2026 P Cr. L J 763

 2026 P Cr. L J 763

[Lahore]

Before Aalia Neelum, C.J and Abher Gul Khan, J

MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ and others---Appellants

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondentss

Criminal Appeal No. 24423-J, Criminal Revision No. 22970 and Murder

Reference No. 71 of 2022, decided on 8th September, 2025.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-

i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Delay in FIR---Consultation---Presumption---Accused were

charged that they while armed with knives, assaulted the

complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died and

one person was injured---In the instant case, the occurrence took

place on 11.01.2020 at 5:45 p.m.---Inter-se distance between the place

of occurrence and the police station was 1.5 kilometers---Incident

was reported by the complainant, brother of the deceased, through

his written complaint to Police Officer at 6:15 p.m., at THQ Hospital,

who referred the written complaint to police station, through a

Constable (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, formal FIR

was chalked out by Police Official on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.---From

the evidence of the complainant, it revealed that the complainant

straightaway went to THQ Hospital for medical treatment of both

the injured---On reaching the hospital, brother of complainant

succumbed to the injuries and the complainant reported the

incident to the police at THQ Hospital---Complainant got drafted

application for registration of a criminal case from his cousin---Non-

mentioning of this fact in the application/complaint indicated that

the complainant had not stated the complete truth---Complainant

had not deposed that when and how his cousin came to know about

the incident and as to when he reached THQ Hospital and wrote the

application---Said cousin of complainant was cited as witness---First

Information Report came into existence later on, after due

deliberation and consultation---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

Allah Bachaya and another v. The State PLD 2008 SC 349 rel.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-

i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Delay of three hours and thirty minutes in conducting

postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---

Consequential---Accused were charged that they while armed with

knives assaulted the complainant party, due to which brother of

complainant died and one person was injured---Record showed that

Medical Officer conducted the postmortem examination of the dead

body of deceased on 11.01.2020 at 10:00 p.m., which showed that the

postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted with a

delay of three hours and thirty minutes from the time of reporting

the incident to the police---Medical Officer deposed during

examination-in-chief that rigor mortis was developed and

putrefaction was present---If the incident occurred at 5:45 p.m. on

11.01.2020 and a written complaint was submitted at 06:15 p.m. on

the same day and the postmortem examination was conducted on

11.01.2020 at 10:00 p.m., then it was strange that the prosecution did

not explain the presence of rigor mortis and putrefaction within

four hours and forty-five minutes---Putrefaction was the fifth stage

of death, following pallor mortis, livor mortis, algor mortis, and

rigor mortis---With the onset of putrefaction, rigor mortis passed off

and secondary relaxation occurred---Secondary relaxation occurred

at around 36 hours after death due to the breakdown of the

contracted muscles due to decomposition---Rigor mortis was the

post-mortem stiffening/rigidity of the body, which set in within two

hours from the time of death and was completed in 12 hours---Rigor

mortis lasted 24-48 hours in winter and 18-36 hours in summer---

Medical Officer admitted during cross-examination that he clearly

observed putrefaction on the dead body of the deceased before

postmortem---Incident had since taken place in the winter, the

coldest month, and the post-mortem was conducted on the same

day; there was no chance for the body to have started putrefaction

or decomposition---Thus, it could only start after the period of rigor

mortis was over; thus, medical evidence did not support the

prosecution's story---Putrefaction of the dead body would start

within four hours and forty-five minutes from the time of death---

Said circumstance alone was sufficient to discard the whole

prosecution story---Such circumstances would go to suggest that the

FIR was ante dated---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-

i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Statements of the witnesses doubtful---Accused were charged that they while armed with knives assaulted on the

complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died and

one person was injured---In the inquest report, even the names of

the complainant, given up witness and the injured witness, had not

been mentioned---Inquest report was not signed by any of the eye-

witnesses or the complainant---Injured witness till then was not

medically examined, as his arrival time for medical examination

was mentioned in the column of the Medico-Legal Certificate at

06:50 p.m. on 11.01.2020, whereas, Investigating Officer prepared

the inquest report at5:45 p.m. as mentioned in column No.3 of the

time and date of receiving information of the death of the deceased--

-Investigating Officer incorporated police proceedings at the bottom

of the written complaint at 6:15 p.m., at the THQ Hospital who

referred the written complaint to the police station, through a

Constable (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, a formal FIR

was chalked out by Police Officer on11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.---In

column No.1 of the inquest report, it was mentioned that the dead

body was recovered in the area of AS ---Investigating Officer

deposed that on receiving information of the occurrence, he reached

THQ Hospital, and received a written complaint---Thereafter,

Investigating Officer inspected the deadbody and prepared the

inquest report---If Investigating Officer visited and prepared inquest

report and had actually met with the complainant, witness (given

up), and the injured witness, there was no reason why the details

found missing from the inquest report should not have been there---

Absence of those details was indicative of the fact that the

prosecution's story was still in the embryo and had not been given

any shape and that the FIR was recorded later on, after due

deliberations and consultation and was then antedated to give it the

color of a promptly lodged FIR---Even at the end of the column of a

brief history of the inquest report, it revealed that particulars of the

FIR were mentioned, and the deadbody was referred to THQ

Hospital for postmortem---Inquest report was prepared at 05:45 p.m.

