2026 P Cr. L J 486
[Balochistan]
Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ
MIR ZAMAN alias Muhammad Alam ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2024, decided on 23rd June, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, common intention--
-Appreciation of evidence ---Ocular account supported by medical evidence ---Accused
were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also
causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby ---Case of complainant was
that on the fateful day, he, his brother and son came to attend proceedings of a criminal case, where their opponents i.e., appellants and one unknown culprit were also present and that at 10:20 am, when they left the Court and reached near “A” Motors, appellant made indiscriminate firing at their back, due to which two bullets hit his deceased brother's right thigh, whereas he received a bullet on his right leg and that a passerby also
received a bullet injury on his right leg ---Nonetheless, complainant’s deceased brother
succumbed to the injuries due to excessive bleeding--- Complainant further averred that
earlier on 15.02.2018, a dispute arose between the parties due to which criminal case was registered at Police Station, thus the appellant and co -accused persons having anguish of
an old animosity, launched attack upon them ---Despite lengthy cross -examination,
complainant remained firm and consistent to his examination -in-chief, thus his statement
went unshaken, which sounds natural, confidence inspiring and truthful ---Son of
complainant appeared as witness, his statement was in line with the statement of complainant and reiterated what complainant had stated ---Said witness was cross -
examined at length, but the defence failed to shatter his testimony as he remained firmed and consistent to his examination in chief, thus his testimony went un -shattered ---
Presence of the said witnesses had been found to be natural, who had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant ---Defence had failed to bring anything on record to establish false
implication or substitution of the real culprits with the appellant--- Injured witness
testified that on 09.05.2018, he went to Faisal Bank, with his wife, where whilst returning, suddenly firing started and that a bullet hit his left leg and he got injured, thus he was taken to the Civil Hospital ---Later on, he came to know that a person had made
firing due to some enmity, which resulted into death of a person ---Although, injured
witness did not identify any of the culprit, but importantly he did not deny the occurrence, thus his statement did not put any dent to the case of the prosecution, rather confirmed the occurrence ---Presence of the eye -witnesses had been established and their
testimonies had gone un- shattered, which by all means inspired confidence and truthful as the
injuries sustained by complainant and passerby proved their presence at the place of occurrence, more particularly, when the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, nature, time and locale of injuries sustained by deceased and the said Injured witnesses ---Circumstances
established that the prosecution had proved the indictment to the hilt without any glimpse of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.
Amanullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, common intention--
-Appreciation of evidence ---Co-accused persons acquitted on same set of evidence ---
Accused charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby ---It was alleged by the defence
that the case of acquitted accused persons was at par with appellant, and they were
acquitted of the indictment ---Said contention of defence was unjustified as the said
acquitted persons were not attributed any role of firing or with an overt act ---Appellant
had been specifically nominated with the role of firing upon deceased and causing
injuries to complainant and a passerby, thus his case was distinguishable ---Circumstances
established that the prosecution had proved the indictment to the hilt without any glimpse
of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, common intention--
-Appreciation of evidence ---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of ---Reliance---
Scope ---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by
firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby ---Undeniably,
both of the eye -witnesses of the occurrence were related to the deceased, but merely for
that reasons they could not be termed as interested' witnesses ---Term 'related' was not
equivalent to 'interested'--- Witness may be called 'interested' only when, he or she derives
some benefit in seeing an accused person punished--- Witness, who is a natural one and is
the only possible eye -witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be
'interested' ---In the present case, one of the injured eye -witnesses was complainant and he
was brother of deceased, who had not only proved his presence, but his testimony was
consistent ---Said witness had cogently described the manner of commission of the crime
in detail, thus the testimony of an eye -witness, who had received injuries carried more
evidentiary value ---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the
indictment to the hilt without any glimpse of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed, accordingly.
Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831 rel.
Aminullah Kakar for Appellant.
