2026 PLP 333 (SCMR)

MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

Through the instant appeal, Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), has sought leave against impugned judgment dated 29.04.2015, passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2020.

2. The appellant being juvenile was tried by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, pursuant to a case FIR No. 246/2007, dated 13.10.2007, registered under sections 302, 324, 452, 148, 149 P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at Police Station Ghumandpur, District Bahawalnagar. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2009, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), as under:- Under section 148 P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for (3) three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (03) months. Under Section 337-F(i)/149 P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for one (1) year with the payment of 'Daman' of Rs.20,000 (twenty thousand). Under sections 460/149 P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year. Under sections 302(b)/149 P.P.C., the appellant was awarded imprisonment for life on four (4) Counts for causing murders of deceased Muhammad Ali, Ameeran Bibi, Ayesha Bibi and Muhammad Ahmad. The appellant was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) to the legal heirs of each deceased and in default of compensation, the convict was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months on each count. Under Section 7-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997/149 P.P.C., the appellant was awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for three (3) years Simple Imprisonment. The amount of Daman was ordered to be paid to the injured Mst. Javeria. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C, was also extended to Muhammad Abdullah (appellant). In appeal the learned High Court upheld the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. As per contents of the FIR, Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11), alleged that in the previous year Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), lodged FIR No. 61/2006, under sections 302/148/149/109 P.P.C., at police Minchinabad against Barish Ali, Muhammad Umar, Muhammad Ishaq, Muhammad Ashraf etc, for the murders of his wife Mst. Rabia, daughters namely Mst. Salma Bibi, Saima Bibi and grandson namely Muhammad Numan, who were deceased persons of the above-referred FIR No.61/2006, whereas, in-fact he (Abdul Razzaq) had himself committed the said murders. The abovementioned Barish Ali etc filed a private complaint under section 302 P.P.C., against Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), wherein the brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Ali (deceased), was cited as a witness. On 13.10.2007, at magrib wela, the complainant along with Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Siddique (PW-10), had gone to the house of his brother namely Muhammad Ali (deceased). Suddenly, Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), Niaz Ahmad (co-accused since acquitted in a separate trial), Muhammad Abbas (co-accused since acquitted in a separate trial), Muhammad Ishaq (co-accused since convicted in a separate trial), Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), Qamar Zaman (co-accused since died), Shah Muhammad (co-accused since acquitted in a separate trial) and Muhammad Sharif (co-accused since convicted in a separate trial), trespassed into the house of his brother namely Muhammad Ali (deceased). Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Ali for giving evidence in the Court against them and all the accused started indiscriminate firing. Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), made a fire shot with his gun 12-bore, which landed on the chest of Muhammad Anwar (deceased). Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), made a fire shot with his 12-bore gun, which landed on the chest of the Bhabi of the complainant namely Mst. Ameeran (deceased). The complainant further alleged in the FIR, that all the accused made straight firing due to which Muhammad Ali, Ameeran Bibi, Ayesha Bibi and Muhammad Ahmad died at the spot, whereas the minor namely Javeria aged about 3/4 years became seriously injured. Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11) and Muhammad Yasin, saved themselves while begging for their lives before the accused. The accused persons while making fire shots fled away from the spot.

5. The occurrence in this case took place on 13.10.2007 at magrib time, within the area of Mauza Rehmanpura, which was situated at a distance of twenty-one (21) kilometers from the police station. The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11) through Fard Bayan and the formal FIR was also lodged on the same day i.e., on 13.10.2007 at 07.35 p.m. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence and its distance from the police station, we are of the view that there was no deliberate or conscious delay in lodging the FIR rather the same was promptly lodged.

6. The ocular account of the prosecution was furnished by Muhammad Siddique (PW-10) and Muhammad Din (PW-11). The occurrence in this case took place within the area of Mauza Rehmanpura. Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11), is resident of the same area, where the occurrence took place, therefore, his presence at spot on the date and time of occurrence cannot be termed as un-natural or improbable rather the same is quite natural. It is true that Muhammad Siddique (PW-10), has not supported the prosecution case and he resiled from his previous statement recorded before the police but it is by now well settled that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which weighs with the Courts to decide any case. If evidence of a sole eye-witness is confidence inspiring and trustworthy then the same can safely be relied upon for awarding conviction to an accused. In the case of "Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State and another" (2011 SCMR 725), at page No.734, it has been held as under:-

