Skip to main content

 SEARCH
 BROWSE
 TRENDS
 LOG IN
 ABOUT
 CONTACT

Welcome to the PakCaselaw! We allow free access to up to 500

cases per person per day — see our terms of use for details. Sign up
for an account  to apply for unlimited research scholar access.
Press Ctrl + / (Windows, Chrome OS) or ⌘ + / (Mac) to jump to the
Tools menu. Press escape to return to last selected case text.
MUHAMMAD QADEER VS State, 2007 YLR-
LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 625 (2006)
Nov. 2, 2006 LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 2007 YLR 625
2007 YLR-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 625

Tools
Case Outline

Other Formats

o Download PDF

Citing Cases

No cases cite to this case

Selection Tools

Select text to link, cite, or search

What is this page?
Every document on this site is part of the official caselaw of a court
within Pakisan, scanned from the collection of Caselaw Books. This
HIGH-COURT case is from 2006. Learn more.
MUHAMMAD QADEER VS State

2007 Y L R 625

[Lahore]

Before Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J

MUHAMMAD QADEER---Appellant

Versus

THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.2309 of 2003, heard on 02/11/2006.

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

----Ss. 302(b) & 392---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial

evidence---Value---Scope---Contention of accused was that since
prosecution case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, it
could not have been, concluded with certainty that accused was
responsible for the offence---Validity---Occurrence, no doubt was
unseen, but no rule existed that conviction could not be based on
circumstantial evidence alone---Absence of direct evidence would
not mean that guilt could not be fixed---Circumstantial evidence was
the evidence of basic facts wherefrom, further fact could be inferred
or natural conclusion, according to reason and logic could be
deduced however, its strength, as per circumstances of the case,
could vary from case to case---Often it was stronger and more
satisfactory, than direct evidence, because it was not liable to
delusion or fraud---In some cases, where direct evidence was either
not available or witnesses were not deemed wholly credible,
circumstantial evidence, could be more convincing---Test was that it
should not only be relevant, but consistent and conclusive as well
and should be so convincing that circumstances or facts proved on
record must lead to only one conclusion---In order to carry
conviction, it must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis
of innocence of accused---In the present case there was strong
circumstantial evidence, which had led to inference that occurrence,
in the case had taken place in the manner as suggested by the
prosecution---Prosecution case was based on medical as well as
circumstantial evidence---Trial Court had rightly held accused
.responsible for offence on basis of such evidence.

Khuda Bakhsh v. The State 2004 SCMR 331; Daulat Ali v.

Muhammad Asalm and others 1999 SCMR 845; The State v.
Manzoor Ahmad PLD 1966 SC 664 and Karamat Hussain v. The
State 1977 SCMR 15 rel.

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art.3---Child witness---If a Judge who examined a child witness,

recorded a note that he was satisfied that the witness was intelligent
and capable of understanding the question which was likely to he put
to it, nothing was in the law to prevent Appellate Court from
accepting that note as sufficient proof of the capacity of the child to
be a witness under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such a note having
been made during the course of trial, should be presumed to
represent the truth.

Ameer Umar v. The State 1976 SCMR 338; Muhammad Ismail and
another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1615 and 1968 SCMR 852 rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b) & 392---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution

witness who was 11 years old girl, was niece of accused, had given
ocular account---Trial Court made a note to the effect that certain
questions were put to said witness to ascertain her capacity to appear
and depose as a prosecution witness and that said witness had
replied those questions properly---Manner in which the girl had
testified and gave intelligent answers to cross-examination by the
defence, had given a least idea that she was a tutored witness as
alleged by defence, her testimony was intrinsically true and worth
credit---Said witness could not be even presumed to falsely implicate
her maternal uncle for murder of her mother and brother---Accused
along with his acquitted co-accused was seen by prosecution
witnesses coming out of the house of deceased in a perturb
condition---Said witnesses were independent and residents of the
same locality where occurrence took place; they had no relation with
the complainant party or ill-will against accused---Recovery of pistol,
articles belonging to deceased and two empties from the place of
occurrence, on the pointation of accused, had fully been proved---
Report of Fire-arm Expert in respect of empties and offensive
weapon, was positive---Time of occurrence was confirmed by mescal
evidence---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly inferred that
accused was responsible for commission of offence---Both deceased
were last seen alive in the company of accused and accused had the
knowledge of place where he had kept pistol after occurrence and
recovery of articles belonging to deceased, which were recovered at
the instance of accused in presence of prosecution witnesses---Crime
empties found at the place of occurrence were-matched with the
pistol recovered from accused---Appeal against conviction and
sentence of accused, was dismissed.