Abdul Karim, State Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th June, 2025.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .--- Veracity and legality of judgment dated
01.06.2024 (“impugned judgment”) handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI,
Quetta (“Trial Court”) has been called in question by the appellant, emanating from FIR No.76 of 2018 (Ex.P/13- A) registered with Police Station Civil Line, Quetta for the offences punishable
under sections 302, 324 and 34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“P.P.C”), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following terms;
“Accordingly, present accused Mir Zaman alias Muhammad Aslam son of Eid Gul is
convicted under section 302 (b) P.P.C to serve life imprisonment. He is directed to pay Rs.200,000/ - to the legal heirs of deceased Sanaullah as provided under section 544- A Cr.P.C in
default whereof to suffer 6 months rigorous imprisonment. He is sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 324 P.P.C on two counts to made attempt in the lives of Gulbat and Imran Bhati and to Rs.50,000/ (rupees fifty thousand only) as fine on two counts and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each default. He is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/ - (rupees fifty thousand only) to each Gulbat and Imran Bhatti as provided under
section 544- A Cr.P.C in default of payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for
each default. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit under section 382- B
Cr.P.C is extended to him”
2. Concise, but relevant facts essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that complainant
Gulbat (PW -1) got lodged the FIR ibid, with the averments that on 09.05.2018 at 10:20 am,
whilst returning from the court proceedings at Adalat Road, Queta, appellant Mir Zaman alias Muhammad Alam made indiscriminate firing with TT pistol, which hit his brother Sanaullah’s right thigh, whereas he and a passerby namely Imran Bhatti (PW -6) also sustained bullet injuries,
however, his brother succumbed due to excessive bleeding. The motive was stated to be an old enmity between the parties since 2018.
After registration of the FIR ibid, Abdul Ghafoor S.I 1st Investigation Officer (“IO”)
(PW-13) went to the crime scene, prepared site plan (Ex.P/13- B), secured blood through cotton
and two empties shells of TT pistol vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/2- A). He also secured
bloodstained clothes of deceased Sanaullah and injured Gulbat (PW -1) through recovery memo.
(Ex.P/3- A) and recorded statements of witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Subsequently, investigating was entrusted to 2nd I.O Minshaullah (PW -14). He arrested
co-accused Musa Kaleem, who made disclosure (Ex.P/9- A). On 10.05.2019, a raid was
conducted on a school located at Pishin on the pointation of the complainant from where co-
accused Saif -ud-Din was arrested and from his possession the police officials recovered 30. bore
TT Pistol bearing Registration No.31036122 along with a magazine and four live rounds, which were secured vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/12- A). Co -accused Saif -ud-Din was brought before
Miss. Paraksa Noor, Judicial Magistrate, II, Quetta (PW -10) for the test of identification parade,
where Abdul Hameed (PW -5) identified him to be the culprit, who had accompanied along with
the appellant on the day of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on 11.07.2020, who on 20.07.2020 made disclosure (Ex.P/9- C), and disclosed that he had thrown the crime weapon in a
rainy channel situated at Pishin, which was his licensed pistol, thus on his pointation, memo. of site (Ex.P/9 -D) was prepared. 2nd I.O Minshaullah (PW -14) secured license No.7403- D of 30.
bore pistol, having number C -218523 vide recovery memo. (Ex.P/11- A). He also produced death
certificate of deceased Sanaullah, FSL reports regarding bloodstained cotton, clothes and challan
as (Ex.P/14- A), (Ex.P/14 -B) and (Ex.P/14- C) respectively.
Tariq Mehmood S.I (PW -15) and Javed Budzdar S.I (PW -16) respectively are the 3rd and
4th IOs of the instant case, who produced various challans and Punjab Forensic Science Agency
report regarding two 30. bore cartridges recovered from the site, pistol recovered from co-
accused Saif -ud-Din, magazine and four live rounds as (Ex.P/16- D).
3. Initially, co -accused Wahab Khan; then on the nomination of complainant accused Saif -
ud-Din, whereafter the appellant were arrested, who were put on trial. During trial, the Trial
Court vide judgment dated 31.12.2021 acquitted co- accused Wahab Khan and Saif -ud-Din of the
indictment, whereas abated the proceedings to the extent of co- accused Musa Kaleem, who
expired during trial, however, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment vide judgment dated 31.12.2021. The appellant feeling aggrieved from the said judgment, preferred Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2022 before this Court, which was partially allowed vide judgment dated 19.09.2022, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with the direction to re -summon the witnesses and thereafter rewrite the judgment.
After remand of the case, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge produced as
many as sixteen (16) witnesses and at the end of the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C, who opted to record his statement on oath as well as produced Suleman (DW -1) in his defence, thus the Trial Court on conclusion of the trial vide
impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant in the terms mentioned in para supra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the eye -witnesses have failed
to prove their presence on the crime scene, thus their testimony is unreliable. He maintained further that no crime weapon has been recovered from the appellant and that co- accused persons,
whose case was at par with the appellant were acquitted, but the Trial Court, whilst misreading the appeal, evidence, contrarily convicted the appellant, thus requested for acquittal of the appellant inconsequence of acceptance of the instant appeal.
