SHAKIL AHMAD, J. By filing Criminal Appeal No.36092 of 2019, appellants Niaz Abbas alias Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aslam alias Mehnga and Muhammad Zahoor Ahmad have challenged their convictions and sentences. They were indicted and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpur on the charge under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-D, 337- F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 337 L(2), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No.148 of 2015 dated 30.10.2015, registered at Police Station Shahpur City, Sargodha. Learned trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 17.05.2019 (impugned judgment) convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- i. Under section 302(b)/34 P.P.C. to death each on three counts (for causing triple murder of Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Sher and Tahir Mehmood) with payment of Rs.3,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. ii. Under section 324/34 P.P.C. to seven years R.I. each for attempting to commit qatl-i-amd of the injured persons Mubasher Rehman and Khadim Hussain with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. iii. Under section 337-A(i)/34 P.P.C. to two years R.I. each for causing injuries to Mubashar Rehman and Khadim Hussain with fine of Rs.5,000/- each to the injured. iv. Under section 337-F(iii)/34 P.P.C. to three years R.I. each with daman of Rs.5,000/- each to injured Mubashar Rehman. v. Under section 337-F(vi)/34 P.P.C. to seven years R.I. each with daman of Rs.5,000/- each to injured Khadim Hussain.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the convicts.
The learned trial court, however, vide same judgment acquitted Fazal Abbas, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Iqbal, Habib, Rabnawaz, Muhammad Zafar and Usman by extending them benefit of doubt. Crl. Appeal No.36090 of 2019 filed by complainant against acquittal of aforementioned accused persons before this Court has already been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 24.05.2022. It may not be out of context to mention here that one of the accused persons namely Raja Ijaz Ahmed who was assigned resorting to first fire shot that landed on the forehead of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) was indicted and tried separately and at the end of trial earned acquittal and PSLA No.63729 of 2020 filed by the complainant was dismissed as having been withdrawn vide order dated 08.06.2023.
Murder Reference No.150 of 2019 has been sent by learned trial court under section 374 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellants. Since all the matters have originated from the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2019, the same are being decided through this single consolidated judgment.
It is pertinent to mention here that being dissatisfied with the investigation of instant case F.I.R, the complainant Qadir Bakhsh filed private complainant under section 302, 324, 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C. against same set of accused which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2019.
2. Qadir Bakhsh, complainant got recorded his statement at police station and on the basis of that statement F.I.R. (Exh.PV) was lodged. As per contents of Exh.PV complainant was resident of Ichar and on 31.10.2015 at about 04:30 p.m. Muhammad Ashraf, Tahir Mahmood, Mubashar Rehman, Khadim Hussain, Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Sajid were on their way to home situated in Mouza Ichar on a white coloured car bearing registration No.LEA/1540 after being relieved from their personal work and complainant along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf who was behind them at a little distance on his car; that when Muhammad Ashraf and others reached at Adda Ichar Muhammad Ejaz, Fazal Abbas, Muhammad Aslam all armed with Kalashnikov, Amjad, Muhammad Asif both armed with gun 12-bore repeater, Muhammad Aslam alias Mehnga armed with gun 12-bore double barrel, Muhammad Iqbal armed with pistol 30-bore, Habib armed with 12 bore double barrel, Rab Nawaz armed with pistol 30-bore, Muhammad Zafar armed with 12-bore repeater, Muhammad Usman armed with gun 12-bore, Niaz Abbas armed with pistol 30-bore and Muhammad Zahoor armed with gun 12-bore who were lying perdue suddenly came in front of them and got stopped the car of Muhammad Ashraf etc whereafter Muhammad Ejaz exhorted that Muhammad Ashraf etc should not be left alive and in the meanwhile complainant along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf reached at Adda Ichar at a slight distance from behind when Muhammad Ejaz made a straight fire shot with his Kalashnikov in order to kill Muhammad Ashraf that landed on his forehead; second fire shot was made by Fazal Abbas with his Kalashnikov that landed on right side of chest of Tahir Mahmood; Muhammad Aslam made a fire shot with his Kalashnikov hitting on left side of head of Muhammad Sher; Amjad made a fire shot with his 12- bore repeater hitting on the left side of chest of Tahir Mahmood; Muhammad Asif fired a shot with gun 12-bore repeater hitting on the left side of head of Khadam Hussain and they fell down in the car thereafter all accused persons with their respective weapons resorted to indiscriminate firing on the car of Muhammad Ashraf in the result of which Tahir Mahmood received injuries on his left shoulder near the neck, middle of the back, on the left wrist and left armpit in the middle of back and Muhammad Sher received injuries on his left side of back, Muhammad Ashraf sustained injuries on the index finger and thumb of his right hand and on the right side of ear and right side of neck, Mubashar Rehman received on his right flank, right and left elbow of both arms; Khadam Hussain received injuries on his left arm, face and middle of left eye, right shoulder and right arm.
