factor to prosecution case by honourable Supreme Court, therefore, non-recording of statement of deceased in injured but conscious condition also casts a dent in prosecution’s story.             [Para 9] B

2020 SCMR 2116.

Chance Witness--

----The testimony of a chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his/her presence at crime scene are put forth when occurrence took place; otherwise, his/her testimony would fall within category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt.       

                                                                                           [Para 10] C

2015 SCMR 1142.

Ocular Account--

----Value of--Once intrinsic value of ocular account is disbelieved, then rest of corroboratory pieces of evidence, even of a higher degree, would automatically collapse.                 [Para 12] D

2010 SCMR 846.

Criminal Jurisprudence--

----It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is not obligated to prove motive in every murder case, but it is equally established that once prosecution sets up a specific motive, it assumes burden of proving it--Failure to discharge this burden operates to detriment of prosecution, not accused.   [Para 13] E

2019 SCMR 2000.

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--

----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Prosecution failed to prove motive behind unfortunate incident--The prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, as adumbrate thereto, prosecution has failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence--It is not necessary that there be multiple infirmities in prosecution’s case or several circumstances creating doubt--A single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in prosecution’s case would be sufficient to entitle accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right--Appeal accepted.                                                                                      [Para 14] F

2022 SCMR 1567.

Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Tarrar, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Shahid Aleem, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Mr. Usman Sharif Khosa, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 3.9.2025.

Judgment

The appellant, Abdul Rauf, Along with Muhammad Akram and Nasreen Bibi, was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal (“Trial Court”) in crime report bearing FIR No. 555 of 2022, dated 01.12.2022, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 452, 337-F(i) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”), registered with police station Kacha Khu, District Khanewal (“crime report” or “FIR”). The learned Trial Court vide judgement dated 11.07.2024 (“impugned judgement”), convicted and sentenced the appellant, as under:

Abdul Rauf:

Awarded sentence for imprisonment for life as ta’zir under Section 302(b) of the PPC and further directed to pay compensation of PKR 500,000/-under Section 544-A of the Code to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Younas, and in default thereof, the same to be realised as arrears of land revenue, and the convict to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B of the Code was extended to the convict

2.       Being discontented with their sentence and conviction, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2024 under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (“Code” or “Cr.P.C”); whereas, the complainant Muhammad Shafi instituted Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant. Due to both matters arising out of the same judgment, they are being decided together.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as given in the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court, are reproduced infra:

‘Precisely, resume of the prosecution case as structured in the FIR (Ech PK) lodged on the basis of complaint in the shape of computerized application (Exh. PL) is that on 01.12.2022 at 8:30 am complainant Muhammad Shafi. Muhammad Ramzan (PW) s/o Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Saleem s/o Ghulam Din, Nazir Ahmed-Lumberdar, Ch. Riaz Ahmed-Ex-Vice Chairman, Abdul Hameed so Wali Mohammad and Ghulam Rasool (PW) so Rehmat-Ullah along with other respectables of village were present to resolve the dispute of Ehata between Tanvir and legal heirs of Naseer in Chak No 19/9R. Meanwhile accused persons Mst. Nasreen armed with sota, Muhammad Akram armed with “Chhurri” and Abdul Raud armed with pistol .30 bore entered in the house. Accused Nasreen Bibi raised Lalkara that Younas be taught lesson for previous litigation who may not go escape free. Accused Nasreen Bibi raised Lalkara that Younas he taught lesson for previous litigation who may not go escape free. Accused Muhammad Akram overpowered Muhammad Younas while Abdul Rauf accused made pistol fire shot which hit on the left side of abdomen on pocket of Muhammad Younas piercing through the cell phone tying in his pocket and exited from his back. When Muhammad Ramzan (PW) wied to stop the accused persons, Muhammad Akram accused inflicted “Churri” blow on his left palm who got injured. Muhammad Younas fell on the ground who was taken to RHC Kacha Khuck in injured condition. The occurrence was witnessed by members of Punchayat and other residents of Muhammad Aslam s/o Ali Muhammad. On the same day (01.12.2022) another written application (Exh.PM) was moved by the complainant Muhammad Shafi to the effect that due to tension he could not mention name of Muhammad Younas s/o Wali Muhammad in his application (Exh.PL) as to presence of Muhammad Younas in Ehata dispute resolution and after sustaining pistol fire shot Muhammad Younas fell down, so his mobile phone fell out of his pocket which was still present at the place of occurrence. The complainant along with Muhammad Ramzan s/o Ghulam Rasool, Abdul Hameed s/o Wali Muhammad took Muhammad Younas to RHC Racha Khu in severely injured condition but he was referred to DHQ. Hospital. Khanwal wherefrom he was referred to Nishtar Hospital, Mulian. The motive of occurrence is previous litigation with the accused party. The injured Muhammad Younas subsequently succumbed to injuries on 03.12.2022”.