on 11.01.2020---At the same time, the details of the FIR were

mentioned at the end of the brief history column---Whereas FIR was

registered at 6:30 p.m., the Investigating Officer testified that after

recording police proceedings on written complaint at 6:15 p.m., he

referred the written complaint to police station, through a Constable

(not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, a formal FIR was

chalked out by Police Officer on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.---When the

inquest report was prepared, the FIR had not been registered and its

details were not written on its face---However, at the end of the brief

history column, the details of the FIR were mentioned---Said fact

created doubt about the registration of the FIR---Considering all

those facts, there was no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution had not been able to prove on record that the incident

was reported at the time at which it was claimed to have been

recorded---Thus, in view of the said circumstances, the question of

said witnesses being truthful witnesses became highly doubtful---

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-

i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Medical evidence doubtful---Accused were charged that

they while armed with knives assaulted the complainant party, due

to which brother of complainant died and one person was injured---

Medical Officer, who conducted a medical examination of injured on

11.01.2020 at 07:00 p.m., deposed that on examination of clothes, no

corresponding holes of injuries were present on clothes---

Admittedly, at the time of the incident, injured witness was wearing

a Shalwar Qameez, which was not mud-stained or blood-stained as

per the deposition of Medical Officer and Medico-Legal Certificate---

Shalwar Qameez covered all the parts of the body on which injured

witness received an incised wound---Nature of all the injuries was

muscle deep and were declared as ghyr-jaifah-badiha---Strangely,

injured witness received muscle deep injuries and he remained at

the site for one and a half hours waiting for help---Injured witness,

who received injuries during the incident, had not come forward

with genuine facts and had concealed the incident's true nature---

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(e) Criminal trial---

----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence only indicates

receipt of injuries, the kind of weapon used, and the nature of

injuries, but it does not name the assailant.

Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others PLD 2009 SC

53; Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State 2009

SCMR 1410 and Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel.

(f ) Criminal trial---

----Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon, capable of

both causing and falsely implicating---There are always different

motives that operate in the mind of a person in making a false

accusation.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-

i-amd, causing badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Recoveries of weapon of offences---Accused were charged that they while armed with knives, assaulted the complainant party,

due to which brother of complainant died and one person was

injured---Record showed that blood stained knives were recovered

on the pointing of accused persons on 14.02.2020 and positive report

of Forensic Science Agency was on the file---However, as per the

prosecution case, on 09.02.2020, the appellants were arrested---

Investigating Officer, on 14.02.2020, recovered the weapon of

offences, i.e., blood-stained knife on the pointing of appellant No.1,

blood-stained knife on the pointing of the appellant No.2, blood-

stained knife on the pointing of the appellant No. 3, which were

taken into possession through the sealed parcels and same were

deposited with the office of Forensic Science Agency---Per the

Forensic Science Agency report, human blood was identified on

items Nos. 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1, i.e., "knives recovered from the

appellants."---Although the evidence relating to the recovery of

blood-stained "knives" was in line, it was notable that the recovered

knives were analyzed on 09.03.2020, fifty-eight days after the

occurrence---It was Not possible to determine the origin of the blood

on "knives", as blood disintegrated after one month of the

occurrence---Swabs taken from the blades of knives were examined

on March 09, 2020---If the property in the instant case was released

to Police Officer on 21.02.2020, then which case property was

analyzed by the Analyst on March 09,2020, raised doubts about the

report of Forensic Science Agency---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 1 rel.

(h) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of every doubt would be

extended in favour of the accused.

Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel.

Saika Javed and Faseeh Ullah Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Naveed Umer Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for the

State.

Rafi Ullah Jan for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 8th September, 2025.