Gulzar alias Gulla v. The State PLD 1996 SC 263; Abdul Ghaffar v.
The State 1993 Law Notes Lah. 537; Gul Muhammad alias Guloo v.
The State 2004. YLR 216; Habib alias Habib-ur-Rhman v. The State
2004 YLR 206; Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1996 MLD 635; Jailed
Iqbal alias Akhtar Shah v. The State PLD 1995 Lah. 498; Saifal Khan
and another v. The State 2003 YLR 1227; Zafar Iqbal and another v.
The State 2003 YLR 1364; Muhammad Froze v. The State PLD 2003
Karachi 355; Abdullah Shah alias Babar Ali and other's case1998
PCr.LJ 1236; Muhammad Alam alias Shin v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ
86; Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1996 MLD 635; Zafar Iqbal and
another v. The State 2003 YLR 1364; Safdar Abbas and two others v.
The State PLD 1987 SC 467 and The State v. Rebnawaz and others
PLD 1974 SC 87 ref.

(d) Criminal trial---

----Circumstantial evidence---Evidentiary value---Scope.

Khuda Bakhsh v. The State 2004 SCMR 331; Daulat Ali v.
Muhammad Asalm and others 1999 SCMR 845; The State v.
Manzoor Ahmad PLD 1966 SC 664 and Karamat Hussain v. The
State 1977 SCMR 15 rel.

Ch. Ehsan Sabir for Appellant.

Badar Munir Malik for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2006.

JUDGMENT

SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN. SHAH, J.---This appeal is directed

against the judgment dated 3-12-2003 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in a case F.I.R. No.366 of 2002
under Sections 302/392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station
Baghbanpura, Lahore. Appellant Abdul Qadeer was convicted under
section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment on two
counts. He was also convicted under section 392, P.P.C. and
sentenced to seven years rigorous .imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5000, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two
months. He was also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 to the
legal heirs of each deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of
section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of complainant

Muhammad Nazir, namely Mst. Asia Bibi was married with his
sister's son namely Muhammad Jehangir about 18/19 years prior to
the occurrence and out of the said wedlock two sons and two
daughters were born. Muhammad Jehangir proceeded to Saudi
Arabia. On 9-6-2002 at about 10-30 night complainant's maternal
son informed him telephonically that the doors of his house were
closed and mother was not traceable when he returned from tuition
at 6-00 p.m. The complainant when reached at the spot with his wife
Mst. Razia Begum and son Qadeer found the dead body of his
daughter Mst. Asia Bibi and Faizan in separate rooms and their
belongings from the Attache case were found scattered. On asking,
Noman (maternal grand son of the complainant) disclosed that he
was searching his mother since 6-00 p.m. as the doors of the house
were closed. The complainant showed his suspicion that some
unknown persons have murdered his daughter and maternal son
Faizan. The matter when reported to the police Muhammad Qadeer
and Mst. Nazia were joined in the investigation where they disclosed
about the murder of Mst. Asia Bibi and Faizan and got recovered
golden ornaments, watches and weapon of offence whereupon the
police after thorough investigation submitted challan against them
under section 173, Cr.P.C. Charge was accordingly framed to
which the appellant pleaded not guilty and 'claimed trial.

3. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charge and

substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellant produced
14 witnesses in all. They were:-

(i) Muhammad Aslam, A.S.-I. (P.W.1) who recorded formal F.I.R.

Exh.PB signed by him.

(ii) Naveed Rasool 12689-C (C.W.1) was deputed to effect service

upon the complainant Muhammad Nazir who was reported to have
died whose report is Exh.CW 1/2 signed by him.

(iii) Muhammad Tufail H.0 No.5536 Muharrer (P.W.2) kept sealed

parcels in his safe custody and thereafter, handed over the same to
Muhammad Arshad 9010-C for its onward transmission to the
Chemical Examiner.

