2026 P Cr. L J 704

2026 P Cr. L J 704

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

JAMROZ KHAN---Appellant

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 47572 and Criminal Revision No. 60819 of 2023,

decided on 16th September, 2025.

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

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

doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence

doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of his

wife/daughter of the complainant by firing---To prove the murder of

deceased, the prosecution had produced her father/complainant and

paternal cousin of the complainant---Admittedly, both witnesses

were not the residents of the house where the occurrence took

place---Presence of said witnesses at the place of occurrence was

seriously doubted and the facts which culminated into building of

such opinion appeared in their depositions during cross-

examination---Complainant being father of deceased while

responding to motive of this case claimed that deceased 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---Daily routine of the

complainant was to start work at 9.00 p.m. in Mandi and returned

back home in the morning---Complainant did not specifically tell the

purpose of his visit to the house of his daughter when no urgency

was reported to him---Time of occurrence claimed by complainant

was 01.00 p.m. and further claimed that 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 eye-witness deposed before the Court---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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

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

doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused was

charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of the

complainant by firing---Accused/appellant himself took the dead

body of deceased to the THQ Hospital at about 11:40a.m. on the same day with the stance that deceased had committed a suicide as

conceded by Medical Officer, but on suspecting that death seemed

homicidal, he informed the police on 15 Police emergency call, but

by the time accused/appellant had taken the dead body away from

the hospital---Reaching of dead body to THQ hospital at 11:40 was

also confirmed by Investigating Officer during his cross-

examination---Such situation clearly indicated 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 as natural human behavior, he took

deceased to the hospital and tried to justify his response to an event

that happened in his house---Further claim of Medical Officer that

on suspecting homicidal injury he called the police at 15 but

accused/husband took the dead body away was without any proof---

Defence in order to negate such version of Medical Officer had

brought on record the OPD ticket, which carried the fact of receiving

deceased as dead---Death certificate was also carrying a note

"Received dead"---There was 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 might have told a lie but document

did not, and so the Medical Officer had not stated the whole truth---

Even otherwise once the dead body was received by the hospital, its

misplacement was a criminal act to be reported by the concerned

staff immediately, which had not been done in that case---Appeal

against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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

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

doubt---Time of death of the deceased doubtful---Accused was

charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of the

complainant by firing---Difference in timelines of death of deceased

made the case of prosecution doubtful and favoured the defence---

Medical Officer 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 coincided with the time of death at 01:00 p.m.---

Thus, absence of witnesses at the crime scene was apparent---Even

otherwise being chance witnesses their statements under the law

were required to have corroboration, plausible explanation,

consistent testimony coupled with bahaviour and demeanour, lack

of motive and bias, otherwise it could not be the sole basis of

conviction---Moreover, eye-witness was informed by the

complainant that her daughter had a quarrel with her husband and

they were to go for settlement, but both the witnesses did not disclose the source of such quarrel nor produced any call detail

record in that respect---Further it was the first time eye-witness had

visited the house of accused as conceded by him during cross-

examination, therefore, his relation with complainant could not be

established because it was 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 eye-witness

that dead body was first taken to the police station and then to the

hospital stood belied by the statement of Investigating officer 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 witnesses, then how the

dead body was taken by him to THQ hospital before Medical Officer

and then how dead body reached back to place of occurrence for its

transportation to hospital---Thus, prosecution had restructured the

case with dishonest intention by twisting the real facts in order to

book the accused/appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed,

in circumstances.

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

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

doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing

murder of his wife/daughter of the complainant by firing---Main

stance of prosecution for committing murder of deceased 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 such 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 had heard about

any quarrel between the spouses on that day---Prosecution had also

not produced any witness who could have supported the fact of

quarrel between the spouses nor the investigator had conducted the

investigation on that aspect of the matter---Thus, motive in this case

remained shrouded in mystery---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

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

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

doubt---No certainty whether a case of suicide or homicide---Medical

evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his

wife/daughter of the complainant by firing---As per record, a stellate

(star-shaped) gunshot wound on the forehead could be either suicidal, as the shape was often caused by gases expanding from the

firearm's muzzle, which was common in contact wounds, a method

used in suicides---Key factors to determine if it was a suicide or not,

solely the wound's appearance was not sufficient but also its

location, such as the forehead, which was a common suicide site,

along with the presence of a weapon, ballistic evidence, and the

victim's own history or circumstances---Circumstances and history

of the individual were also critical in assessing the possibility of

suicide---In short, a stellate wound on the forehead was significant

but required a comprehensive forensic investigation to determine if

it was a suicide---In this case when the accused/appellant dared to

inform the Medical Officer 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 Medical Officer, investigator and the Medical Officer who

later conducted postmortem examination was a criminal negligence

and thereby truth was altered at the cost of slackness or deliberate

askance---Moreover, 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 created a doubt

in prosecution story and benefit of doubt always leans in favour of

accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Bashir Ahmad v. The State 2023 LHR 1090 rel.

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

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

doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties not

supporting prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing

murder of his wife/daughter of the complainant by firing---Though

pistol stood recovered on the lead of accused/appellant but it did not

match with the spent shell collected from the place of occurrence,

and Forensic Science Agency had also not given any opinion with

respect to bullet recovered from the cranial cavity of the deceased---

Thus, recovery in the case also did not support the prosecution

version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(g) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---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.

Maqsood Alam and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 156;

Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146; Muhammad Imtiaz Baig

and another v. The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore

and another 2024 SCMR 1191; Muhammad Hassan and another v. The

State and others 2024 SCMR 1427; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024

SCMR 1490 and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State

and others 2024 SCMR 1507 rel.

Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan Daha and Ms. Iram Sohail for

Appellant.

Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

Complainant in person.

Date of hearing: 16th September, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.---Trial in crime report No.1101

dated 22.10.2020, under Sections 302, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code

1860 (P.P.C), 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)

P.P.C 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

and 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 v. 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 on the cases reported as Maqsood Alam and another

v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 156), Abdul Qadeer v. The State

(2024 SCMR 1146), Muhammad Imtiaz Baig and another v. The State

through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another (2024 SCMR

1191), Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and others (2024

SCMR 1427), Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490) and

Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State and others (2024

SCMR 1507). Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.47572 of 2023 is

allowed and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges. Jamroz

Khan (accused/appellant) confined in jail shall be released forthwith if

not required in any other case. The case property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with law and the record of the trial court be

sent back immediately.

14. For the above reasons, Criminal Revision No.60819 of 2023

stands dismissed.

JK/J-15/L Appeal allowed.