2026 P Cr. L J 486

 2026 P Cr. L J 486

[Balochistan]

Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ

MIR ZAMAN alias Muhammad Alam---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2024, decided on 23rd June, 2025.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,

common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account

supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for

committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also

causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby---Case of

complainant was that on the fateful day, he, his brother and son

came to attend proceedings of a criminal case, where their

opponents i.e., appellants and one unknown culprit were also

present and that at 10:20 am, when they left the Court and reached

near A Motors, appellant made indiscriminate firing at their back,

due to which two bullets hit his deceased brother's right thigh,

whereas he received a bullet on his right leg and that a passerby

also received a bullet injury on his right leg---Nonetheless,

complainant s deceased brother succumbed to the injuries due to

excessive bleeding---Complainant further averred that earlier on

15.02.2018, a dispute arose between the parties due to which

criminal case was registered at Police Station, thus the appellant

and co-accused persons having anguish of an old animosity,

launched attack upon them---Despite lengthy cross-examination,

complainant remained firm and consistent to his examination-in-

chief, thus his statement went unshaken, which sounds natural,

confidence inspiring and truthful---Son of complainant appeared as

witness, his statement was in line with the statement of complainant

and reiterated what complainant had stated---Said witness was

cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to shatter his

testimony as he remained firmed and consistent to his examination

in chief, thus his testimony went un-shattered---Presence of the said

witnesses had been found to be natural, who had no reason to

falsely implicate the appellant---Defence had failed to bring

anything on record to establish false implication or substitution of

the real culprits with the appellant---Injured witness testified that

on 09.05.2018, he went to Faisal Bank, with his wife, where whilst

returning, suddenly firing started and that a bullet hit his left leg and he got injured, thus he was taken to the Civil Hospital---Later

on, he came to know that a person had made firing due to some

enmity, which resulted into death of a person---Although, injured

witness did not identify any of the culprit, but importantly he did

not deny the occurrence, thus his statement did not put any dent to

the case of the prosecution, rather confirmed the occurrence---

Presence of the eye-witnesses had been established and their

testimonies had gone un-shattered, which by all means inspired

confidence and truthful as the injuries sustained by complainant and

passerby proved their presence at the place of occurrence, more

particularly, when the medical evidence corroborated the ocular

account, nature, time and locale of injuries sustained by deceased and

the said Injured witnesses---Circumstances established that the

prosecution had proved the indictment to the hilt without any glimpse

of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.

Amanullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,

common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused persons

acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused charged for committing

murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing

firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby---It was alleged

by the defence that the case of acquitted accused persons was at par

with appellant, and they were acquitted of the indictment---Said

contention of defence was unjustified as the said acquitted persons

were not attributed any role of firing or with an overt act---

Appellant had been specifically nominated with the role of firing

upon deceased and causing injuries to complainant and a passerby,

thus his case was distinguishable---Circumstances established that

the prosecution had proved the indictment to the hilt without any

glimpse of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed,

accordingly.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,

common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Related and

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

charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by

firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a

passerby---Undeniably, both of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence

were related to the deceased, but merely for that reasons they could

not be termed as interested' witnesses---Term 'related' was not

equivalent to 'interested'---Witness may be called 'interested' only when, he or she derives some benefit in seeing an accused person

punished---Witness, who is a natural one and is the only possible

eye-witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be

'interested'---In the present case, one of the injured eye-witnesses

was complainant and he was brother of deceased, who had not only

proved his presence, but his testimony was consistent---Said witness

had cogently described the manner of commission of the crime in

detail, thus the testimony of an eye-witness, who had received

injuries carried more evidentiary value---Circumstances established

that the prosecution had proved the indictment to the hilt without

any glimpse of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed,

accordingly.

Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831 rel.

Aminullah Kakar for Appellant.

Abdul Karim, State Counsel for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th June, 2025.