(iv) Muhammad Arshad 9010-C (P.W.3) handed over the sealed

parcels to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

(v) Abdul Hameed 12122/C (P.W.4) escorted the dead bodies of' the
deceased to the mortuary for post-mortem examination and attested
the memos. Exh.PC and Exh. PD.

(vi) Muhammad Amin (P.W.5) had seen the appellant and his- co-
accused just after the occurrence having bags in their hands while
coming from the house of the deceased.
(vii) Syed Rizwan Raza (P.W.6) also saw the appellant and his co-
accused just after the occurrence having bags in their hands while
coming from the house of the deceased.

(viii) Dr. Nasreen Ishaq (P.W.7) conducted the post-mortem of Mst.

Asia Bibi deceased.

(ix) Faqir Ahmad, S.-I. (P.W.8) received complaint Exh.PA from the
complainant and recorded formal police karvai Exh.PA/2 at the spot.

(x) Lal Din, S.-I. (P.W.9) I.O. of the case took into possession crime
empties from the place of occurrence, blood-stained swabs of both
the deceased and escorted the dead bodies to the mortuary and
thereafter recorded the statements of the P.Ws. arrested the
appellant and recovered the crime weapon i.e. pistol and other robed
articles.

(xi) Hameed-ud-Din Chishti, Draftsman (P.W.10) visited the place of

occurrence and prepared site plans Exh.PR and Exh. PR/1.

(xii) Dr. Khalid Hussain Khalid (P.W.11) conducted autopsy on the

dead body of Muhammad Faizan deceased.

(xiii) Muhammad Jehangir (P.W.12) witnessed the recovery effected

from the appellant attested by him vide memo. Exh.PT.

(xiv)Hina Jehangir (P.W.13) deposed the last seen evidence.

(xv) Shafqat Ali (P.W.14) witnessed and attested the recovery

memos. Exh.PN, Exh.PO and Exh.PQ.

The prosecution also tendered in evidence report of Chemical

Examiner, Punjab, Lahore Exh.PX, Report of Chemical Examiner,
Punjab, Lahore Exh.PY, Report of Serologist Exh.PZ, Report of
Serologist Exh.PAA and that of Report of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Punjab, Lahore Exh.PBB.

4. On the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was

examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. While answering a question
why this case is against you and why the P.Ws. have deposed against
you, he deposed as under:

"P.Ws. have admitted in their statements that they are closely related
to Jahangir (My brother-in-law), it is also the fact that they are close
friends of Jahangir. The other P.W., namely, Miss Hina was tutored
against us by her father as at the time of her statement she was in the
custody of her father Jahangir. As stated above at the time of
occurrence she was with us (in the house of their maternal grand
mother). The remaining witnesses are police officials and they have
deposed against us on the asking of the. I.O. in connivance with
Jahangir.

In fact, Jahangir, our brother-in-law is a man of bad character. He

contracted second marriage in the life time of our sister Mst. Asia
(deceased). Our sister Mst. Asia Bibi (deceased) and our other family
members were against this marriage. Our sister (Mst. Asia Bibi
(deceased) and our other family members had been condemned
Jahangir for his this Anti-social act as he was already a married man,
having wife and grown up children. Shakil is younger brother of
Jahangir. He is a jobless, vagabond and also a man of bad reputation
and character. Jahangir demanded hand of our younger sister,
namely, Mst. Fouzia for Shakil. I and my other family members
including Nazia refused to accept this offer, whereupon, Jahangir
and Shakil had nourished grudge against our family members and
against myself and my co-accused Nazia. On the day of occurrence, it
was rumour that Shakil had committed murder of Mst. Asia and
Faizan but as basically it was a blind murder, therefore, my father
(complainant) did not nominate Shakil in this case. Later on
Jahangir came from Saudi Arabia and he with consultation of Shakil
and in connivance with the police involved us in this case and in this
way they hurt two birds with one arrow to take revenge from us."

He did not opt to appear as his own witness as required under

section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, he produced Mst. Fouzia Bibi in
defence evidence as D.W. 1 and also adduced documentary evidence.
5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the appellant as
mentioned above whereas acquitted his co-accused Mst. Nazia by
extending her benefit of non-recovery of pistol.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
State and perused the record with their assistance.

