2026 P Cr. L J 351

2026 P Cr. L J 351
[Islamabad]
Before Khadim Hussain Soomro, J
JAVED KHAN and 2 others---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Revisions Nos. 206 of 2023 and 31 of 2024, decided on 7th
November, 2025.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving
property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of one day in lodging the FIR---
Consequential---Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioners
entered the house of complainant, caused him injury with a sharp-
edged weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-, a gold
ring, and five mobile phones---Incident, as alleged, took place on
25.06.2020, yet the FIR was registered on the following day,
26.06.2020---No plausible or convincing explanation had been
offered by the complainant for this delay, despite the fact that the
police station was situated at a short distance from the place of
occurrence---Prompt reporting of an offence lent assurance to its
truth, while an unexplained delay provided room for deliberation,
consultation and fabrication---In the present case, the lapse of time
between the alleged occurrence and the registration of the FIR
created a serious doubt as to the spontaneity and genuineness of the
complaint---Complainant s own admission that he remained in
contact with the police on the very night of the incident, but the
report was lodged only on the next day, further reinforced the
presumption that the FIR was registered after due deliberation---
Such an unexplained delay, particularly in cases based solely on
ocular account, was fatal to the prosecution and diminished the
evidentiary worth of its entire narrative---Petitions were allowed
and petitioners were acquitted by setting aside impugned
judgments, in circumstances.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving
property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioners entered
the house of complainant, caused him injury with a sharp-edged
weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-, a gold ring
and five mobile phones---Prosecution in order to establish its case,
examined the complainant, and he reiterated the contents of his
written application---However, during cross-examination,
complainant made several admissions destructive to the
prosecution's case---Complainant admitted that the currency notes
received on superdari were not the same as those stolen and that
the currency notes were drawn from a bank---Complainant further
admitted that he had not produced any register or documentary
proof regarding the existence of the alleged Committee amount of
Rs. 35,00,000/-, nor was there a description regarding the Committee
members, nor were their statements recorded during the course of
investigation---Petitions were allowed and petitioners were
acquitted by setting aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---
Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt,
ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the
commission of dacoity---Scope---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit
of doubt---Test identification parade---Prosecution case was that the
accused-petitioners entered the house of complainant, caused him
injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs.
40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile phones---Complainant had
not given complete detail with regard to the description of the
accused in the FIR---Neither the physical structure of each accused
was given nor had specific role been assigned to the each accused in
the commission of offence---Complainant even failed to disclose the
exact date on which the Identification Parade was carried---
Moreover, it was a matter of fact and record that the
petitioners/accused were arrested on 19.05.2022, whereas the
Identification Parade was conducted on 26.06.2022 after the lapse of
forty (40) days, which created the possibility of showing the accused
to the complainant and witnesses prior to the Identification Parade--
-Executive Magistrate did not fulfill the formalities of the
Identification Parade---Said witness could not recall the exact date
of the identification parade and conceded that it was conducted
nearly two years after the incident, as per memo of arrest on
19.05.2022, whereas Identification Parade was conducted on
26.06.2022 after forty (40) days of arrest---Son of the complainant
deposed that two armed boys demanded money from him and later
locked him and others in the washroom---Said witness also claimed
to have identified the accused in jail---However, in cross examination, said witness admitted that in his police statement
under S.161, Cr.P.C, he had not mentioned the theft of the gold ring,
nor had he been present at the time of recovery and further
admitted that all persons in the identification parade had similar
appearances and that the lines had already been arranged before
their arrival---Such irregularities rendered the identification
proceedings doubtful and of no evidentiary value---Another son of
the complainant, being about 16-years of age, also supported the
version of his father, but his testimony was inconsistent on material
particulars---Said witness admitted that he neither attended the
identification parade nor accompanied his father to the hospital---
Said witness also conceded that his brother, who was admittedly
present, was not produced as a witness---Version of said witness
regarding the number of intruders and the sequence of events
contradicted both the witnesses---In the absence of corroboration,
his evidence could not be relied upon---Petitions were allowed and
petitioners were acquitted by setting aside impugned judgments, in
circumstances.