According to complainant he along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf remained present there by taking the shelter of walls and witnessed the whole occurrence. As per him, when Muhammad Ejaz etc got themselves satisfied that Muhammad Ashraf has been done away with they all managed their escape good from the spot by resorting to firing and brandishing their respective weapons and he along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf attended injured and found that Muhammad Ashraf, Tahir Mahmood and Muhammad Sher had succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas Mubashar Rehman, Khadam Hussain and Muhammad Sajid became seriously wounded.
Motive according to complainant was that they had previous enmity over the murders, therefore, all the accused persons murdered Tahir Mahmood, Muhammad Sher and Muhammad Ashraf and injured Mubarshar Rehman, Khadam Hussain and Muhammad Sajid. According to him, he by leaving Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf to guard the dead bodies had come to report the matter, therefore, proceedings be initiated.
3. Imtiaz Ahmad, SI (PW.-17) who was posted at police station Shah Pur City claimed to have recorded the statement of complainant Qadir Bakhsh and on his direction F.I.R. (Exh.PV) was registered which was duly signed by him. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted by Imtiaz Ahmad S.I (PW.17), who proceeded to place of occurrence along with other police officials where, according to him, dead bodies of Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Sher and Tahir Mahmood were present and injured were already sent to THQ Shahpur Sadar for medical treatment. He after examining the dead bodies prepared injury statement (Exh.PD/2) of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased), injury statement (Exh.PE/2) of Muhammad Sher and injury statement (Exh.PF/2) of Tahir Mehmood (deceased).
According to him, he also prepared inquest reports of deceased Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Sher and Tahir Mahmood as Exh.PF/2, Exh.PD/3 and Exh.PE/3, respectively. He then said to have handed over dead bodies of three deceased along with police papers to Masood Akhtar 1508/C. He also recorded statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. He secured three parcels of blood stained soil vide recovery memos Exh.PW, Exh.PW/1 and Exh.PW/2 relating to Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Sher and Tahir Mehmood, respectively. Vehicle No.LEA/1540 (P.22) was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PX attested by Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf. According to PW.17 he also took into possession 115 crime empties of Kalashnikov (P.23 to P.137) vide recovery memo Exh.PY, five alive bullets of Kalashnikov (P.138 to P.142) vide recovery memo Exh.PZ, nine crime empties of pistol 30-bore (P.163 to P.171) vide recovery memo Exh.PAA, fifteen crime empties of gun 12-bore (P.142 to P.157) vide memo Exh.PBB, five cartridges of 12-bore (P.158 to P.162) vide recovery memo Exh.PCC. According to Imtiaz Ahmad (PW.17), at 11:30 p.m. Masood 1508/C after postmortem of the dead bodies handed over to him last worn clothes of deceased Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Sher and Tahir Mahmood which he secured vide recovery memos Exh.PM, Exh.PN and Exh.PO, respectively. On 02.11.2015, he after getting permission of Medical Officer, DHQ recorded statements of the injured under section 161, Cr.P.C. According to PW.17, he arrested Niaz Abbas, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Aslam accused on 30.12.2015. He further stated that accused Niaz Abbas, after making disclosure, got recovered Kalashnikov (P.1) along with ten alive bullets (P.2/1-10) on 06.01.2016, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PG and Muhammad Asif accused got recovered gun 12-bore (P.3) along with five alive cartridges (P.1/1-5), secured vide recovery memo Exh.PH. According to him, on the same day, Muhammad Aslam also got recovered 12-bore double barrel gun (P.5) along with four alive cartridges (P.6/1-4) which he secured vide recovery memo Exh.PJ. On 12.01.2016 he prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the extent of accused Niaz Abbas, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Aslam alias Mehnga by mentioning their names in column No.3 of said report. On 16.02.2016 he claimed to have arrested eight accused persons including Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Iqbal, Habib, Rabnawaz, Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Usman and Fazal Abbas and after interrogation concluded that they were neither present at the place of occurrence nor made any firing, however, they abetted the occurrence and prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to their extent on 04.03.2016 by placing their names in column No.2. According to PW.17 accused Zahoor (already declared P.O) was arrested by Mushtaq S.I. on 18.10.2016, who during investigation after making disclosure got recovered gun 12-bore repeater (P.20) along with five alive cartridges (P.21/1-5) which he secured vide recovery memo Exh.PU. On 05.11.2016 he prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. by mentioning the name of accused Zahoor in column No.3. Appellants along with acquitted accused were indicted for the offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced.