11. The statement of Israeel (P.W.9) the eye-witness of the occurrence is confidence inspiring, which stand substantiated from the "circumstances and other evidence. There is apt observations appearing in Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) that "even in a murder case conviction" can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court is satisfied that he is reliable." The reason being that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters. Therefore, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that conviction of Niaz -ud-Din was fully justified and has rightly been maintained by the High Court. Similar view was taken in the judgments reported as "Sajid Mehmood v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1882) and "Qasim Shahzad and another v. The State and others" (2023 SCMR 117). The occurrence in this case took place at magrib wela in the house of Muhammad Ali (deceased) and the parties were earlier know to each other due to previous enmity of murders, therefore, there was no chance of any misidentification of the appellant during the occurrence by the prosecution eye-witness. The prosecution eye-witness namely Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11), was cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but his evidence could not be shaken and nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record. He remained consistent on all material aspects of the case, like the time of occurrence, the weapon used by the appellant, the manner in which the occurrence took place etc. His evidence is trustworthy and confidence inspiring.

7. The medical evidence of the prosecution was furnished by Dr. Humaira Tariq (PW-1), Dr. Jameel Ahmad Shah (PW-2) and Dr. Riaz Ahmad (PW-3). They conducted postmortem examinations on the dead-bodies of the deceased persons of this case and found firearm wounds on the bodies of the said deceased persons. We are, therefore, of the view that the medical evidence of the prosecution has fully supported the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Din complainant (PW-11).

8. Insofar as the recovery of weapon of offence i.e., gun 12-bore (P-14), at the pointing out of Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), as well as, the positive report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PKKK), are concerned, we have noted that the empties were recovered from the spot on 13.10.2017. The weapon of offence was statedly recovered from the possession of Muhammad Ishaq (appellant), on 02.12.2007, but the empties were deposited in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency on 03.12.2007, which means that the empties and the weapon of offence were kept together at the police station, hence it is not safe to rely upon the abovementioned evidence of the prosecution regarding recovery of weapon of offence and the positive report of PFSA (Ex.PKKK), as observed in the judgments reported as "Abdul Wahid v. The State" (2023 SCMR 1278) and "Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670).

9. Insofar as the motive of the prosecution case is concerned, we have noted that no specific motive was alleged against the present appellant and the same was alleged against Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died). As per prosecution case, Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died), had himself earlier committed the murders of his wife, daughters and grandson but he lodged a fabricated FIR at police station Minchinabad against the complainant party of the present case. It is true that Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), is real son of Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died) but Muhammad Sharif (co-accused), was also real brother of Abdul Razzaq (co-accused since died) but the said Muhammad Sharif (co-accused), has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court, which means that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not believed against him, therefore, the case of the appellant cannot be distinguished to the extent of motive part of the prosecution case from the case of the abovementioned Muhammad Sharif (co-accused since acquitted). We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution could not prove any specific motive against the appellant.

10. Insofar as the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is concerned, we have noted that in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of "Ghulam Hussain v. The State" (PLD 2020 SC 61), the ingredients of offence under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are not attracted in this case because it was a case personal vendetta.

11. Keeping in view all the abovementioned facts, we have come to this irresistible conclusion that though we have disbelieved the prosecution evidence qua the motive and recovery of the weapon of offence but even then the prosecution case against Muhammad Ishaq (appellant), has been proved beyond the shadow of any doubt for offences under sections 148/337-F(iv)/460/302(b)/149 P.P.C., through the above-referred confidence inspiring ocular account and the medical evidence.

12. We have, however, noted that in the impugned judgments, no finding was given regarding concurrent running of sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant. No reason was mentioned in the impugned judgments in this respect. The appellant was a minor at the time of occurrence and it appears that he had acted under the influence of his father. Moreover, we have also disbelieved the prosecution evidence qua the motive and recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant, therefore, we are of the view that the relief regarding giving a direction for concurrent running of sentences of the appellant has been withheld without any valid reason.

13. In the light of above, this appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 312-L of 2020), is partly allowed and Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), is acquitted from the charge under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The conviction and sentence awarded to Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), for the charge under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are set aside. However, the convictions and sentences under sections 148/337-F(iv)/460/302(b)/149 P.P.C., awarded to Muhammad Abdullah (appellant), are maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonments awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C., is also extended to the appellant.

14. Insofar as the prayer of the appellant for passing a direction for concurrent running of sentences of the appellant in the instant case, as well as, in connected case bearing FIR No. 445 of 2007, is concerned, it is observed that we have already passed a separate judgment of even date in connected Crl. Appeal No. 310-L of 2020 and directed that sentences of the appellant in both the cases i.e., FIR No. 445 of 2007 and FIR No. 246 2007, registered at Police Station Minchinabad and police station Ghumandpur, respectively, District Bahawalnagar, shall run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C., in both the cases. MH/M-115/SC Order accordingly.