2026 P Cr. L J 344

  2026 P Cr. L J 344

[Balochistan]

Before Rozi Khan Barrech, C.J and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J

MUHAMMAD ZAHIR---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 519 and Murder Reference No. 13 of 2023, decided

on 5th August, 2025.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR

with promptitude---Accused was charged for committing murder of

the brother of complainant---Allegation levelled against the

appellant as narrated by the complainant in his report as well as in

his statement before the Court was that on 17.11.2022 at 6:15 pm,

the accused persons being equipped with pistol made firing on his

brother, due to which he died---Case was registered on the

complaint of complainant on the basis of his Fard-e-Bayan, wherein

he had specifically nominated the appellant and attributed a specific

role of firing upon his brother, due to which one bullet hit on the

head of the deceased---Alleged occurrence took place on 17.11.2022

at 6:15 pm and the FIR was lodged on the same date at 7:50 pm

promptly without any delay---Circumstances established that the

prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant

beyond a reasonable doubt, however, due to mitigating

circumstances, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was

altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was

dismissed with said modification in sentence.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account

proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother

of complainant---Complainant narrated the whole story with regard

to the occurrence and correctly stated the time, date and manner in

which the occurrence had taken place---Complainant had correctly

identified the appellant before the Trial Court---Likewise, the other

two witnesses were also eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they

attributed the role of firing to the appellant---Said witnesses gavea

consistent, natural and straightforward ocular account of the

occurrence---Defense subjected them to lengthy searching cross-

examination, but their testimonies remained unshaken and un-

shattered---Said witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the

circumstances that surfaced in that case; therefore, it could safely

be concluded that their testimonies were reliable, straightforward,

and confidence-inspiring---Said prosecution witnesses were natural

witnesses who were residents of the locality and were supposed to

be present there---Presence of complainant was also established at

the spot of the occurrence due to the fact that he lodged the FIR

promptly and shifted the deceased to the civil hospital and his name

also reflected in the medical certificate wherein it was clearly

mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the

complainant---Presence of eye-witnesses was also established on the

basis of their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., which were promptly

recorded by the Investigation Officer---All the witnesses gave

consistent and straightforward ocular accounts of the occurrence---

Despite conducting exhaustive and lengthy cross-examination,

nothing was brought on record, that would significantly

demonstrate the falsity of the witnesses' account or their presence

at the scene of the crime was doubtful and distrustful---Medical

evidence was in complete harmony with the ocular testimony of the

complainant and both the other eye-witnesses---No conflict could be

pointed out to create a dent in the prosecution's case---

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully

proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt,

however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death

awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life---

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in

sentence.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Related and

interested witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Scope---Accused was

charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---

Admittedly the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased---

However, related witness could not be termed as an interested

witness under all circumstances---Related witness could also be a

natural witness---If an offence was committed in the presence of

family members, they became natural witnesses---In case their

evidence was reliable, cogent, and clear, the prosecution's case

could not be doubted---However, a related witness became an

interested witness when his evidence was tainted with malice, was

indicating a desire to implicate the accused by fabricating and

concocting evidence---Defence could not point out any plausible

reason as to why the complainant and eye-witnesses had falsely

implicated the appellant in the present case and let off the real

culprit, who had committed the murder of their relative Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully

proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt,

however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death

awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life---

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in

sentence.

(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of

blood-stained clothes, blood-stained earth and three bullet empties

of pistol---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing

murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that blood

stained clothes, blood-stained earth and three bullet empties of

pistol were recovered, which were taken into possession from the

place of occurrence by the Investigation Officer, in the presence of

the witnesses, who prepared the parcels and sent the same to the

Forensic Science Laboratory and he received reports according to

which three empties present in parcel No.2 were of 30 bore pistol

and that the suspect blood stained articles were stained with human

blood---Said recoveries had been duly proved through recovery

witnesses and nothing adverse could be achieved despite cross-

examination by the defense---Circumstances established that the

prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant

beyond a reasonable doubt, however, due to mitigating

circumstances, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was

altered to imprisonment for life--- Appeal against conviction was

dismissed with said modification in sentence.