Kanwar Anwar Ali s case PLD 2019 SC 488; Saleem Khan alias Gul v.
The State and others 2020 YLR Note 98 and Muhammad Akram alias
Akri v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ 977 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving
property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not substantiating
allegation of grievous injury---Prosecution case was that the
accused-petitioners entered the house of complainant, caused him
injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs.
40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile phones---Medical evidence
was furnished through Medical Officer, who observed a superficial
wound measuring 4 x 3 cm on the left buttock of the complainant
and opined that it could have been caused by any sharp instrument,
even by a nail---Medical Officer categorically admitted that it was a
minor wound and that she could not state with certainty that it had
been caused by a dagger---Thus, the medical evidence failed to
substantiate the allegation of grievous injury under S.337-F(i) P.P.C---
Petitions were allowed and petitioners were acquitted by setting
aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of
evidence---Recovery of incriminating materials doubtful---
Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioners entered the house
of complainant, caused him injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took
away cash amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile
phones---Record showed that the recovery witnesses were all Police
Officials---No independent or public witness was associated in any
recovery proceedings, which was a direct violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.---
One of the Police Official admitted that he made no diary entries
regarding the departure or arrival at the place of recovery, nor did
he associate any member of the public---Other Police Official
acknowledged that his signature was missing on the recovery memo
and that the alleged pistol had no serial number and was never sent
for forensic examination---Another Police Official confirmed that all
recoveries were made within the jurisdiction of another police
station, but no report or intimation was recorded at the local police
station and also conceded that no public witness was joined---Such
recoveries, unsupported by independent corroboration, could not
safely be relied upon---All witnesses to the recovery were members
of the same police station---Said fact created doubts regarding the
recovery---Petitions were allowed and petitioners were acquitted by
setting aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.
Muhammad Akram alias Akri v.The State and others 2023 PCr.LJ 977
rel.
(f ) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---
Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt,
ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the
commission of dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt-
--Test identification parade---Infirmities---Scope---Prosecution case
was that the accused-petitioners entered the house of complainant,
caused him injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took away cash
amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile phones---
Assistant Commissioner, who conducted the identification parade,
admitted in cross-examination that he had not verified the identity
of the witnesses, nor ascertained the period during which the
accused remained in police custody prior to the parade---Said
witness further admitted that he was already aware of the incident
and that he did not follow the standard procedure prescribed under
the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Police Rules---
Identification parade was conducted almost two years after the
occurrence and witnesses had prior access to the accused in Police
Station---Identification proceedings were tainted and devoid of evidentiary worth---Petitions were allowed and petitioners were
acquitted by setting aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 397, 337-F(i) & 412---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving
property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of
evidence---Defective investigation---Prosecution case was that the
accused-petitioners entered the house of complainant, caused him
injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs.
40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile phones---Investigation itself
suffered from gross procedural defects---Alleged recoveries of cash
were made after a lapse of 2 years---Admittedly, the currency notes
were not the same, which were stolen and the currency notes were
drawn from the bank, hence it was insufficient and against the
norms of justice to connect the present accused/petitioners with
alleged recovery---Furthermore, neither the recovered dagger nor
the pistol was sent for expert examination, and no fingerprints or
forensic evidence were collected from the crime scene---Said
omissions rendered the investigation highly doubtful and
unreliable---Petitions were allowed and petitioners were acquitted
by setting aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.
(h) Criminal trial---
----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution must prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt and any such doubt must be resolved in
favour of the accused.
Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 in person.
Petitioner No. 1 in person (in connected Criminal Revision No. 31 of
2024).
Ms. Habiba Khalid, State Counsel, Ch. Rabnawaz and Asad Ali,
ASI/I.O for the State.
Complainant in person.
Date of hearing: 30th September, 2025.