JUDGMENT

AALIA NEELUM, C.J.---The appellants-Muhammad Imtiaz son of

Nazeer Ahmad, Caste Butt, resident of Tazeem Colony Shahpur Saddar,

Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha, (2) Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain

alias Taji son of Nazeer Ahmad, resident of Mehria Town Shahpur Saddar, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha and (3) Muhammad Tayyab

son of Muhammad Saleem, Caste Khanana, resident of Mohallah

Thenwala, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha have assailed their

convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Shahpur, District Sargodha vide judgment dated 03.03.2022 in

case FIR. No.22 of 2020, dated 11.01.2020, offences under sections 302,

324, 337-F(ii), 34 P.P.C., registered at the Police Station, Shahpur

Saddar, District Sargodha, whereby the learned trial court convicted

the appellants as under:-

i) The accused, Muhammad Tayyab, was convicted under section

302(B) P.P.C for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Hameed

and sentenced to Death, with the direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as

compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, and in default

thereof, to further undergo 01-year S.I. The amount of

compensation would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

ii) He was also convicted under section 324 P.P.C and sentenced to

undergo 10 years R.I., along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in

case of default thereof, to further undergo, 06-months S.I.

iii) He was further convicted under section 337-F(ii) P.P.C and

sentenced to undergo 03 years R.I, as Tazir, along with Daman,

of Rs.20,000/-.

The accused-Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji, was convicted

and sentenced as under:-

i) The accused-Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji, was

convicted under section 302(B) P.P.C read with section 34 P.P.C

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as

Tazir with the direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to

the legal heirs of the deceased, and in default thereof, to further

undergo 01-year S.I. The amount of compensation would be

recovered as arrears of land revenue.

ii) He was also convicted under section 324 P.P.C and sentenced to

undergo 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in

case of default thereof, to further undergo, 06-months S.I.

iii) He was further convicted under section 337-F(ii) P.P.C and

sentenced to undergo 03 years R.I., as Tazir, along with Daman

of Rs.20,000/-.

The accused-Muhammad Imtiaz, was convicted and sentenced as

under:-

i) The accused-Muhammad Imtiaz, was convicted under section

302(B) P.P.C read with section 34 P.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as Tazir with the direction to pay

Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased,

and in default thereof, to further undergo 01-year S.I. The

amount of compensation would be recovered as arrears of land

revenue.

ii) He was also convicted under section 324 P.P.C and sentenced to

undergo 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in

case of default thereof, to further undergo, 06-months S.I.

iii) He was further convicted under section 337-F(ii) P.P.C and

sentenced to undergo 03 years R.I., as Tazir, along with Daman

of Rs.20,000/-.

The sentences awarded to the appellants would run concurrently. The

benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellants.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, Muhammad Imtiaz,

Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji, and Muhammad Tayyab, the

appellants, have assailed their convictions by filing the instant appeal

bearing Criminal Appeal No.24423-J of 2022. The trial court also sent

M.R. No.71 of 2022 (The State v. Muhammad Tayyab) to confirm the

death sentence awarded to the appellant No.3, Muhammad Tayyab,

whereas the complainant filed a Crl. Revision No.22970 of 2022 for

enhancing the punishments of respondents Nos.1 to 3. All the matters

arising from the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of

through a single judgment.

3. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged in the FIR (Ex. PA) lodged

on the complaint (Ex. PL) of Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the

complainant is that on 11.01.2020, the complainant (PW-10) along with

Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Hameed (since dead) and Muhammad

Asif (PW-11) were going to their houses, whereas Muhammad Hameed

(since dead) and Muhammad Asif (PW-11) were few steps ahead and

when they reached in front of house of Mst. Saba Begum, at about

05:30/05:45 p.m., the accused persons, namely Muhammad Imtiaz,

Muhammad Mumtaz alias Taji, and Muhammad Tayyab, armed with

knives, came there. The accused persons raised lalkara of dire

consequences to Muhammad Hameed (since dead) for insulting the

accused, Muhammad Mumtaz alias Taji. After that, the accused,

Muhammad Tayyab, gave a knife blow which hit the front of the chest

of Muhammad Hameed (since deceased), whereas the accused,

Muhammad Mumtaz alias Taji, inflicted a knife injury on the person of

Muhammad Asif (injured PW-11), which hit the back of his right

shoulder. Thereafter, the accused, Muhammad Tayyab, gave a knife

blow, which hit the back of Muhammad Asif (injured, PW-11); the

accused, Muhammad Imtiaz, gave a knife blow, which hit the left thigh of Muhammad Asif (injured, PW-11). After the alleged occurrence, the

accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. The

complainant (PW-10) and prosecution witnesses took the injured

persons to T.H.Q. hospital, Shahpur. While en-route to the hospital,

Muhammad Hameed (since dead) succumbed to the injuries. The

motive behind the occurrence was that two days before the alleged

occurrence, harsh words were exchanged between Muhammad

Hameed (since dead) and the accused, Muhammad Mumtaz alias Taji,

regarding the passing of Muhammad Hameed's goats from the street.