Conversely, learned State Counsel rebutted the assertions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant and urged that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or misreading of evidence, more particularly, when confidence inspiring statements of eye-witnesses are available, thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard. Record sussed out with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversarial
parties.
6. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the ocular account of complainant Gulbat (PW -
1), eye -witness Abdul Hameed (PW -5) and passerby- victim Imran Bhatti (PW -6) coupled with
the medical evidence, recovery of two crime empties, blood stained articles and PFSA report.
7. The unnatural death of deceased Sanaullah caused by firearm has been not disputed.
However, in order to further substantiate the unnatural death of deceased Sanaullah, the
prosecution produced Dr. Aisha Faiz, Police Surgeon (PW -4), who examined the deceased on
09.05.2018 at about 11:30 am and issued Medico Legal Certificate (“MLC”) (Ex.P/4- A),
wherein she observed the following injuries;
“Injuries:
i. Brought dead with severe bleeding.
ii. Exit wound 2x2 cm at right thigh medial.
iii. Entrance wound 1x1 cm at right buttock near the anus.
iv. Entrance wound 1 x 1 -cm at right buttock near the anus above the injury No.3.
Probable cause of death is internal and external bleeding shock and death caused by
firearm and homicidal in manner.”
8. Similarly, Dr. Ali Mardan, Police Surgeon (PW -7) examined complainant Gulbat (PW -
1), issued his MLC (Ex.P/7- B) and observed the following injuries;
“1.Firearm entrance wound on later side of right thigh.
2.X.ray done shows no fracture.
3.Duration of injury fresh weapon used fire arm and nature grievous.”
Dr. Ali Mardan, (PW -7) on the same day also examined Imran Bhatti (PW -6) and issued
his MLC (Ex.P/7- B) by observing the following injuries;
“1. Firearm entry wound seen on medial side of left foot with exit wound.
2. X-ray done and refer to trauma center.
3. Duration of injuries fresh, weapon used firearm and nature grievous."
9. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight at Adalat Road, Quetta on 09.05.2018
at 10:20 am, while complainant Gulbat (PW -1) along with son Abdul Hameed (PW -05) and
his deceased brother Sanaullah were on their way back, after attending a criminal proceeding before the court. It is the case of complainant Gulbat (PW -1) that on the fateful
day, he, his brother Sanaullah and son Abdul Hameed (PW -5) came to attend proceedings
of a criminal case bearing FIR No.21 of 2018 before learned Judicial Magistrate, XIII, Quetta, where their opponents i.e., appellant Mir Zaman alias Muhammad Alam, Musa Kaleem, Wahab and one unknown culprit were also present and that at 10:20 am, when they left the court and reached near Azlan Motors, appellant made indiscriminate firing at their back, due to which two bullets hit his deceased brother Sanaullah’s right thigh, whereas he received a bullet on his right leg and that a passerby namely Imran Bhatti (PW -
6) also received a bullet injury on his right leg, nonetheless, his brother deceased Sanaullah succumbed to the injuries due to excessive bleeding. Complainant Gulbat (PW -1) further
averred that earlier on 15.02.2018, a dispute arose between the parties due to which criminal case was registered at Police Station Zarhgoonabad, thus the appellant and co-accused persons having anguish of an old animosity, launched attack upon them. Despite lengthy cross -examination, complainant Gulbat (PW -1) remained firm and consistent to his
examination -in-chief, thus his statement went unshaken, which otherwise sounds natural,
confidence inspiring and truthful.
10. The next important piece of evidence, whereupon the prosecution relies upon its case is
the statement of eye- witness Abdul Hameed (PW- 05), who testified in line with the statement of
complainant Gulbat (PW -1) and reiterated what complainant had stated. He was cross -examined
at length, but the defence failed to shatter his testimony as he remained firmed and consistent to his examination in chief, thus his testimony went unshattered. The presence of the said witnesses
have been found by the Trial Court and this Court to be natural, who have no reason to falsely
implicate the appellant. The defence has failed to bring anything on record to establish false implication or substitution of the real culprits with the appellant.