JUDGMENT
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.---The petitioners, through the
instant Criminal Revision along with connected Criminal Revision
No.31/2024, have assailed the judgments dated 08.05.2023 and
26.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (East) and the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad, respectively,
whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Section 394,
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in case FIR No.137/2020 under sections 397, 337F(i) and 412 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Noon, Islamabad, and
sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each, along with a fine
of Rs.20,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant revision petition
are that the complainant, Muhammad Ilyas, lodged FIR No.137/2020
alleging that on 25.06.2020, at about 8:45 p.m., four unknown armed
persons entered his house, assaulted his son Khizer Hayat, and one of
them stabbed the complainant. The accused persons allegedly
decamped with cash amounting to Rs. 3,950,000/- and a gold ring
weighing half a tola. Subsequently, the present petitioners were
arrested on 19.05.2022, and a challan was submitted against them
under Sections 394, 412, and 337-F(i), P.P.C. After a full-dress trial, the
learned Judicial Magistrate (East), Islamabad, convicted the petitioners
vide judgment dated 08.05.2023. Their appeal before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad, was dismissed vide
judgment dated 26.07.2023.
3. At the very outset, the complainant/respondent No.2, present in
person, submitted a written application accompanied with his
affidavit stating that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further
and has no objection if the conviction and sentence awarded to the
petitioners are set aside.
4. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 in Criminal Revision No.206/2023, and the
petitioner in Criminal Revision No.31/2024, are on bail and present in
person. However, petitioner No.2, namely Daulat Khan son of Said
Muhammad, who was also granted bail along with the other
petitioners, has remained absent for several consecutive dates. Despite
repeated efforts to secure his attendance through the police, it has
been reported that he is a fugitive from the law and has absconded to
Afghanistan.
5. Learned State counsel submitted that some of the offences are
non-compoundable and, in such circumstances, requested that, in case
the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter, even then the
petitioners cannot be acquitted.
6. I have heard the learned State Counsel and gone through the
record with due care.
7. The prosecution case, as emerging from the record, is that on
25.06.2020 at about 08:45 p.m., five unknown armed persons allegedly
entered the house of the complainant Muhammad Ilyas, caused him
injury with a sharp-edged weapon, and took away cash amounting to
Rs.40,00,000/-, a gold ring, and five mobile phones. The case was
registered against unknown culprits under Sections 337-F(i), 397, and 412 P.P.C. The delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR)
strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. Reliance is placed on
2016 PCr.LJ Note 116 (Azmat Hayat, etc v. The State, etc) delay in
lodging of FIR, benefit of doubt extended and appeal was allowed,
relevant portions are reproduced as under:-
.....As per contents of the crime report the occurrence in the instant
case had taken place on 27.09.2007, whereas, the FIR was lodged
on 05.10.2007 with a delay of nine days of the occurrence. .....It is
of much significance to note that in the case of Mehmood Ahmed
and 2 others v. State (1995 SCMR 127), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan took serious notice of delay in lodging the FIR.
..when the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of nine days
8. The incident, as alleged, took place on 25.06.2020, yet the FIR was
registered on the following day, 26.06.2020. No plausible or convincing
explanation has been offered by the complainant for this delay, despite
the fact that the police station was situated at a short distance from the
place of occurrence. It is well-settled that prompt reporting of an
offence lends assurance to its truth, while an unexplained delay
provides room for deliberation, consultation, and fabrication. In the
present case, the lapse of time between the alleged occurrence and the
registration of the FIR creates a serious doubt as to the spontaneity
and genuineness of the complaint. The complainant's own admission
that he remained in contact with the police on the very night of the
incident, but the report was lodged only on the next day, further
reinforces the presumption that the FIR was registered after due
deliberation. Such an unexplained delay, particularly in cases based
solely on ocular account, is fatal to the prosecution and diminishes the
evidentiary worth of its entire narrative.
9. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined the
complainant. PW-1 Muhammad Ilyas reiterated the contents of his
written application (Ex. PA). However, during cross-examination, he
made several admissions destructive to the prosecution's case. He
admitted that the currency notes received on superdari were not the
same as those stolen and that the currency notes were drawn from a
bank. He further admitted that he had not produced any register or
documentary proof regarding the existence of the alleged committee
amount of Rs. 35,00,000/, nor was there a description regarding the
Committee members, nor were their statements recorded during the
course of investigation.