JUDGMENT

SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J.--- Veracity and legality of judgment

dated 01.06.2024 ( impugned judgment ) handed down by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Quetta ( Trial Court ) has been called in

question by the appellant, emanating from FIR No.76 of 2018 (Ex.P/13-

A) registered with Police Station Civil Line, Quetta for the offences

punishable under sections 302, 324 and 34 of Pakistan Penal Code,

1860 ( P.P.C ), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced

in the following terms;

Accordingly, present accused Mir Zaman alias Muhammad Aslam

son of Eid Gul is convicted under section 302 (b) P.P.C to serve

life imprisonment. He is directed to pay Rs.200,000/- to the legal

heirs of deceased Sanaullah as provided under section 544-A

Cr.P.C in default whereof to suffer 6 months rigorous

imprisonment. He is sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous

imprisonment under section 324 P.P.C on two counts to made

attempt in the lives of Gulbat and Imran Bhati and to Rs.50,000/

(rupees fifty thousand only) as fine on two counts and to

undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each default. He

is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only)

to each Gulbat and Imran Bhatti as provided under section 544-A

Cr.P.C in default of payment to undergo six months rigorous

imprisonment for each default. The substantive sentences shall

run concurrently. Benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C is extended 2. Concise, but relevant facts essential for disposal of the instant

appeal are that complainant Gulbat (PW-1) got lodged the FIR ibid,

with the averments that on 09.05.2018 at 10:20 am, whilst returning

from the court proceedings at Adalat Road, Queta, appellant Mir

Zaman alias Muhammad Alam made indiscriminate firing with TT

pistol, which hit his brother Sanaullah s right thigh, whereas he and a

passerby namely Imran Bhatti (PW-6) also sustained bullet injuries,

however, his brother succumbed due to excessive bleeding. The

motive was stated to be an old enmity between the parties since 2018.

After registration of the FIR ibid, Abdul Ghafoor S.I 1st Investigation

Officer ( IO ) (PW-13) went to the crime scene, prepared site plan

(Ex.P/13-B), secured blood through cotton and two empties shells of TT

pistol vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/2-A). He also secured bloodstained

clothes of deceased Sanaullah and injured Gulbat (PW-1) through

recovery memo. (Ex.P/3-A) and recorded statements of witnesses

under section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, investigating was entrusted to 2nd I.O Minshaullah

(PW-14). He arrested co-accused Musa Kaleem, who made disclosure

(Ex.P/9-A). On 10.05.2019, a raid was conducted on a school located at

Pishin on the pointation of the complainant from where co-accused

Saif-ud-Din was arrested and from his possession the police officials

recovered 30. bore TT Pistol bearing Registration No.31036122 along

with a magazine and four live rounds, which were secured vide

recovery memo. (Ex.P/12-A). Co-accused Saif-ud-Din was brought

before Miss. Paraksa Noor, Judicial Magistrate, II, Quetta (PW-10) for

the test of identification parade, where Abdul Hameed (PW-5)

identified him to be the culprit, who had accompanied along with the

appellant on the day of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on

11.07.2020, who on 20.07.2020 made disclosure (Ex.P/9-C), and

disclosed that he had thrown the crime weapon in a rainy channel

situated at Pishin, which was his licensed pistol, thus on his pointation,

memo. of site (Ex.P/9-D) was prepared. 2nd I.O Minshaullah (PW-14)

secured license No.7403-D of 30. bore pistol, having number C-218523

vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/11-A). He also produced death certificate of

deceased Sanaullah, FSL reports regarding bloodstained cotton,

clothes and challan as (Ex.P/14-A), (Ex.P/14-B) and (Ex.P/14-C)

respectively.

Tariq Mehmood S.I (PW-15) and Javed Budzdar S.I (PW-16)

respectively are the 3rd and 4th IOs of the instant case, who produced

various challans and Punjab Forensic Science Agency report regarding

two 30. bore cartridges recovered from the site, pistol recovered from

co-accused Saif-ud-Din, magazine and four live rounds as (Ex.P/16-D). 3. Initially, co-accused Wahab Khan; then on the nomination of

complainant accused Saif-ud-Din, whereafter the appellant were

arrested, who were put on trial. During trial, the Trial Court vide

judgment dated 31.12.2021 acquitted co-accused Wahab Khan and Saif-

ud-Din of the indictment, whereas abated the proceedings to the

extent of co-accused Musa Kaleem, who expired during trial, however,

the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to suffer life

imprisonment vide judgment dated 31.12.2021. The appellant feeling

aggrieved from the said judgment, preferred Criminal Appeal No.02 of

2022 before this Court, which was partially allowed vide judgment

dated 19.09.2022, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Trial

Court with the direction to re-summon the witnesses and thereafter

rewrite the judgment.

After remand of the case, the prosecution in order to bring home the

charge produced as many as sixteen (16) witnesses and at the end of

the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under section 342 of

Cr.P.C, who opted to record his statement on oath as well as produced

Suleman (DW-1) in his defence, thus the Trial Court on conclusion of

the trial vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the

appellant in the terms mentioned in para supra.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the

eye-witnesses have failed to prove their presence on the crime scene,

thus their testimony is unreliable. He maintained further that no

crime weapon has been recovered from the appellant and that co-

accused persons, whose case was at par with the appellant were

acquitted, but the Trial Court, whilst misreading the appeal, evidence,

contrarily convicted the appellant, thus requested for acquittal of the

appellant inconsequence of acceptance of the instant appeal.