7. It has been mainly contended by the learned counsel for the

convict-appellant that the occurrence being unseen and
prosecution's case being based on circumstantial evidence, it could
not have been concluded with certainty by the trial Judge that the
appellant was responsible for commission of offence. Reliance is
placed upon Gulzar alias Gulla v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 263),
Abdul Ghaffar v. The State (1993 Law Notes (Lahore) (537), Gul
Muhammad alias Guloo v. The State. (2004 YLR 216), Habib alias
Habib-ur-Rhman v. The State (2004 YLR 206), Nazir Ahmad v. The
State (1996 MLD 635), Javed Iqbal alias Akhtar Shah v. The State
(PLD 1995 Lahore 498), Saifal Khan and another v. The State (2003
YLR 1227), Zafar Iqbal and another v. The State (2003 YLR 1364),
Muhammad Froze v. The State (PLD 2003 Karachi 355), Abdullah
Shah alias Babar Ali and other's case (1998 PCr.LJ 1236),
Muhammad Alam alias Shin v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 86), Nazir
Ahmad v. The State (1996 MLD 635), Abdul Ghaffar v. The State
(1993 Law Notes Lahore 537) and Zafar Iqbal and another v. The
State (2003 YLR 1364).

8. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand while
controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the prosecution has successfully
brought home the guilt of the appellant through circumstantial
evidence. According to him, Hula Jahangir (P.W.13), who is the real
niece of the appellant has proved the prosecution case beyond doubt
that both the deceased were seen last alive in the company of the
appellant and his sister Mst. Nazia. Muhammad Amin (P.W.5) and
Syed Rizwan Raza (P.W.6) proved that the appellant along with his
sister Nazia was seen by them coming out of the house of the
deceased i.e. place of occurrence at the relevant time in perturb
condition. It is further argued that Mst. Asia deceased and her
husband Muhammad Jahangir had no enmity with the appellant,
therefore, if he or his relative witnessed the recovery of pistol and of
robed articles at the instance of the convict-appellant, it shall make
no difference. According to him, it is proved that the convict-
appellant himself led the police party to the place wherefrom pistol
and other robed articles were recovered. It is further argued that lire-
arms expert has confirmed this view that crime empties recovered
from the place of occurrence were fired with .30 bore pistol, which
was recovered at the instance of the convict-appellant, therefore, he
was rightly convicted for the offence.

9. As regards, first contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that since prosecution case is based solely on
circumstantial evidence, therefore, it could not have been concluded
with certainty that the appellant was responsible for the offence: it
may be pointed out here that, no doubt, the occurrence, in the
instant case in unseen but there is no rule that conviction cannot be
based on circumstantial evidence alone. Absence of direct evidence
does not mean that guilt cannot be fixed. It may be noted here that
circumstantial evidence is the evidence of basic facts wherefrom,
further fact has inferred or natural conclusion, according to reason
and logic may be deduced. However, its strength, as per
circumstances of the case, may vary from case to case. Often it is
stronger and more satisfactory than direct evidence because it is not
liable to delusion or fraud and, therefore, in some cases, where direct
evidence is either not available or witnesses are not deemed wholly
credible, circumstantial evidence, may be more convincing. The test
is that it should not only be relevant but consistent and conclusive as
well and should be so convincing that circumstances or facts proved
on record must lead to a single conclusion. In order to carry
conviction, however, it must be incompatible with any reasonable
hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In the case reported as
Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (2004 SCMR 331), the prosecution was
depending completely on circumstantial evidence. The conviction of
sentence of death inflicted on the appellant by the trial Court and
confirmed by the Federal Shariat Court was upheld by the Shariat
Appellate Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In
the case of Daulat Ali v. Muhammad Aslam and others (1999 SCMR
845) none had seen the occurrence. Dead body of the girl was found
in the house of the accused for which he lodged a misguiding report
at the police station. Accused had himself pointed to the blood-
stained Chhuri, buried by him in the courtyard of his house. Accused
persons were acquitted by trial Court, however, on appeal to the
Federal Shariat Court, they were convicted. The conviction and
sentences of both the male 'accused persons including the sentence
of death were maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court the case
purely resting on circumstantial evidence. In the wake of above, it
thus, follows that in a case where either direct evidence is not
available or has not been found trustworthy conviction can be
recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone subject to the
condition that all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the
accused and no link in the chain should be missing. In this view this
Court is fortified by the following reported judgments as well The
State v. Manzoor Ahmad (PLD 1966 SC 664) and Karamat Hussain v.
The State (1977 SCMR 15). In the present case there is strong
circumstantial evidence, which leads to the inference that
occurrence, in the instant case, has taken place in the manner as
suggested by the prosecution. Prosecution case is based on the
medical as well as circumstantial evidence. Dr. Nasreen Ishaq who
conducted the autopsy on Mst. Asia Bibi deceased found following
injuries on her dead body:--