10. The complainant has not given a complete detail with regard to
the description of the accused in the FIR. Neither the physical
structure of each accused was given nor has specific role been assigned to the each accused in the commission of offence. The
Complainant even failed to disclose the exact date on which the
Identification Parade was carried. Moreover, it is a matter of fact and
record that the petitioners/accused were arrested on 19.05.2022,
whereas the Identification Parade was conducted on 26.06.2022 after
the lapse of forty (40) days, which creates the possibility of showing
the accused to the complainant and PWs prior to the Identification
Parade. The PW-11/Executive Magistrate did not fulfil the formalities
of the Identification Parade in light of the Honourable Supreme Court
Judgment passed in the case of Kanwar Anwaar Ali, reported as PLD
2019 SC 488. He could not recall the exact date of the identification
parade and conceded that it was conducted nearly two years after the
incident, as per memo of arrest on 19.05.2022, whereas Identification
Parade was conducted on 26.06.2022 after Forty (40) days of arrest.
Reliance is placed on 2020 YLR N 98 (Saleem Khan alias Gul v. The
State, etc) wherein it was held by Peshawar High Court that delay in
identification parade proved to be fatal to the case and appeal was
dismissed, relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
The convict/appellant Sir Syed was arrested on 17.8.2015, whereas
his identification parade was conducted on 04.9.2015.
In case titled Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others v. The
State and another (2009 SCMR 436), it was held that:-
"It is also explicit on record that prior to holding of the
identification test accused persons had complained to P. W. 7, the
Magistrate, who had supervised the identification test that they
were shown to the identifying witnesses and the Magistrate in
the course of his statement, at the trial, has in unequivocal terms
admitted that he had received such complaint. Another fact
which impairs evidentiary value to the identification test is that
accused persons were produced before P.W. 7 initially on 3-11-
2000 but the test was put off and was conducted on 7-11-2000 as
a result of freshly made application dated 6-11-2000 and no
reason whatsoever for the delay was shown. In the
circumstances the possibility that the test was delayed purposely
in order to show the accused persons to the identifying
witnesses, could not have been ruled out. The evidence of
identification, in the circumstances, was of no help to the
prosecution.
11. PW-2 Abdul Basit, the son of the complainant, deposed that two
armed boys demanded money from him and later locked him and
others in the washroom. He also claimed to have identified the
accused in jail. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that in his
police statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, he had not mentioned the theft of the gold ring, nor had he been present at the time of recovery.
He further admitted that all persons in the identification parade had
similar appearances and that the lines had already been arranged
before their arrival. Such irregularities render the identification
proceedings doubtful and of no evidentiary value. Reliance is placed
on 2023 PCr.LJ 977 (Muhammad Akram alias Akri v. The State),
relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as:-
Witnesses of said recovery were Police Officials and no independent
witness was examined by the prosecution ..As far as recovery of
churri at the instance of the other accused was concerned, the
same was not helpful to the prosecution because the witnesses
of said recovery were Police Officials and no independent
witness was examined by the prosecution
19. I have noted that the witnesses of said recovery memo are police
officials and no independent witness was examined by the
prosecution.
21. As far as recovery of churri (P.7) at the instance of the appellant
Zulfiqar Ahmad, vide recovery memo (Ex.PK) is concerned, the
same is not helpful to the prosecution because the witnesses of
said recovery memo are police officials and no independent
witness was examined by the prosecution.
12. PW-3 Khizar Hayat, another son of the complainant, being about
16 years of age, also supported the version of his father, but his
testimony is inconsistent on material particulars. He admitted that he
neither attended the identification parade nor accompanied his father
to the hospital. He also conceded that his brother Usama, who was
admittedly present, was not produced as a witness. His version
regarding the number of intruders and the sequence of events
contradicted both PW-1 and PW-2. In the absence of corroboration, his
evidence cannot be relied upon.