Hence, this case.

4. After reporting the matter on the application (Ex.PL) of the

complainant (PW-10), a formal FIR (Ex. PA) was chalked out by Inayat-

Ullah Khan, ASI (PW-1). Thereafter, the investigation of this case was

first entrusted to Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. (PW-12). After that, the

investigation of this case was entrusted to Syed Abid Hussain Shah, S.I.

(PW-13), who found the accused/appellants guilty, prepared a report

under Section 173, Cr.P.C., while placing the names of the accused in

column No.3 of the Challan, and sent the same to the court of

competent jurisdiction. The trial court formally charge-sheeted the

appellants on 22.09.2020, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as

thirteen (13) witnesses. The appellants were also examined under

Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein they neither opted to appear as their own

witnesses in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence

evidence. In response to a particular question of why this case was

against them and why the PWs deposed against them, the appellants

made the following independent depositions: -

Appellant No.1, Muhammad Imtiaz.

The complainant had got registered this false case against me due to

relationship with the deceased. The PWs had also deposed

against me being close relatives and friends of the deceased. The

PWs have made statements against the real facts of this case.

The deceased was murdered by some unknown persons during

darkness of the night. Later on, Muhammad Asif, PW was shown

as injured just to strengthen the prosecution case.

Appellant No.2, Muhammad Mumtaz alias Taji.

The complainant had got registered this false case against me due to

relationship with the deceased. The PWs had also deposed

against me being close relatives and friends of the deceased. The

PWs have made statements against the real facts of this case.

The deceased was murdered by some unknown persons during darkness of the night. Later on, Muhammad Asif, PW was shown

as injured just to strengthen the prosecution case.

Appellant No.3, Muhammad Tayyab.

The complainant had got registered this false case against me due to

relationship with the deceased. The PWs had also deposed

against me being close relatives and friends of the deceased. The

PWs have made statements against the real facts of this case.

The deceased was murdered by some unknown persons during

darkness of the night. Later on, Muhammad Asif, PW was shown

as injured just to strengthen the prosecution case.

5. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available

on record, considering arguments advanced from both sides, the trial

court found the prosecution's version proved beyond any shadow of

reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellants conviction as well

as awarding of sentence to them in the afore-stated terms.

6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file.

7. In the instant case, the occurrence took place on 11.01.2020 at

5:45 p.m. in the area of Aqil Shah, within the territorial jurisdiction of

the police station, Shahpur Sadar. The inter-se distance between the

place of occurrence and the police station is 1.5 kilometers. The

incident was reported by Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant,

brother of Muhammad Hameed the deceased, through his written

complaint (Exh.PA) to Muhammad Iqbal S.I. (PW-12) at 6:15 p.m., at

THQ Hospital, Shahpur, who referred the written complaint (Exh.PL)

to Police Station Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha, through

Muhammad Mubarak 2087/C (not cited as witness), on the basis

whereof, formal FIR (Exh.PA) was chalked out by Inayatullah Khan,

A.S.I. (PW-1) on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m. From the evidence of

Muhammad Yasin (PW-10), the complainant, it reveals that the

complainant (PW-10) straightaway went to THQ Hospital, Shahpur, for

medical treatment of both the injured, i.e., Muhammad Asif and

Muhammad Hameed (then injured). On reaching the hospital,

Muhammad Hameed succumbed to the injuries, and Muhammad Yasin

(PW-10), the complainant, reported the incident to the police at THQ

Hospital, Shahpur. During cross-examination, Muhammad Yasin (PW-

10)-the complainant deposed that:-

"The application Exh-PL was written by my cousin namely

Muhammad Zubair at THQ Hospital, Shahpur. He is employee of

Qaid-e-Aazam Law College Sargodha as a guard. The said

application was written at about 06:00/06:30 pm." According to the prosecution's case, Muhammad Hameed (the

deceased), Muhammad Javed, the brother of Muhammad Yasin (PW-

10)-the complainant, and Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured

witness, were going to their house when the incident took place in

front of the house of one Saba Begum. During examination-in-chief,

Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant deposed that:-

"We attended Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Hameed who were

injured and shifted them to THQ Hospital, Shahpur where while

reaching THQ Hospital Shahpur, Muhammad Hameed

succumbed to the injuries. Police reached at the THQ Hospital,

Shahpur where I submitted written application Exh-PL, which

bears my thumb mark. Upon application, FIR was registered

against the accused persons."

Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant got drafted application

for registration of a criminal case from his cousin, namely Muhammad

Zubair. Non-mentioning of this fact in the application/complaint

(Ex.PL) indicates that the complainant (PW-10) had not stated the

complete truth. Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant has not

deposed that when and how his cousin Muhammad Zubair came to

know about the incident, and when he reached THQ Hospital and

wrote the application (Ex.PL). Muhammad Zubair was not cited as a

witness. The FIR came into existence later on, after due deliberations

and consultations. The author of the complaint should state that the

complaint was prepared under the complainant's instructions. It is

also not the case of the prosecution that the complainant (PW-10)

asked his cousin, namely Muhammad Zubair, to prepare a complaint;

accordingly. The complaint prepared by him was shown to the

complainant, read over to him, and signed by the complainant. The

Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Allah Bachaya and

another v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 349) held that:-

In the instant case, the FIR was not recorded at the police stations. It

has been held time and again that FIRs which are not recorded

at the police stations suffer from the inherent doubt that those

were recorded at the spot after due deliberations.

It has been further noticed that Doctor Zain Safdar (PW-4)

conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of

Muhammad Hameed on 11.01.2020 at 10:00 p.m., which shows that the

postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted with a delay

of three hours and thirty minutes from the time of reporting the

incident to the police. Doctor Zain Safdar (PW-4) deposed during

examination-in-chief that rigor mortis was developed and putrefaction

was present. If the incident occurred at 5:45 p.m. on 11.01.2020, and a

written complaint (Ex.PL) was submitted at 06:15 p.m. on the same day, and the postmortem examination was conducted on 11.01.2020 at

10:00 p.m., then it is strange that the prosecution did not explain the

presence of rigor mortis and putrefaction within four hours and forty-

five minutes. Putrefaction is the fifth stage of death, following pallor

mortis, livor mortis, algor mortis, and rigor mortis. With the onset of

putrefaction, rigor mortis passes off, and secondary relaxation occurs.

Secondary relaxation occurs at around 36 hours after death due to the

breakdown of the contracted muscles due to decomposition. Rigor

mortis is the post-mortem stiffening/rigidity of the body, which sets in

within two hours from the time of death and is completed in 12 hours.

In the postmortem report (Ex.PC), the Medical Officer (PW-4) on the

external examination of the dead body observed as under:-

A young looking man, lying flat on the mortuary table, with eyes

and mouth closed, natural orifices were normal. Rigor mortis

was developed, postmortem staining was present, putrefaction

was present.

(Underline for emphasis)

Rigor mortis lasts 24-48 hours in winter and 18-36 hours in summer.

Doctor Zain Safdar (PW-4) admitted during cross-examination that he

clearly observed putrefaction on the dead body of the deceased before

postmortem. The incident had since taken place in the winter, the

coldest month, and the post-mortem was conducted on the same day;

there is no chance for the body to have started putrefaction or

decomposition. It can only start after the period of rigor mortis is over;

thus, medical evidence does not support the prosecution's story. It is

beyond imagination that putrefaction of the dead body will start

within four hours and forty-five minutes from the time of death. This

alone circumstance is sufficient to discard the whole prosecution story.

These circumstances, to our mind, go to suggest that the FIR was

antedated. This fact also gets support from the recovery memo. of the

last worn clothes of the deceased (Ex.PJ), memo. of possession of blood

collected from the place of occurrence through cotton (Ex.PM), memo.

of possession of a bulb (Ex. PN) wherein the name of the accused

was/were not mentioned. It was written in the above-mentioned

documents as i.e., the space against verses was kept blank.

The genuineness of the version given by Muhammad Yasin (PW-10),

the complainant, becomes doubtful from the contents of the

documents mentioned above.

8. It has been noticed that in the inquest report (Ex.PP), even the

names of Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant, Muhammad

Javed (given up PW), and Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured

witness, have not been mentioned. The inquest report (Ex.PP) is not

signed by any of the eye-witnesses or the complainant. It is relevant to mention here that Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured witness till

then, was not medically examined, as his arrival time for medical

examination is mentioned in the column of the medico legal certificate

(Ex.PK) at 06:50 p.m. on 11.01.2020. Whereas Muhammad Iqbal S.I.

(PW-12), investigating officer, prepared the inquest report (Ex.PP) at

5:45 p.m. as mentioned in column No.3 of the time and date of

receiving information of the death of the deceased. Muhammad Iqbal

S.I. (PW-12) incorporated police proceedings at the bottom of the

written complaint (Ex.PL) at 6:15 p.m., at the THQ Hospital, Shahpur,

who referred the written complaint (Exh.PL) to the Police Station

Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha, through Muhammad Mubarak

2087/C (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, a formal FIR

(Exh.PA) was chalked out by Inayatullah Khan, A.S.I. (PW-1) on

11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m. In column No.1 of the inquest report (Ex.PP), it

is mentioned that the dead body was recovered in the area of Aqil

Shah. Muhammad Iqbal S.I. (PW-12) deposed during examination-in-

chief that on receiving information of the occurrence, he reached THQ

Hospital, Shahpur, and received a written complaint (Ex.PL).