4. At trial, eighteen PWs were got examined whereas Masood Akhtar 1508/C, Muhammad Altaf, Haji Abdul Rauf, Hassan Sher, Muhammad Iftikhar, Mumtaz 871/C and Zahid Abbas, 803/C were given up being unnecessary.
5. Ocular account in this case was furnished by Qadir Bakhsh (PW.12), Mubashar Rehman (PW.13), Khadam Hussain (PW.14) and Haq Nawaz (PW.15). Parvez Ahmad 1853/C (PW.5) was witness of recoveries got effected from accused Imran alias Mani and Arif alias Haji. Sadaqat Ali (PW.6) is witness of recovery got effected by accused Rab Nawaz.
6. Medical evidence in this case was furnished by Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) and Dr. Muhammad Yousaf Siddiqui (PW.18). on 31.10.2015 Dr. Shahid Akhtar medically examined Mubashar Rehman injured and noted the following injuries on his person:- i. A multiple firearm wound on top of head average size is about 0.5 x 0.5 cm. ii. A lacerated firearm wound of entry measuring 2.5 x 1 c.m. on upper part of right hip bone. Bone not exposed. No would of exit. iii. Lacerated firearm wound of entry 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. on back of right forearm. There is no wound of exit. No Burning.
According to PW.1, probable duration of injuries was about half hour and all the injuries were kept under observation for C.T. Scan, X-ray and ultra sound. He opined that there was no possibility of fabrication and all the above said injuries were by firearm weapon. Exh.PA is correct carbon copy of the Medico Legal Certificate and Exh.PA/1 is that of pictorial sketch.
On the same day at 06:00 p.m. he also medically examined Khadam Hussain and noted following injuries:- i. Incised wound measuring 1cm x 0.5 cm on front of head. ii. Crushed wounds due to firearm burst on lower left forearm. Both radius and ulna were severly crushed and fractured. There was slight burning on wound. iii. Incised wound measuring 1.5 x 1 cm near left eyebrow. iv. Swelling measuring 4cm x 3cm on upper part of right shoulder and lower arm.
In his opinion, injuries No.1 and 2 were declared as Shajjah Khafifa and injuries No.2 and 4 were kept under observation for x-rays of left forearm and right shoulder. Probable duration of injuries was about half hour. Exh.PB was carbon copy of Medico Legal Report and ExhPB/Z was pictorial diagram which bears his signature and seal.
Muhammad Sajid, injured was also medically examined by Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) on 31.10.2015 at 06:15 p.m. who noted following injuries: i. Firearm wound of entry 0.5 x 0.5 cm on upper part of right back. No burning tattooing. ii. Incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on right upper back.
Injuries were kept under observation for x-rays of chest. According to doctor, probable duration of injuries was about half hour and there was no possibility of fabrication. Exh.PC was carbon copy of Medico Legal Report and Exh.PC/1 was that of pictorial diagram.