(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence,

reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---No motive alleged---Spur of

the moment altercation---Accused was charged for committing

murder of the brother of complainant---On assessment of evidence,

it was found that the motive had not been alleged by the

complainant against the appellant in the FIR and for that the

complainant in his statement recorded before the Court stated that

the said occurrence took place at the spur of the moment due to

altercation---Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to

what was the real cause of the occurrence and as to what had

actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had

resulted in the death of deceased, therefore, the death sentence

awarded to the appellant was quite harsh---As such, while

maintaining the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of

death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said

modification in sentence.

Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188 rel.

Gulzar Ahmed Kandrani and Farah Naz Zehri for Appellant (in

Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2023).

Usman Ghani Tareen, Fayyaz Kasi and Sabira Islam for the

Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2023).

Miss Noor Jahan Kahoor, APG for the State (in Criminal Appeal No.

519 of 2023).

Usman Ghani Tareen, Fayyaz Kasi and Sabira Islam for the

Complainant (in Murder Reference No. 13 of 2023).

Miss Noor Jahan Kahoor, APG for the State (in Murder Reference No.

13 of 2023).

Gulzar Ahmed Kandrani and Farah Naz Zehri for Respondent (in

Murder Reference No. 13 of 2023).

Date of hearing: 28th July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, C.J.---The appellant Muhammad Zahir, son

of Allah Dad, allegedly committed the murder of Abdul Wahid son of

Abdul Qadir at a hotel situated at Killi Alam Khan Quetta, within the

precincts of PS Airport Quetta, at about 6:15 pm on 17.11.2022. For the

commission of the said offence, the appellant was booked in case FIR

No. 338/2022, registered at the said police station on the same date at

7:50 pm. After a regular trial, the appellant was convicted under

section 302(b) P.P.C vide judgment dated 01.11.2023 ('the impugned

judgment') passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Quetta ( trial

Court ) in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2023 and sentenced to death as Ta zir

and also directed to be hanged by the neck till death subject to

confirmation by the High Court. The appellant was also directed to pay

Rs.400,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Wahid as

compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C and in default thereof, he

was directed to further undergo S.I for six months with the benefit of

Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the appellant has

assailed his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No. 519

of 2023, whereas the trial court has sent Murder Reference No. 13 of

2023 for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to

the appellant. Since both the above cases are arising out of one and the same

judgment of the trial court, therefore the same are being disposed of

through this single judgment.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the available record with their valuable assistance.

4. The allegation levelled against the appellant as narrated by the

complainant Ghulam Qadir (PW-1) in his report as well as in his

statement before the court is that on 17.11.2022 at 6:15 pm, the

accused persons namely Muhammad Zahir (appellant), Muhammad

Hanif and Muneer Ahmed being equipped with pistol made firing on

his brother namely Abdul Wahid, due to which he died. The case was

registered on the complaint of Abdul Qadir (PW-1) on the basis of his

Fard-e-Bayah (Ex.P/1-A), wherein he has specifically nominated the

appellant and attributed a specific role of firing upon his brother

(deceased) Abdul Wahid, due to which one bullet hit on the head of the

deceased. The alleged occurrence took place on 17.11.2022 at 6:15 pm,

and the FIR was lodged on the same date at 7:50 pm promptly without

any delay. The complainant narrated the whole story with regard to

the occurrence and correctly stated the time, date and manner in

which the occurrence had taken place. PW-1 has correctly identified

the appellant before the trial court. Likewise, the other two witnesses,

namely Jan Muhammad (PW-2) and Hamidullah (PW-4) are also eye-

witnesses of the occurrence. They attributed the role of firing to the

appellant. They gave a consistent, natural and straightforward ocular

account of the occurrence. The defense subjected them to lengthy

searching cross-examination, but their testimonies remained

unshaken and un-shattered.

5. The above PWs remained consistent on each and every material

point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the

circumstances that surfaced in this case; therefore, it can safely be

concluded that their testimonies are reliable, straightforward, and

confidence-inspiring. The above prosecution witnesses were natural

witnesses who were residents of the locality and were supposed to be

present there. The presence of PW-1 is also established at the spot of

the occurrence due to the fact that he lodged the FIR promptly and

shifted the deceased to the civil hospital, and his name also reflects in

the medical certificate (Ex.P/5-A) wherein it was clearly mentioned

that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the complainant/PW-

1. The presence of PW-2 and PW-3 is also established on the spot on

the basis of their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C which were

promptly recorded by the investigation officer.