4.       After completion of all pre-trial formalities, the learned Trial Court framed formal charge under Sections 302, 324, 452, and 337-F(i) of the, PPC against the appellant and his co-accused on 11.09.2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, to prove its case, produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses. Dr. Hamayon Babar Medical Officer, who conducted medical examination of injured Muhammad Ramzan at RHC Kacha Khu, was examined as PW-3; Dr. Muhammad Ishaque Medical Officer, who firstly conducted medical examination of injured Muhammad Younis, deposed as PW-4; Muhammad Akram Tahir ASI (PW-5) and Muhammad Waheed Iqbal 285/HC (PW-6) were officiating duties of Moharrar of the Police Station at the time of occurrence; complainant Muhammad Shafi (PW-7), injured witness Muhammad Ramzan (PW-8) and eye-witness Ghulam Rasool (PW-9) deposed regarding ocular account of the occurrence; whereas, Muhammad Azhar SI (PW-11), Israr Ahmed SI (PW-12), Zia-ur-Rehman SI (PW-10), Aftab Ahmed SI (PW-13), and Muhammad Ijaz DSP (PW-14) conducted investigations of the case. The remaining witnesses were more or less formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Muhammad Saleem, Nazir Ahmed, Riaz Ahmed, Abdul Hameed, and Muhammad Tahir being unnecessary and closed its evidence after tendering Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Report (Exh.PX) and Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PY & Exh.PZ).

5.       Thereafter, statement under Section 342 of the Code of the appellant and co-accused was recorded, wherein they pleaded their innocence. Appellant did not, however, opt to appear as his own witness in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 340 of the Code; however, he produced a copy of FIR No. 236 of 2022 (Exh.DA) in defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgement dated 11.07.2024, while acquitting co-accused Muhammad Akram and Nasreen Bibi, found the case against the appellant to have been proved, thus, convicted and sentenced him as detailed. Hence, the instant criminal appeal and criminal revision

6.       Arguments heard; record perused.

7.       It emerges from wading through the record that the unfortunate occurrence, wherein Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Ramzan sustained injuries and subsequently Muhammad Younas succumbed due to the same on 03.12.2022, allegedly took place on 01.12.2022 at 08:30 a.m. while the matter was reported to the local police on the same day at 06:45 p.m., with an inordinate delay of more than 10 hours despite the police station, according to Column No. 5 of the crime report, being merely 2 miles away from the place of occurrence. This delay also puts a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously assess and scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence. Generally, such belated lodging of the FIR shatters the sanctity of the same and reflects that the same was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting, and concocting a false story, where no plausible justification or adequate explanation is furnished.[1] Thus, this Court is firm of the view that the delay in registration of the Crime Report was due to planting eye-witnesses.