Thereafter, he (PW-12) inspected the dead body and prepared the

inquest report (Ex.PP). If Muhammad Iqbal S.I. (PW-12), investigating

officer visited and prepared inquest report (Ex.PP) and had actually

met with Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant, Muhammad

Javed (given up PW), and Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured

witness, there is no reason why the details which we have found

missing from the inquest report (Ex.PP) should not have been there.

The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the

prosecution s story was still in the embryo and had not been given any

shape, and that the FIR was recorded later on, after due deliberations

and consultations, and was then antedated to give it the color of a

promptly lodged FIR. Even at the end of the column of a brief history

of the inquest report (Ex.PP), it revealed that particulars of the FIR

were mentioned, and the dead body was referred to THQ Hospital

Shahpur for postmortem. The inquest report (Ex.PP) was prepared at

05:45 p.m. on 11.01.2020. At the same time, the details of the FIR were

mentioned at the end of the brief history column. Whereas FIR was

registered at 6:30 p.m., Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. (PW-12), the

investigating officer, testified that after recording police proceedings

on written complaint (Ex.PL) at 6:15 p.m., he referred the written

complaint (Exh.PL) to Police Station Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha,

through Muhammad Mubarak 2087/C (not cited as witness), on the

basis whereof, a formal FIR (Exh.PA) was chalked out by Inayatullah

Khan, A.S.I. (PW-1) on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m. When the inquest

report (Ex.PP) was prepared, the FIR had not been registered, and its

details were not written on its face. However, at the end of the brief

history column, the details of the FIR are mentioned. It creates doubt about the registration of the FIR. Considering all these facts, we have

no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has not been able to

prove on record that the incident was reported at the time at which it

was claimed to have been recorded. Thus, in view of the above

circumstances, the question of their being truthful witnesses become

highly doubtful.

9. There is another aspect of the case, which also throws a cloud of

doubt into the prosecution case. Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured

witness, deposed during examination-in-chief that after the incident,

he (PW-11) and Muhammad Hameed (then injured) were shifted to

THQ Hospital, Shahpur, by the witnesses, i.e., Muhammad Yasin (PW-

10), the complainant, and Muhammad Javed (given up PW). As stated

above, at the cost of repetition, Muhammad Asif (PW-11) stated during

his cross-examination that, after one and a half hours of the

occurrence, the police also reached the spot where the occurrence took

place. It reveals that Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured witness,

was either shifted to THQ Hospital after the occurrence or remained at

the place of occurrence. However, it is not the case of the prosecution

that Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured PW, changed his clothes. Dr.

Ahmad Bilal M.O (PW-8), who conducted a medical examination of

Muhammad Asif (PW-11) on 11.01.2020 at 07:00 p.m., deposed during

examination-in-chief that on examination of clothes, no corresponding

holes of injuries were present on clothes. As per the description of

injuries, Muhammad Asif (PW-11) received the following injuries:-

1. An incised wound of about 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size, on the upper

back behind the right shoulder area, approximately 13 cm from

the right shoulder joint, was muscle deep. Bone was not exposed.

2. An incised wound of about 2 cm x 0.5 cm in size, on upper back

behind right shoulder area approximately 10 cm from right

shoulder joint wound was muscle deep. Bone was not exposed.

3. An incised wound of about 3 cm x 1 cm in size, on lower back,

approximately 13 cm from left anterior superior iliac spine.

Wound was muscle deep. Bone was not exposed.

4. An incised wound of about 4 cm x 1 cm in size, on back of left leg

thigh, approximately 16 cm above from left knee joint. Wound

was muscle deep. Bone was not exposed.

Admittedly, at the time of the incident, Muhammad Asif (PW-11)

was wearing a Shalwar Qameez, which was not mud-stained or

blood-stained as per the deposition of Dr. Ahmad Bilal M.O. (PW-8)

and MLC. Shalwar Qameez covered all the parts of the body on which

Muhammad Asif (PW-11) received an incised wound, the description

of which has been given above. The nature of all the injuries was muscle deep and were declared as Ghyr-Jaifah-Badiha. Strangely,

Muhammad Asif (PW-11) received muscle deep injuries, and he

remained at the site for one and a half hours waiting for help.