6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that

only interested witnesses were produced by the prosecution and the prosecution s case is lacking independent corroboration is concerned,

there is no denial of the fact that the above PWs were related to the

deceased, but the law in this regard is well settled. A related witness

cannot be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances. A

related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is

committed in the presence of family members, they became natural

witnesses. In case their evidence is reliable, cogent, and clear, the

prosecution s case cannot be doubted. However, a related witness

become an interested witness when his evidence is tainted with

malice, is indicating a desire to implicate the accused by fabricating

and concocting evidence. Nevertheless the learned counsel for the

appellant was unable to present any evidence in this regard. The Court

is required that the evidence of an eye-witness who is a near relative

of the victim should be closely scrutinized. Learned counsel for the

appellant could not point out any plausible reason as to why the

complainant and PWs have falsely implicated the appellant in the

present case and let off the real culprit, who has committed the

murder of their relative. Substitution in such like cases is a rare

phenomenon.

All the above witnesses gave consistent and straightforward ocular

accounts of the occurrence. Despite conducting exhaustive and lengthy

cross-examination, nothing was brought on record, that would

significantly demonstrate the falsity of the above witnesses account or

their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful and distrustful.

7. It may be observed that medical evidence is in complete harmony

with the ocular testimony of the complainant/PW-1 and both the other

eye-witnesses, i.e. PW-2 and PW-3. No conflict could be pointed out to

create a dent in the prosecution s case. Dr. Aisha Faiz, Police Surgeon,

Sandeman Provincial Hospital Quetta (PW-5) produced the medical

certificate (Ex.P/5-A) of the deceased, according to which the deceased

received one entrance wound on the right side of the skull with fresh

bleeding, and the cause of death was damage of the vital organs of the

skull, caused by a firearm.

8. The other corroborative piece of evidence with the ocular account

is the recovery of blood stained clothes, blood-stained earth and three

bullet empties of pistol, which were taken into possession from the

place of occurrence by the investigation officer SI Masood Ahmed (PW-

6), in the presence of the witnesses, who prepared the parcels and sent

the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory and he received reports

(Ex.P/6-D and Ex.P/6-E) according to which three empties present in

parcel No.2 are of 30 bore pistol and that the suspect blood stained

articles were stained with human blood. The said recoveries have been duly proved through recovery witnesses, and nothing adverse could be

achieved despite cross-examination by the defense.

9. We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has

successfully proved its case against the appellant Muhammad Zahir,

son of Allah Dad, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction

recorded against the appellant is based on a correct appreciation of

the evidence, which does not call for any interference.

10. Now, coming to the sentence awarded to the appellant under

section 302(b) P.P.C, on assessment of evidence, we also found that the

motive has not been alleged by the complainant against the appellant

in the FIR and for that the complainant in his statement recorded

before the court stated that the said occurrence took place at the spur

of the moment due to altercation.

11. It is a well-recognized principle by now that the question of the

quantum of the sentence requires utmost attention and thoughtfulness

on the part of the Courts. In this regard, we respectfully refer to the

case of Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State (2009 SCMR 1188)

wherein the August Supreme Court has held as under:--

"It will not be out of place to emphasize that in criminal cases, the

question of quantum of sentence requires utmost care and

caution on the parts of the Courts, as such decisions restrict the

life and liberties of the people. Indeed the accused persons are

also entitled to extenuating benefit of doubt to the extent of

quantum of sentence."

Moreover, it is not determinable in this case as to what was the real

cause of the occurrence and as to what had actually happened

immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of

Abdul Wahid (deceased), therefore, in our view, the death sentence

awarded to the appellant is quite harsh. As such, while maintaining

the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death

awarded to the appellant is altered to imprisonment for life. The

imposition of compensation and punishment in case of default thereof,

as ordered by the trial court, shall remain intact.

12. Consequently, with the above modification in the sentence of the

appellant, Muhammad Zahir, son of Allah Dad, Criminal Appeal No.

519 of 2023, is hereby dismissed. The Murder Reference No. 13 of 2023

is answered in the NEGATIVE. The death sentence awarded to the

appellant is not confirmed.

JK/85/Bal. Sentence reduced.