8.       It further evinces from perusal of the record that the time of occurrence incorporated in the crime report (Exh.PK) is incorrect, as the occurrence took place much prior to the time incorporated in the FIR (Exh.PK). According to the testimony of Dr. Muhammad Ishaque (PW-4), Muhammad Younas (deceased) was brought by Liaqat Ali 1325/C for medical examination through an application/injury statement (Exh.PE) vide Rapt No. 4 to RHC Kacha Khuh at about 08:35 a.m., i.e., just after five minutes of the alleged occurrence. Contrarily, complainant Muhammad Shafi (PW-7) deposed that:

‘I had not got written in Exh PL the factum of making call by Ramzan PW on 15. 1 had not called 1122 rescue after the occurrence. Immediately after occurrence pick up Dala passing through was got stopped through which injured was shifted to RHC Kacha Khu by me, Ramzan and Abdul Hameeed which is 05 minutes away from the place of occurrence’.

Additionally, it is scribed at the bottom of the FIR (Exh.PK) that the plainant (PW-7) appeared before the police along with his written application (Exh.PL), which was composed through computer, for registration of the case qua the occurrence at 06:45 p.m. on 01.12.2022, based on which formal FIR (Exh.PK) was chalked out and investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Azhar SI (PW-11), who then proceeded to the place of occurrence and the hospital. It is shrouded in mystery how the police visited the hospital for the first time on the date of occurrence after 06:45 p.m., yet police officer Liaqat Ali 1325/C was able to accompany the injured to the hospital on the day of occurrence at 08:35 a.m., much prior to 06:45 p.m. The prosecution, instead of resolving this controversy, opted to withhold the testimony of Liaqat Ali 1325/C. The contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses, i.e., doctor (PW-4), complainant (PW-7), and Investigating Officer (PW-11), suggest that the occurrence allegedly took place much prior to the time incorporated in the narration of the crime report (Exh.PK). Since the time of occurrence has been disbelieved, consequently, the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence becomes highly doubtful.

9.       Further, it has been noticed in the deposition of Dr. Muhammad Ishaque (PW-4) that the injured Muhammad Younas was conscious when he was admitted in the hospital, yet the Investigating Officer did not record his statement under Section 161 of the Code, which may have been later termed as a dying declaration in terms of Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 (“QSO”).[2] In “Muhammad Javed v. The State” (2020 SCMR 2116), where the deceased, in injured condition, was medically examined and despite being fully conscious and well-oriented with stable vitals, he did not opt for recording of his statement and the same was taken as an adverse factor to prosecution case by the honourable Supreme Court, therefore, the non-recording of the statement of deceased Muhammad Younas in injured but conscious condition also casts a dent in the prosecution’s story.

10.     By the same token, various inconsistencies have been observed in the ocular account. Complainant Muhammad Shafi (PW-7) deposed that on the day of occurrence, at 08:30 a.m., he, along with Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Rasul, Younas, Hameed, Saleem, Nazeer, Ch. Riaz, was present in the house of Tanvir to resolve a dispute of Ehata between Tanveer and on the same lines, but there is nothing on record that either they were members of any panchayat or residents of said house where the occurrence allegedly took place. As such, their presence at the crime scene is not only highly improbable but also suggests that they are “chance witnesses”.[3] In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about their absence from the crime spot. The testimony of a chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his/her presence at the crime scene are put forth when the occurrence took place; otherwise, his/her testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt.[4]

11.     Insofar as the contention that the testimony of the injured witness established the guilt of the appellant is concerned, the said testimony of the injured witness cannot be relied upon to sustain the sentence of the appellant for the following reasons. It follows that although the presence of injured witnesses cannot be doubted at place of incident merely because they had injuries on their person does not stamp them to be truthful witnesses[5] and the evidence of the said injured witness was disbelieved by the learned Trial Court to the extent of the injuries caused by the co-accused Muhammad Akram on person of the said injured PW and the co-accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court. An appeal against acquittal was initially instituted by the complainant (PW-7), but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution, and said order has attained finality. Fact of the matter asserted is that the injured witness was disbelieved to the extent of the co-accused who was ascribed the role of causing injuries on the injured PW in the crime report (Exh.PK), then how can his testimony be relied to the extent of the appellant. If the testimonies were deemed unreliable to the extent that the co-accused of the appellant was acquitted due to their unreliability, despite medical evidence confirming the fatal nature of all injuries, then the same inconsistencies and weaknesses must apply to the appellant, because there is no independent evidence that distinguishes his role from his acquitted co-accused persons. The sudden shift in the Court’s findings, based on essentially the same facts, coupled with the modifications in the verdict, compels this Court to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution to the extent of the present appellant.[6]