11. Moving ahead to the statement of Imran Bhatti (PW -6), who was a passerby and fall
victim to this unfortunate episode. He testified that on 09.05.2018, he went to Faisal Bank, situated at Adalat Road with his wife, where whilst returning, suddenly firing started and that a bullet hit his left leg and he got injured, thus he was taken to the Civil Hospital. Later on, he came to know that a person had made firing due to some enmity, which resulted into death of a person. Although, Imran Bhatti (PW -6) did not identify any of the culprit, but importantly he did
not deny the occurrence, thus his statement does not put any dent to the case of the prosecution, rather confirms the occurrence, henceforth, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that he is not an eye -witness of the occurrence has no essence. The presence of the eye- witnesses
have been established and their testimonies have gone unshattered, which by all means inspire confidence and truthful as the injuries sustained by complainant Gulbat (PW -1) and Imran Bhatti
(PW-6) proves their presence at the place of occurrence, more particularly, when the medical
evidence corroborates the ocular account, nature, time and locale of injuries sustained by deceased Sanaullah and the said injured witnesses. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of “Amanullah v. The State” (2023 SCMR 723).
12. Coming to the recovery of crime weapon, it may be observed that on 20.07.2020, the
appellant made disclosure (Ex.P/9- C), wherein he admitted that he had thrown the crime weapon
in a rainy channel, situated at Pishin, thus it was very unlikely for the police to recover the said crime weapon as it would have had flown out in the said channel. The police recovered the license of said crime weapon from the possession of appellant. As far as pointation of place of
occurrence in consequence of disclosure of appellant is concerned, it is unworthy of reliance as the place of occurrence was already known to the police officials and site plan (Ex.P/13- B) was
prepared far back, while visiting the crime scene.
13. So be it, in the instant case, the appellant has specifically been assigned the role of firing
by complainant Gulbat (PW -1) and eye -witness Abdul Hameed (PW -05), which resulted into
death of deceased Sanaullah and injuries sustained to complainant Gulbat (PW -1) and passerby
Imran Bhatti (PW -06). Learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the appellant has been
nominated as Muhammad Alam son of Eid Gul and the same is not his complete name, thus submitted that there are chances of mistaken identity, which stance of learned counsel has no ground as the appellant has been nominated by his parentage i.e., Eid Gul, which he cannot refute. That apart, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant with the name titled as Mir Zaman Alias Muhammad Alam son of Eid Gul and more particularly, when the appellant in his defence had produced his brother Suleman son of Eid Gul as DW -1. Another argument of
learned counsel for the appellant was that the case of acquitted accused persons namely Saif -ud-
Din and Wahab Khan was at par with appellant, but they were acquitted of the indictment, which argument of learned counsel is unjustified as the said acquitted persons were not attributed any role of firing or with an overt act. The appellant has been specifically nominated with the role of firing upon deceased Sanaullah and causing injuries to complainant Gulbat (PW -1) and passerby
Imran Bhatii (PW -6), thus his case is distinguishable.
14. Undeniably, both of the eye -witnesses of the occurrence are related to the deceased, but
merely for this reasons they cannot be termed as ‘interested’ witnesses. The term ‘related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when, he or she derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished. A witness, who is a natural one and is the only possible eye -witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be
‘interested’. In the present case, one of the injured eye -witness is complainant Gulbat (PW -1)
and he is brother of deceased Sanaullah, who has not only proved his presence, but his testimony is consistent. He has cogently described the manner of commission of the crime in detail, thus, we are of the considered view that the testimony of an eye -witness, who has
received injuries carries more evidentiary value. [SEE; “Aqil v. The State” (2023 SCMR 831)].
15. Epitome of the above discussion is that the ocular account of complainant Gulbat (PW -1),
eye-witness Abdul Hameed (PW -05) and statement of passerby Imran Bhatti (PW -06) is
trustworthy and worth reliance, which has been confirmed by the medical evidence of Dr. Aisha Faiz (PW -4) and Dr. Ali Mardan (PW -7), thus the prosecution has proved the indictment to the
hilt without any glimpse of doubt.
16. After critical analysis of the evidence on record discussed hereinabove, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the indictment against the
appellant, which has rightly been appreciated with reasons by the Trial Court, thus the impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court.
17. Corollary, the appeal fails for being shorn of merits, henceforth dismissed and in
consequence thereof, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.06.2024 is hereby maintained.
JK/77/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.