1.a. 1 x 1.5 c.m. lacerated wound of entry was present at the back of
pinna of left ear punching the over lying pinna with it with beveling
inward and margins of the wound were black.

1-b. 22 x 7 c.m. lacerated wound of exit was occupying half of the

scalp starting from middle of fore head extending to towards right of
scalp up till 4 c.m. above the right ear, and the brain matter was
coming out.

According to her opinion said injuries were ante-mortem and caused

by fire-arm weapon. The cause of death was injury to skull and brain
leading to death and this injury was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was
immediate and between death and post-mortem was 10 to 24 hours.

10. Dr. Khalid Hussain Khalid, Medical Officer (P.W.11) conducted

the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad 'aizan and found the
following injuries on is dead body:-

1-a. A lacerated wound 1 x 1 c.m. with inverted margins and collar of

abrasion on the left cheek and 5.5 c.m. in front of left ear and 2.5
c.m. below the outer angle of left eye.

1-b. A star shaped wound 8x7 c.m. area with irregular margins on the
back of head, 9.5 c.m. inner to the left ear and 11 c.m. inner to the
right ear, 4 c.m. below the top of head.

In his opinion injuries (1-a and 1-b) mentioned above were ante-
mortem and caused by fire-arm. The cause of death was extensive
damage to the skull and brain under Injury No.1, leading to comma
and death. This injury was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary
course of nature. The time between injuries and death was
immediate and between death and post-mortem was 10 to 24 hours.

11. The prosecution has set up its case on the following grounds.
Firstly, both the deceased were last seen alive in the company of the
convict-appellant and his co-accused i.e. sister Mst. Nazia. According
to the prosecution version Mst. Hina Jahangir (P.W.13) who is the
real niece of present appellant deposed that on the day of occurrence
she had gone for tuition along with his brother and sister and at
about 4-00 p.m. she came back to her house to take a notebook and
saw the convict-appellant Qadeer and Mst. Nazia sitting with her
mother. Her mother gave her Rs.10 to purchase a copy. After
purchasing the notebook, she left for tuition. When she came back
from tuition at about 6-00 p.m. her house was locked. The locks were
broken and saw the dead bodies of her brother lying in a room and
that of her mother in another room. She further deposed that
household articles were lying scattered. It is argued that Hina
Jehangir, witness being 11 years of age was not competent to depose
and the trial Court had not recorded the question, if any, which he
had asked to satisfy himself, if she was intelligent enough to
understand what she was deposing about. After recording the name,
parentage and address of Mst. Hina Jahangir, the learned Judge of
the trial Court made a note to the effect that certain questions have
been put to the P.W. to ascertain her capacity to appear and depose
as a P.W. and the witness had replied those questions properly. The
learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision of
law which required that before recording the statement of child
witness, the Judge must record the questions asked from the witness
to test if he/she was intelligent enough to understand all what he/she
was deposing about. It is now well settled that if a Judge who
examined a child witness records a note that he is satisfied that the
witness is intelligent and capable to understanding the question
which are likely to be asked to it, there is nothing in the law to
prevent the appellate Court from accepting that note as sufficient
proof of the capacity of the child to be a witness under Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order. Such a note c having been made during the course
of trial should be presumed to represent the truth. The presumption
with regard to its correctness is somehow displaced. Reliance in this
regard is placed upon the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case reported as Ameer Umar v. The State (1976 SCMR
338) it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that:-