12.     Insofar as the recovery of the pistol during the course of investigation and positive Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PZ) is concerned, suffice to observe that it is trite that once the intrinsic value of ocular account is disbelieved, then the rest of the corroboratory pieces of evidence, even of a higher degree, would automatically collapse. A reference is invited to the case titled “Riaz Mimed v. The State” (2010 SCMR 846). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced for ready reference:

‘The prosecution also produced the positive FSL report, meaning thereby, the crime empty secured from place of incident matched with the gun recovered from the possession of the appellant. This being a corroborative piece of evidence, which by itself is insufficient to convict the appellant in absence of substantive piece of evidence’.

13.     By the same token, the prosecution specifically alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over Ehata. This Court, like the learned Trial Court, has observed that the alleged motive rests solely on the oral assertion of the complainant, as no corroborative evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate its claim. It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is not obligated to prove motive in every murder case, but it is equally established that once the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it assumes the burden of proving it. Failure to discharge this burden operates to the detriment of the prosecution, not the accused.[7] Consequently, I have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the unfortunate incident.

14.     In view of the aforementioned deliberation, it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, as adumbrate thereto, the prosecution has failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. To this end, it is trite that it is not necessary that there be multiple infirmities in the prosecution’s case or several circumstances creating doubt. A single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution’s case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.[8]

15.     The upshot of the discussion made hereinabove is that the Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2024 filed by the appellant Abdul Rauf is accepted; his conviction and sentence are hereby set aside, and he is acquitted of the charges by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant Abdul Rauf is in jail; he is directed to be released forthwith if his custody is no longer required by jail authorities in any other case.

16.     After accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2024 is also found bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.

(A.A.K.)          Appeal accepted


[1].       See “Muhammad Jahangir v. The State” (2024 SCMR 1741); and, “Khial Muhammad v. The State” (2024 SCMR 1490).

[2].       See “Muhammad Umairs The State” (2023 PCr.LJ Note 2 Lahore).

[3].       A “chance witness”, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his Presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but a place where he resides, carries on business or rum day to day life affairs.

[4].       See “Sughra Begam and another v. Qaiser Parvez and others” (2015 SCMR 1142); “Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others” (2017 SCMR 142); “Nawab Siraj Ali v. The State” (2020 SCMR 119), “Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State” (2024 SCMR 1427); and, “Muhammad Riaz v. The State” (2024 SCMR 1839).

[5].       See “Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State” (2025 SCP 36); and, “Amin Ali v. The State” (2011 SCMR 323).

[6].       See “Munir Abmad and another v. The State and others” (2019 SCMR 79); “Abdul Ghafoor v. The State” (2022 SCMR 1527); “Maqsood Alem and another v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 156); and, “Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and other (2024 SCMR 1731).

[7].       See “Manzoor Ahmed Shah and others v. The State and others” (2019 SCMR 2000); “Muhammad Ilyas and another v. Ameer Ali and another” (2020 SCMR 305); “Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others” (2021 SCMR 780); and, “Khalid Mehmood and other v. The State and others” (2021 SCMR 810).

[8].       See “Barkhurdar v. The State and another” (2023 SCMR 1791); “Hussain v. The State” (2022 SCMR 1567); “Kashif Ali v. The State (2022 SCMR 1515); The State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh” (2021 SCMR 873); “Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State” (2019 SCMR 129); “Muhammad Mansha v. The State” (2018 SCMR 772); and “Tariq Pervaiz v. The State” (1995 SCMR 1345).