Muhammad Asif (PW-11), the injured, who received injuries during

the incident, has not come forward with genuine facts and has

concealed the incident's true nature. Even now, it is a well-settled

principle of law that medical evidence only indicates receipt of

injuries, the kind of weapon used, and the nature of injuries, but it

does not name the assailant. Reliance is placed on Muhammad

Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) and

Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State (2009 SCMR

1410). The Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Amin

Ali and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 323) held that:

Certainly, the presence of the injured witnesses cannot be doubted

at the place of incident, but the question is as to whether they

are truthful witnesses or otherwise, because merely the injuries

on the persons of P.Ws. would not stamp them truthful

witnesses.

The Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as

Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State and others (2007 SCMR 670)

held that,

It is also a settled law that injuries on a P.W. only indiction of his

presence at the spot but is not informative prove of his

credibility and truth.

Looking at these facts, we believe that the prosecution has withheld

the true genesis of the occurrence.

10. The motive set up by the prosecution in the application (Ex.PL)

and FIR (Ex.PA) and deposition about it by Muhammad Yasin (PW-10),

the complainant, has been found by this court to have remained

unproven. The prosecution's case in this regard was vague and could

hardly inspire confidence. Muhammad Yasin (PW-10)-the complainant,

deposed during cross-examination that:-

"I had not mentioned any witness of the previous altercation

between the deceased and accused Mumtaz in my application

Exh-PL."

Muhammad Iqbal S.I. (PW-12), investigating officer, deposed during

cross-examination that:-

"I had not recorded any statement of any witness of previous

altercation which described as motive. No person appeared

before me as witness of the motive occurrence. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution in connection with

motive is not sufficient for placing reliance on the testimonies of the

witnesses. Now it is a trite law that enmity is a double-edged weapon.

The existence of a motive on the part of the accused may be a reason

for committing the crime, yet the Court has to be cognizant of the fact

that this may, in a given case, lead to false implication of the appellant.

Motive is a double-edged weapon, capable of both causing and falsely

implicating. There are always different motives that operate in the

mind of a person in making a false accusation.

11. As far as recoveries of the weapon of offences, i.e., blood-stained

knife (P-2) on the pointing of Muhammad Imtiaz (appellant No.1),

blood-stained knife (P-4) on the pointing of Muhammad Mumtaz

Hussain alias Taji (the appellant No.2), blood-stained knife (P-3) on the

pointing of Muhammad Tayyab (the appellant No.3), on 14.02.2020

and positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PW) are

concerned, as per the prosecution case, on 09.02.2020, the appellants,

Muhammad Imtiaz, Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji and

Muhammad Tayyab were arrested. Syed Abid Hussain Shah S.I (PW-

13)-the investigating officer, on 14.02.2020, recovered the weapon of

offences, i.e., blood-stained knife (P-2) on the pointing of Muhammad

Imtiaz (appellant No.1), blood-stained knife (P-4) on the pointing of

Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji (the appellant No.2), blood-

stained knife (P-3) on the pointing of Muhammad Tayyab (the

appellant No.3), which were taken into possession through the sealed

parcels and same were deposited with the office of Punjab Forensic

Science Agency. Per the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report

(Ex.PH), human blood was identified on items # 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1, i.e.,

knives recovered from the appellants. Although the evidence relating

to the recovery of blood-stained knives is in line, we noted that the

recovered knives were analyzed on 09.03.2020, fifty-eight days after

the occurrence. It was not possible to determine the origin of the

blood on knives , as blood disintegrated after one month of the

occurrence, and in this regard, the case of Faisal Mehmood v. The

State (2017 Cr.LJ 1) can be referred, to, and a relevant portion from

the same is reproduced hereunder:-

It was scientifically impossible to detect the origin of the blood after

about two years of the occurrence because human blood

disintegrates in a period of about three weeks.

Besides, the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Report (Ex.PW) reveals

that: -

Property of this case has been released to Nadeem Iqbal (ASI) on

January 17, 2020 and to Syed Abid Hussain Shah (SI) on

February 21, 2020. The swabs taken from the blades of knives (P-2 to P-4) were

examined on March 09, 2020. If the property in the instant case was

released to Syed Abid Hussain Shah S.I. (PW-13) on 21.02.2020, then

which case property was analyzed by the Analyst on March 09, 2020,

raises doubts about the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency,

Lahore (Ex. PW). Syed Abid Hussain Shah S.I (PW-13)-investigating

officer deposed during examination-in-chief that: -

On 20.02.2020, Moharrar handed over to me three sealed parcels for

onward transmission to the office of PFSA, Lahore intact and I

deposited the same to the said office on 21.02.2020. On the same

day, I recorded the statement of Moharrar under section 161

Cr.P.C. in this regard.

The entire prosecution's evidence is silent on this aspect of the case.