"As regards the competence of Muhammad Khan to give evidence at

the trial, we find that the learned Magistrate had put certain question
to the boy to ascertain the place where he was being examined and
the nature of the employment of his father, and he was satisfied that
the boy was sensible enough to give evidence in a Court of law.
Section 118 of the Evidence Act does not prescribe any set of
questions to be put in this behalf. All that is required is that the
Court must satisfy itself that the child witness is capable of giving
rational answers to the questions being put to him. The learned
Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction on this point, and we do not
see how we can go behind his opinion"

In another case reported as Muhammad Ismail and another v. The

State(1995 SCMR 1615). It was laid down that:
"It may be further observed that evidence of child witness possessing
sufficient understanding can be believed and relied upon for
conviction.

(1968 SCMR 852) may also be referred in this regard.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard has no force.

12. The contention that Mst. Hina Jehangir being tutored deposed
falsely because at the relevant time she was present in the house of
her maternal grandfather and grandmother has no force in it as there
is nothing on the record to show that she was in the house of her
maternal grandfather/grandmother. The complaint was lodged by
the 'complainant (maternal grandfather of the witness and father of
the appellant) wherein it was stated that on receipt of telephone call,
he along with the convict-appellant and his mother i.e. maternal
grandmother of Mst. Hina Jehangir came at the place of occurrence.
Had she (Mst. Hina Jahangir P.W.) been there, the complainant
must have stated this fact in the complaint Exh.PA.

13. The manner in which Mst. Hina Jahangir has testified and gave
intelligent answers to cross-examination by the defence, gives a least
idea that she is a tutored witness. Her testimony is intrinsically true
and worth credit. She could not be even presumed to falsely
implicate her maternal uncle for the murder of her mother and
brother.

14. Secondly, the appellant along with his acquitted co-accused was
seen by the P.Ws. coming out of the house of the deceased in a
perturb condition. In this regard prosecution produced Muhammad
Amin (P.W.5) and Syed Rizwan Raza (P.W.6) who proved that on the
day of occurrence at about 5/6 p.m. they had seen the convict-
appellant along with his co-accused Mst. Nazia coming out of the
house of Muhammad Jahangir i.e. place of occurrence in perturb
condition having bags in their hands. Both the witnesses are
independent and residents of the same locality where the occurrence
took place having no relation with the complainant party or ill-will
against the convict-appellant. It is the prosecution case that after
this, Noman son of Mst. Asia deceased informed the complainant
that the house is locked and mother is not traceable upon which the
complainant reached there and found the dead bodies of both the
deceased in the house of Muhammad Jahangir, (his son-in-law).
Thirdly, the recovery of pistol on the pointation of the convict-
appellant and the recovery of articles belonging to Mst. Asia
deceased and also the recoveries of two empties from the place of
occurrence. To prove the recovery of pistol, prosecution produced
Lal Din, S.I. (P.W.9) and Shafqat Ali (P.W.14). There appears no
defect in their statements rendering the same as untrustworthy.
Shafqat Ali while appearing as (P.W.14) stated in his statement that
on joining his investigation on 9-6-2002 at the place of occurrence,
the I.O. collected blood-stained swabs of both the deceased from
different places and also taken into possession two crime empties P-
33/1-2 vide recovery memo. Exh.P0. He further deposed that on 11-
6-2002 appellant Qadeer after making disclosure led to the recovery
of pistol .30 bore from a room of residential house of his brother-in-
law namely Pervaiz. The pistol was lying under the bed on the
Northern side of the wall of the said room which was taken into
possession and sealed into a parcel vide memo. Exh.PQ which was
attested by him and Muhammad Khalid P.W. The contention of the
learned counsel for the convict-appellant that recovery of pistol is
highly doubtful as no witness from the locality was associated at the
time of recovery has no force. The weapon of offence as said earlier
was recovered at the instance of the convict-appellant on 11-6-2002.
Shafqat Ali (P.W.14) further deposed that said recovery was made at
the instance of the appellant by the I.O. who had categorically stated
in his cross-examination that he requested the people to join the
investigation but nobody was willing to do so. In these
circumstances, the trial Court has rightly relied upon the recovery of
pistol effected from the convict-appellant by the I.O. The pistol
recovered from the convict-appellant and the empties recovered
from the place of occurrence were sent to the fire-arm expert who in
his report vide Exh.PBB confirmed that empties recovered from the
place of occurrence were fired from .30 bore pistol recovered from
the appellant. The prosecution has also proved the recovery of Rado
Watch bearing No.636.0313.3 Golden Colour P-11, one ladies Golden
Ring P-12, Gold hand bracelet two in number P-13/1-2, a Gani black
coloured along with locket gold P-14 and a locket pendulum along
with gold chain P-15 which were taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.PT attested by Muhammad Jahangir (P.W.12), Muhammad
Sagheer and the I.O. on the disclosure of the convict-appellant who
led to the recovery of the said articles from his residential House
No.2, St. No.21 Jinazgah Harbanspura.