Conversely, learned State Counsel rebutted the assertions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and urged that the impugned

judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or misreading

of evidence, more particularly, when confidence inspiring statements

of eye-witnesses are available, thus, the appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Heard. Record sussed out with the able assistance of learned

counsel for the adversarial parties.

6. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the ocular account of

complainant Gulbat (PW-1), eye-witness Abdul Hameed (PW-5) and

passerby-victim Imran Bhatti (PW-6) coupled with the medical

evidence, recovery of two crime empties, blood stained articles and

PFSA report. 7. The unnatural death of deceased Sanaullah caused by firearm has

been not disputed. However, in order to further substantiate the

unnatural death of deceased Sanaullah, the prosecution produced Dr.

Aisha Faiz, Police Surgeon (PW-4), who examined the deceased on

09.05.2018 at about 11:30 am and issued Medico Legal Certificate ( MLC

) (Ex.P/4-A), wherein she observed the following injuries;

Injuries:

i. Brought dead with severe bleeding.

ii. Exit wound 2x2 cm at right thigh medial.

iii. Entrance wound 1x1 cm at right buttock near the anus.

iv. Entrance wound 1 x 1-cm at right buttock near the anus above

the injury No.3.

Probable cause of death is internal and external bleeding shock and

death caused by firearm and homicidal in manner.

8. Similarly, Dr. Ali Mardan, Police Surgeon (PW-7) examined

complainant Gulbat (PW-1), issued his MLC (Ex.P/7-B) and observed

the following injuries;

1.Firearm entrance wound on later side of right thigh.

2.X.ray done shows no fracture.

3.Duration of injury fresh weapon used fire arm and nature

grievous.

Dr. Ali Mardan, (PW-7) on the same day also examined Imran Bhatti

(PW-6) and issued his MLC (Ex.P/7-B) by observing the following

injuries;

1. Firearm entry wound seen on medial side of left foot with exit

wound.

2. X-ray done and refer to trauma center.

3. Duration of injuries fresh, weapon used firearm and nature

grievous."

9. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight at Adalat Road,

Quetta on 09.05.2018 at 10:20 am, while complainant Gulbat (PW-1)

along with son Abdul Hameed (PW-05) and his deceased brother

Sanaullah were on their way back, after attending a criminal

proceeding before the court. It is the case of complainant Gulbat (PW-

1) that on the fateful day, he, his brother Sanaullah and son Abdul

Hameed (PW-5) came to attend proceedings of a criminal case

bearing FIR No.21 of 2018 before learned Judicial Magistrate, XIII, Quetta, where their opponents i.e., appellant Mir Zaman alias

Muhammad Alam, Musa Kaleem, Wahab and one unknown culprit

were also present and that at 10:20 am, when they left the court and

reached near Azlan Motors, appellant made indiscriminate firing at

their back, due to which two bullets hit his deceased brother

Sanaullah s right thigh, whereas he received a bullet on his right leg

and that a passerby namely Imran Bhatti (PW-6) also received a

bullet injury on his right leg, nonetheless, his brother deceased

Sanaullah succumbed to the injuries due to excessive bleeding.

Complainant Gulbat (PW-1) further averred that earlier on

15.02.2018, a dispute arose between the parties due to which criminal

case was registered at Police Station Zarhgoonabad, thus the

appellant and co-accused persons having anguish of an old animosity,

launched attack upon them. Despite lengthy cross-examination,

complainant Gulbat (PW-1) remained firm and consistent to his

examination-in-chief, thus his statement went unshaken, which

otherwise sounds natural, confidence inspiring and truthful.

10. The next important piece of evidence, whereupon the

prosecution relies upon its case is the statement of eye-witness Abdul

Hameed (PW-05), who testified in line with the statement of

complainant Gulbat (PW-1) and reiterated what complainant had

stated. He was cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to

shatter his testimony as he remained firmed and consistent to his

examination in chief, thus his testimony went unshattered. The

presence of the said witnesses have been found by the Trial Court and

this Court to be natural, who have no reason to falsely implicate the

appellant. The defence has failed to bring anything on record to

establish false implication or substitution of the real culprits with the

appellant.