13. The medical evidence was furnished through PW-7 Dr. Farah
Kamal of PIMS. She observed a superficial wound measuring 4 3 cm on
the left buttock of the complainant and opined that it could have been
caused by any sharp instrument, even by a nail. She categorically
admitted that it was a minor wound and that she could not state with
certainty that it had been caused by a dagger. Thus, the medical
evidence fails to substantiate the allegation of grievous injury under
Section 337-F(i) P.P.C.
14. The recovery witnesses, namely PW-6 Umar Arbab, PW-9 Imran
Shafiq, and PW-10 Sudhir Abbasi, were all police officials. No
independent or public witness was associated in any recovery
proceedings, which is a direct violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. PW-6 admitted that he made no diary entries regarding the departure or
arrival at the place of recovery, nor did he associate any member of
the public. PW-9 acknowledged that his signature was missing on the
recovery memo (Ex. P) and that the alleged pistol had no serial
number and was never sent for forensic examination. PW-10
confirmed that all recoveries were made within the Rawalpindi police
jurisdiction, but no report or intimation was recorded at the local
police station. He also conceded that no public witness was joined.
Such recoveries, unsupported by independent corroboration, cannot
safely be relied upon.
15. PW-11 Abdullah Khan, Assistant Commissioner, who conducted
the identification parade, admitted in cross-examination that he had
not verified the identity of the witnesses, nor ascertained the period
during which the accused remained in police custody prior to the
parade. He further admitted that he was already aware of the
incident and that he did not follow the standard procedure
prescribed under the Identification of Prisoners Act and the Police
Rules. The identification parade was conducted almost two years
after the occurrence, and witnesses had prior access to the accused in
Police Station. Hence, the identification proceedings are tainted and
devoid of evidentiary worth.
16. The investigation itself suffers from gross procedural defects.
The alleged recoveries of cash were made after a lapse of 2 years.
Admittedly the currency notes were not the same, which was stolen
and the currency notes were drawn from the bank, hence it is
insufficient and against the norms of justice to connect the present
accused/petitioners with alleged recovery.
17. All witnesses to the recovery were members of the same police
station. This fact created doubts regarding the recovery. Reliance is
placed on 2023 PCr.LJ 977 [Lahrore] (Muhammad Akram alias Akri v.
The State and others) supra. Furthermore, neither the recovered
dagger nor the pistol was sent for expert examination, and no
fingerprints or forensic evidence were collected from the crime scene.
These omissions render the investigation highly doubtful and
unreliable.
18. The accused before this Court were arrested almost two years
after the occurrence. The absence of independent witnesses, the
defective identification parade, the contradictory testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, and the superficial nature of the injury all
create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story. It is a well-
settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its
case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any such doubt must be
resolved in favour of the accused. 19. In the present case, the ocular account is unreliable, the medical
evidence does not support the prosecution's story, and the
circumstantial evidence in the form of recoveries is fabricated and
uncorroborated. The prosecution has, therefore, miserably failed to
establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, these Criminal Revisions
petitions are allowed. Upon reappraisal of evidence on record, it is
manifest that the prosecution has utterly failed to substantiate the
charge against the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
The entire case of the prosecution rests upon doubtful identification,
defective investigation, doubtful recoveries, and contradictory
statements of witnesses, which cannot form the basis of a conviction.
The delay in recording the FIR, the absence of independent
corroboration and material inconsistencies in the ocular and medical
evidence further demolish the prosecution's story. Accordingly, the
petitioners are acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit
of doubt. The impugned judgments and convictions dated 08.05.2023
and 26.07.2023 recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as by
Appellate Court are hereby set aside. Since the petitioners present
before this Court are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled, and
sureties are discharged from their liabilities. The case property, if not
required in any other connected proceedings, shall be disposed of in
accordance with the law. Perpetual Non-Bailable Warrants shall,
however, be issued against the absconding accused/petitioner No.2
(Daulat Khan) till his arrest.
JK/213/Isl. Revision allowed.
Pak Law Citation