15. Both the deceased were last seen alive in the company of the
convict-appellant and his sister Mst. Nazia (co-accused since
acquitted) by Mst. Hina Jahangir (P.W.13) at 4-00 p.m. and the
appellant along with his sister was seen coming out of the house of
the deceased by Muhammad Amin (P.W.5) and Syed Rizwan Raza
(P.W.6) at about 5/6 p.m. and as per complaint, son of the deceased
reached at the house at about 6-00 p.m. and found it locked who
thereafter informed the other family members. Meaning thereby the
occurrence had taken place in between 4-00 p.m. to 6-00 p.m. which
was confirmed by the medical evidence also and in view of the above
circumstances it was rightly inferred by the trial Court that the
appellant was responsible for the commission of the offence.

16. Another aspect of this case is that the complaint was lodged by
the father of the appellant against unknown person and in his
presence investigation was conducted and soon after the registration
of the case, the statements of the P.Ws., including the statement of
Mst. Hina Jahangir were recorded by the I.O. and thereafter
draftsman had taken the notes on the pointation of the complainant
on 11-6-2002 but the father of the convict-appellant who is also the
complainant of this case did not raise any objection on the
investigation even in his life time and the appellant also did not raise
any objection upon the investigation conducted by the I.O. It is also
pertinent to mention here that Mst. Hina Jahangir is the niece of the
appellant who got recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.
on the very date of occurrence when her father was in Saudi Arabia
and reached Pakistan on 11-6-2002 after two days of the occurrence
and in absence of her father she deposed the instant facts before her
real maternal grandfather which lends support to the prosecution
case, therefore, she was a trustworthy and confidence inspiring
witness and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that Mst. Hina Jahangir (P. W.13) made statement before
the trial Court on the dictation of her father is absolutely without any
force.

17. The case law referred by the learned counsel for the parties have
been considered by this Court, the facts of these cases are
distinguishable so far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
it is rightly said that the facts of two criminal cases cannot be
identical, therefore, it is repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme
Court that every case of criminal nature proceeds on its own facts
and circumstances and a rule of universal application cannot be
deduced from the decision of any particular case. In this context the
judgment of Safdar Abbas and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1987 SC
467) may be referred in which it was laid down:-

"It may be noted that principles laid down in all the cases are always
different on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be
loosely applied".

In another case reported as The State v. Rabnawaz and others (PLD

1974 SC 87) it was laid down that:

"But the argument in my opinion proceeds on a superficial reading of

the precedent cases in which the facts were materially different. It'
also overlooks the general principle, that every thing said in a
judgment more particularly in a criminal judgment must be
understood as having been said with reference to the facts of that
particular case."

18. For the above reasons, this Court holds that both the deceased
were last seen alive in the company of the appellant and his
sister/co-accused Mst. Nazia and the convict-appellant had the
knowledge of the place where he had kept pistol after the occurrence
and recovery of articles belonging to Mst. Asia deceased, which were
recovered at his instance in the presence of P.Ws. Further that the
crime empties found at the place of the occurrence were matched
with the pistol recovered from the convict-appellant. The trial Court
has rightly held him responsible for the offence. Resultantly, this
appeal has no force, hence, the same is dismissed.

H.B.T./M-685/LAppeal dismissed.
©2021 Pakistan Caselaw Project. PakCaselaw asserts no copyright in caselaw retrieved from
this site.

 TERMS

 PRIVACY