11. Moving ahead to the statement of Imran Bhatti (PW-6), who was

a passerby and fall victim to this unfortunate episode. He testified that

on 09.05.2018, he went to Faisal Bank, situated at Adalat Road with his

wife, where whilst returning, suddenly firing started and that a bullet

hit his left leg and he got injured, thus he was taken to the Civil

Hospital. Later on, he came to know that a person had made firing due

to some enmity, which resulted into death of a person. Although,

Imran Bhatti (PW-6) did not identify any of the culprit, but importantly

he did not deny the occurrence, thus his statement does not put any

dent to the case of the prosecution, rather confirms the occurrence,

henceforth, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that he

is not an eye-witness of the occurrence has no essence. The presence

of the eye-witnesses have been established and their testimonies have

gone unshattered, which by all means inspire confidence and truthful

as the injuries sustained by complainant Gulbat (PW-1) and Imran Bhatti (PW-6) proves their presence at the place of occurrence, more

particularly, when the medical evidence corroborates the ocular

account, nature, time and locale of injuries sustained by deceased

Sanaullah and the said injured witnesses. In this regard, reliance is

placed upon the case of Amanullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 723).

12. Coming to the recovery of crime weapon, it may be observed

that on 20.07.2020, the appellant made disclosure (Ex.P/9-C), wherein

he admitted that he had thrown the crime weapon in a rainy channel,

situated at Pishin, thus it was very unlikely for the police to recover

the said crime weapon as it would have had flown out in the said

channel. The police recovered the license of said crime weapon from

the possession of appellant. As far as pointation of place of occurrence

in consequence of disclosure of appellant is concerned, it is unworthy

of reliance as the place of occurrence was already known to the police

officials and site plan (Ex.P/13-B) was prepared far back, while visiting

the crime scene.

13. So be it, in the instant case, the appellant has specifically been

assigned the role of firing by complainant Gulbat (PW-1) and eye-

witness Abdul Hameed (PW-05), which resulted into death of deceased

Sanaullah and injuries sustained to complainant Gulbat (PW-1) and

passerby Imran Bhatti (PW-06). Learned counsel for the appellant

stressed that the appellant has been nominated as Muhammad Alam

son of Eid Gul and the same is not his complete name, thus submitted

that there are chances of mistaken identity, which stance of learned

counsel has no ground as the appellant has been nominated by his

parentage i.e., Eid Gul, which he cannot refute. That apart, the present

appeal has been preferred by the appellant with the name titled as Mir

Zaman Alias Muhammad Alam son of Eid Gul and more particularly,

when the appellant in his defence had produced his brother Suleman

son of Eid Gul as DW-1. Another argument of learned counsel for the

appellant was that the case of acquitted accused persons namely Saif-

ud-Din and Wahab Khan was at par with appellant, but they were

acquitted of the indictment, which argument of learned counsel is

unjustified as the said acquitted persons were not attributed any role

of firing or with an overt act. The appellant has been specifically

nominated with the role of firing upon deceased Sanaullah and

causing injuries to complainant Gulbat (PW-1) and passerby Imran

Bhatii (PW-6), thus his case is distinguishable.

14. Undeniably, both of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence are

related to the deceased, but merely for this reasons they cannot be

termed as interested witnesses. The term related is not equivalent to

interested . A witness may be called interested only when, he or she

derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished. A witness,

who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be interested . In the

present case, one of the injured eye-witness is complainant Gulbat (PW-

1) and he is brother of deceased Sanaullah, who has not only proved his

presence, but his testimony is consistent. He has cogently described the

manner of commission of the crime in detail, thus, we are of the

considered view that the testimony of an eye-witness, who has received

injuries carries more evidentiary value. [SEE; Aqil v. The State (2023

SCMR 831)].

15. Epitome of the above discussion is that the ocular account of

complainant Gulbat (PW-1), eye-witness Abdul Hameed (PW-05) and

statement of passerby Imran Bhatti (PW-06) is trustworthy and worth

reliance, which has been confirmed by the medical evidence of Dr.

Aisha Faiz (PW-4) and Dr. Ali Mardan (PW-7), thus the prosecution has

proved the indictment to the hilt without any glimpse of doubt.

16. After critical analysis of the evidence on record discussed

hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution

has successfully proved the indictment against the appellant, which

has rightly been appreciated with reasons by the Trial Court, thus the

impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court.

17. Corollary, the appeal fails for being shorn of merits, henceforth

dismissed and in consequence thereof, conviction and sentence

awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment

dated 01.06.2024 is hereby maintained.

JK/77/Bal. Appeal dismissed.