Thus, there was no link evidence to prove that the knives (P-2 to P-4)

recovered from the accused were again received back from Syed Abid

Hussain Shah S.I. (PW-13)-the investigating officer on 21.02.2020, by

the moharrar, and the same was re-deposited in the Malkhana or

handed over to the Moharrar. It is necessary that, when case property

is removed from Malkhana, a corresponding entry is made in the

Malkhana Register, and again when it is re-deposited. Case property in

murder cases must be kept in safe custody from the date of seizure till

its production in the Court. It is also necessary that when case

property is redeposited in the Malkhana, an entry in the Malkhana

Register must be made. A dire necessity has been cast upon the

prosecution to produce in Court the abstract of the Malkhana Register

for ensuring, dispelling, any aura of skepticism seeping into the

prosecution case, especially vis-a-vis safe custody of the case property,

"being," re-deposited in the Malkhana. Thus, it casts doubt on whether

the recovered case property was the same one sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory, or it related to a different case. The prosecution

has failed to prove the case against the accused. Pointing out the above

deposition of witnesses reveals that the prosecution did not prove that

the case properties (P-2 to P-4) were kept in safe custody. Due to the

lack of this evidence, it cannot be held that the alleged recovered

knives (P-2 to P-4) were re-deposited in Malkhana, and their benefit

will go to the accused. Therefore, there is an absolute glaring

contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and this

vital contradiction remains unexplained. The case property produced

in the court could not be related to the case property seized from the

appellants possession. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the

Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex. PW), with the knives (P-2

to P-4). All these circumstances taken together only deepen the

shadows of doubt cast upon the case of prosecution. Besides, it does

not appeal to reason that the accused might have kept blood-stained knives (P-2 to P-4) with them in their house intact to produce them

before the Investigating Officer on their arrest. The accused cannot be

expected to keep the blood-stained knives (P-2 to P-4) in their house for

a long period when they could have easily disposed of them. Similarly,

the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PX) relating to

blood-stained cotton taken into possession from the place of

occurrence reveals that the case property was released to Nadeem

Iqbal A.S.I (PW-6) on 17.01.2020, while the property was analyzed on

27.01.2020. If the property in the instant case was released to Nadeem

Iqbal A.S.I (PW-6) on 17.01.2020, then which case property was

analyzed by the Analyst on 27.01.2020? This raises doubts about the

report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex. PX). So far as

the recovery of motorcycle (P-1) on the pointing of Muhammad Imtiaz

(the appellant No.1) on 13.02.2020 is concerned, Muhammad Yasin

(PW-10)-the complainant admitted during cross-examination that he

has not given the registration number and the other details of the

motorcycle to the police. In these circumstances, the recoveries and

positive reports are not of any consequence.

12. All the above-narrated facts and circumstances lead this Court to

only one conclusion: the whole prosecution case seems to be hinging

upon conjectures and surmises and has severely failed to show

incriminating, corroborative/independent evidence to bring home the

guilt of the accused in the case of a capital charge. The learned trial

court was unjustified in convicting the appellants while relying on

untrustworthy, unsubstantiated evidence. The conviction passed by

the learned trial court in the circumstances is against all cannons of

law recognized for dispensing criminal justice. Per the dictates of the

law, the benefit of every doubt will be extended in favor of the

accused. In the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR

230), it has been held as under: -

The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is

not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in

case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favor of the

accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by

this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR

1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary

that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If

there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a

prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused

would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace

and concession but as a matter of right.

13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution had

severely failed to bring home a charge against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt; therefore, in the interest of the safe

administration of Criminal Justice, Crl. Appeal No.24423-J of 2022 filed

by Muhammad Imtiaz, Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji, and

Muhammad Tayyab, the appellants, is accepted in toto. The sentence

awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpur, District

Sargodha, vide judgment dated 03.03.2022, is set aside. The appellants

are acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.22 of 2020, dated 11.01.2020,

registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(ii), 34 P.P.C., at P.S. Shahpur

Saddar, District Sargodha. The appellants, Muhammad Imtiaz,

Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain alias Taji, and Muhammad Tayyab, are

ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Murder Reference No.71 of 2022, forwarded by the trial court for

confirmation of the death sentence inflicted upon the convict-

Muhammad Tayyab, fails, which is answered in NEGATIVE and death

sentence awarded to the convict-Muhammad Tayyab is not confirmed.

14. So far as Criminal Revision No.22970 of 2022 filed by the

complainant, for enhancement of conviction and sentence of the

respondents Nos. 1 to 3 awarded by the trial court is concerned, for the

reasons aforestated, the same is devoid of any legal force, which is

accordingly dismissed.

JK/M-199/L Appeal allowed.