2026 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J.

The appellant, through the present appeal, has called into question the legality and validity of judgment dated 31.10.2025 rendered by learned Sessions Judge Kuchlak, Quetta, whereby, upon conclusion of a full-fledged trial, the appellant was found guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced as follows: 1. 337-F (iii) For causing knife wound injury on left side of neck, the convict is directed to pay Daman of Rs.300,000/- to injured Kareem Khan, keeping in view his medical expenses and other miscellaneous expenditures during the course of his treatment, and the convict is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three (03) years as Tazir additionally and shall remain in Jail till the payment of Daman to injured. 2. 337-F (iv) For causing knife injury on left side forearm front and knife wound on left forearm back side, the convict is directed to pay Daman of Rs.200,000/- to injured Kareem Khan, keeping in view his medical expenses and other miscellaneous expenditures during the course of his treatment. The accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five (05) years as Tazir additionally and shall remain in Jail till the payment of Daman to injured.

3. He is also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The sentence shall run concurrently. SUMMARY OF FACTS:

2. On 19.09.2024, the complainant reported to the Police that he resides in Kill Char Gul, Kuchlak, and runs his personal business. He stated that his younger brother, Karim Khan, who is a student at Quaid-e-Azam University, had returned home for vacation. According to the complainant, on the day of the incident he was at home when the younger children of the household informed him that his brother, Karim Khan, was being beaten by Abdul Sattar and others. The complainant stated that he immediately went outside and saw that Naseebullah was holding Karim Khan in his lap and that Karim Khan was severely injured. The complainant added that they lifted Karim Khan and took him to Saeed Hospital, and after initial medical aid he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Quetta. The complainant further stated that, upon inquiry, Naseebullah informed him that after offering prayer, Karim Khan came out of the mosque at about 3:10 p.m; In the street, Abdul Sattar (the present appellant), Faiz Muhammad, Abdul Ghani, and Hamdullah, sons of Yar Muhammad alias Paal, started a quarrel and fight with Karim Khan. Faiz Muhammad and Abdul Ghani kicked and punched Karim Khan, while Hamdullah and Abdul Sattar grabbed him by both hands and by the neck and threw him to the ground. When Karim Khan attempted to save himself and stood up again, Abdul Sattar inflicted multiple knife blows upon him, resulting in blood-stained injuries on the left side of his neck and other parts of his body, causing him to become soaked in blood. The complainant stated that when Naseebullah attempted to rescue Karim Khan from the above-named persons, they also assaulted him with kicks and fists. The complainant further asserted that the cause of enmity was a prior incident in which the children of the accused were fighting with their children in the street, and Karim Khan had stopped them. Per complainant, due to this, the accused persons, with the intention to kill Karim Khan, engaged in a fight with him and assaulted him with kicks, fists, and knife blows, thereby causing him injuries. Consequently, FIR No.109/2024, dated 19.09.2024, under Sections 324, 34, P.P.C was lodged at Police Station Khuchlak, District Quetta. INVESTIGATION:

3. The investigation was entrusted to PW-09, Abdul Qaseem, Sub-Inspector, Police Station New Kuchlak, who proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he prepared the site-sketch and secured the blood-stained soil allegedly belonging to the injured through recovery memo, and in this respect Parcel No.1 was prepared. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses to the said recovery memo under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Subsequently, he visited the hospital with the intent to record the statement of the injured; however, the injured was found unconscious and was not in a position to make a statement at that stage. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statement of the eye-witness as well as of those individuals having knowledge or connection with the occurrence. A raid was then conducted at the drawing room of the appellant, resulting in his arrest, and on his pointation, the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was recovered and taken into possession through recovery memo, and Parcel No. 2 was accordingly prepared. Statements of the recovery witnesses were also recorded, and the recovery-sketch/map was prepared. The blood-stained clothes of the injured were likewise taken into custody through recovery memo, and Parcel No.3 was prepared in this regard, while the statements of the witnesses to that recovery were also recorded. Once the injured regained consciousness, his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Parcels Nos.1 to 3 were thereafter forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The Investigating Officer obtained the medico-legal certificate of the injured from Civil Hospital, Quetta, received the FSL report, and, upon culmination of the investigative process, prepared the complete challan and submitted the same before the competent Court. TRIAL:

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined nine (09) witnesses. PW-1, Ghazi Khan, the complainant and brother of the injured Kareem Khan, appeared before the Court and narrated the facts as set out in the FIR, which had been lodged on his written application (Ex.P/1-A). PW-2, Hassan Khan, is a witness who stated that he was present at Quetta when he received information regarding the injuries sustained by Kareem Khan at the hands of the appellant and the co-accused. PW-3, Naseebullah, is an eye-witness of the occurrence and also claimed to have been assaulted by the accused persons. PW-4, Alam Khan, is another witness who was allegedly present at Kuchlak Bazar when he heard about the quarrel and the injuries caused to Kareem Khan. PW-5, ASI Syed Muhammad Sabir, is a witness to the recovery memo. of the blood-stained clothes of the injured Kareem Khan (Ex.P/5-A), including sealed Parcel No.3, specimen seal, and the blood-stained clothes produced as Art/P-1 to Art/P-4. PW-6, Kareem Khan, is the injured witness who deposed before the trial Court in line with his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. PW-7, SI Muhammad Ali, is a witness to the recovery memo. of the blood-stained soil (Ex.P/7-A) as well as the recovery memo. of the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence, i.e., a knife (Ex.P/7-B). He also identified the specimen seal, bloodstained soil, Parcel No. 2, and the knife produced as Art/P-5 to Art/P-10. PW-8, Dr. Aysha Faiz, Lady Police Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Quetta, examined the injured and issued the medico-legal certificate (Ex.P/8-A). PW-9, SI Abdul Qaseem, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who, during his deposition before the trial Court, explained the steps taken by him during the investigation and produced the FIR as Ex.P/9-A, the site-sketch of the place of occurrence as Ex.P/9-B, the site-sketch/map of the place of recovery as Ex.P/9-C, the docket as Ex.P/9-D, the FSL report as Ex.P/9-E, the incomplete challan as Ex.P/9-F, and the complete challan as Ex.P/9-G.

5. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. The appellant did not opt to record statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.; however, he produced one witness in his defence, i.e. DW-1.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him in the terms mentioned above. ARGUMENTS:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and justice, and is therefore liable to be set-aside. According to learned counsel, material contradictions exist between the statements of PW-6, PW-8, and other prosecution witnesses regarding the injured s state of consciousness, his medical treatment, and the recording of his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C with delay which render the prosecution case doubtful. Learned counsel further argued that the eye-witness is close relatives of the injured and that no independent witness was examined, thereby making the prosecution evidence unreliable. It was also argued that the recovery of the alleged crime weapon is fabricated and that the investigation is tainted with serious defects, including contradictions between the statements of PW-7 and PW-9. Learned counsel contended that the trial Court relied upon conjectures rather than credible and confidence-inspiring evidence, and that the cumulative inconsistencies in the prosecution case entitle the appellant to acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

8. Learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution evidence is consistent, confidence inspiring, and fully establishes the role of the appellant in the assault committed upon the injured in broad daylight. He submitted that the occurrence was duly witnessed by an eye-witness whose testimony is natural and corroborated by the medico-legal certificate, which is in conformity with the contents of the FIR. Learned State Counsel further argued that the evidence on record leaves no room for doubt regarding the appellant s culpability and, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court and is liable to be upheld. Arguments heard. Record perused. DETERMINATION:

9. The occurrence took place in brought daylight at approximately 3:10 p.m., and the FIR was lodged promptly on the same day at 5:10 p.m. The two-hour interval is reasonably explained that the injured witness, PW-6 Kareem Khan, was immediately taken to the hospital to save his life. Hence, there is no element of deliberate or conscious delay in reporting the matter to the police. PW-6 sustained three sharp-edged weapon injuries i.e. one on the left side of the neck, one on the front of the left forearm, and another on the back of the left forearm. As per the FIR and the ocular account, these injuries were specifically attributed to the appellant, Abdul Sattar, who used a dagger to inflict multiple blows upon the injured, including one on a vital part of the body, i.e., the neck. The testimonies of PW-3 (Naseebullah), the eye-witness, and PW-6 (Kareem Khan), the injured, are natural, consistent, and mutually corroborative. Being residents of the same locality, their presence at the place of occurrence is entirely natural and cannot be termed as that of chance witnesses. Their statements are further strengthened by the corroborative evidence i.e. the medical findings, recovery of the knife, and seizure of blood-stained soil and clothes, which together form a coherent and confidence-inspiring chain of circumstances.

10. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, that the eye-witness is a close relative of the injured and thus interested is devoid of any substance as no mala fide intent or ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant has been alleged by the appellant. The interested witness is one who has motive to falsely implicate or has previous enmity with the person involved. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case titled as Farooq Khan v. The State[1]. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-6, being the victim himself, provides direct, reliable, and convincing evidence of the occurrence.

11. It is equally settled that the gravity or location of an injury alone, for instance, a wound on a vital part like the neck, does not automatically establish the intention or knowledge required for Qatl-e-Amd (murderous intent) under Section 324, P.P.C. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate such intent. In the present case, the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel over a trivial matter, without any evidence of premeditation or preparation. Therefore, the trial Court rightly concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 324, P.P.C. were not established. The conviction for hurt under Sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(iv), P.P.C., therefore, stands on firm legal footing.

12. Now turning to the question of sentence: while daman has correctly been awarded by the trial Court, the addition of Ta zir imprisonment under Sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(iv) is unsustainable for want of the mandatory findings required by Section 337-N(2), P.P.C. Ta zir imprisonment in addition to arsh/daman may be imposed only in exceptional situations, e.g., where the offender is a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour. The impugned judgment records no such findings upon the same. There is nothing on the record of this case to establish that the appellant had any credentials or antecedents of being a previous convict, hardened or habitual, desperate or dangerous criminal. ; rather, the episode stemmed from a sudden quarrel arising out of children fighting Thus, in view of Section 337-N(2), P.P.C. as interpreted in Ali Muhammad v. The State[2], the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting Ta zir imprisonment, and the appellant is liable only to payment of Daman. Further reliance is placed upon the case titled as Haji Maa Din v. The State[3] and Mazhar Hussain v. The State[4]. In the wake of above deliberations, the appeal is partly allowed and modified in the following terms: i. The appellant s convictions under Sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(iv), P.P.C are maintained, and the awarded daman amounting to Rs. 300,000 under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C and Rs.200,000 under section 337-F(iv), respectively are affirmed. ii. The additional Ta zir sentences of rigorous imprisonment of three (03) years under section 337-F(iii) and five (05) years under section 337-F(iv) are set-aside in view of section 337-N(2), P.P.C. iii. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall remain available to the appellant. iv. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of daman to the injured. The trial Court shall secure the deposit of daman from the appellant through any lawful mode permissible under the law, and upon such deposit, the trial Court shall summon the injured and ensure disbursement of the amount to him. In case the appellant fails to make payment within the stipulated period, he shall be dealt with in accordance with Section 337-Y(2) P.P.C. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. JK/2/Bal. Order accordingly. [1] 2008 SCMR 917 [2] PLD 2009 Lah. 312 [3] 1998 SCMR 1528 [4] 2012 SCMR 887