Postmortem examination of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) was conducted by Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) on 31.10.2015 at 10.15 p.m who noted following injuries on his person: i. Lacerated wound 4cm x 3cm on index finger of right hand. It was also fractured. ii. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm on base of right thumb. Bone ix exposed. iii. Lacerated wound 4cm x 4cm on outer side of right hand. Bones were fractured. iv. Lacerated firearm wound measuring 6.3 cm x 1cm on right side of outer part of chest with burning and tattooing. Bleeding profusely and ribs were fractured. Right lung was severely damaged. No wound of exit. v. 4cm x 1cm lacerated wound on right side of outer part of chest. Ribs were fractures. vi. Lacerated firearm wound 1.5 x1.5cm on upper part of right side of chest with blackening and tattooing. vii. Lacerated firearm wound 10cm x 2cm on right side of neck and face with burning and tattooing present. viii. Lacerated wound 6cm x 4cm on right side of face including right ear+pinna was badly damaged. Facial bones and right mandible were fractured. ix. Lacerated wound 10cm x 6cm on back of left forearm. Radius and ulna were fractured. x. Lacerated wound of firearm measuring 0.5x0.5cm on upper part of left forearm with blackening and tattooing. xi. Lacerated firearm wound of entry measuring 0.5x0.5cm on front of left thigh but no wound of exit. A metallic foreign body was recovered from site of injury No.4.
In his opinion, injuries No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were cause of death due to excessive blood loss shock and cardiopulmonary arrest. These injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Probable duration between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 5 hours. Exh.PD was correct carbon copy of postmortem report and Exh.PD/1(1-2) was that of pictorial diagram.
Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sher and noted following injuries: i. A lacerated wound measuring 8cm x 2cm on right side of heard. 9cm from right ear. Skull bones were fractured and on dissection meanings of brain and brain matter was badly damaged.
Metallic foreign body was recovered from skull. ii. Lacerated firearm wound of entry measuring 0.5cm x 0.5 cm on lower part of right shoulder with burning and tattooing. iii. Lacerated wound of exit measuring 1cm x 1cm on upper part of right shoulder. iv. Lacerated wound measuring 3cm x 1cm on ring finger of left hand. Fracture of ring finger of left hand. v. Lacerated wound measuring 2cm x 1cm on right back bleeding profusely. vi. Lacerated wound measuring 4cm x 2cm on right back. Bleeding profusely.
According to doctor injury No.1 was the main cause of death due to head injury damaged the membranes and brain matter. These injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life due to cardiopulmonary arrest and death. Probable duration between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 6 hours.
Exh.PE was correct carbon copy of postmortem report and Exh.PE/1(1-2) was that of pictorial diagram which bears his signature and seal.
According to Dr. Shahid Akhar (PW.1) he also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Tahir Abbas (deceased) on the same date at 11:45 p.m. and noted following injuries: i. Lacerated firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of chest near left nipple at level of heart with burning. ii. Lacerated firearm wound of exit measuring 5cm x 4cm near left side of neck. iii. Lacerated wound of entry measuring 0.5cm x 0.5cm in the middle of chest with burning. iv. Lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm in the inner side of left forearm. v. Lacerated wound of entry 0.5cm x 0.5cm on left shoulder with burning. vi. Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm in the middle of back bleeding profusely (exit wound of injury No.3). vii. Lacerated wound measuring 1cm x 1cm on right back (wound of entry). viii. Lacerated wound of exit 4cm x 2cm on left back. (exit wound of injury No.7). ix. Lacerated wound 6cm x 2cm on the back of neck. Cervical Vertebra is broken.
Opinion of Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) was as under: "In my opinion, injuries No.2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 are main cause of death. Injury No.3 was at heart level badly damaged heart. There was profession of blood from these injuries. This led to shock and cardiopulmonary arrest and death. These injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 7 hours.
Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 7 hours."
7. Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I. (PW.2) was witness of recovery got effected from the appellants.
Muhammad Khalid 344/MHC (PW.3) being Moharar received case property for safe custody in Maalkhana. Nasar Hayat (PW.4) identified the dead body of Tahir Abbas deceased. Muhammad Hafeez, Draftsman (PW.5) prepared scaled site plan Exh.PL and Exh.PL/1. Saji Ullah (PW.6) collected mobile data of 8 accused persons and handed over to Masood Akhtar 1508/C. Masood Akhtar (PW.7) escorted dead bodies of deceased persons to hospital. Arshad Hussain, A.S.I. (PW.9) deposited three sealed parcels of blood stained earth in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, intact. Nasar Hayat (PW.10) identified dead body of Muhammad Sher deceased.
Muhammad Razzaq, A.S.I. (PW.11) deposited in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency sealed parcel of repeater 12-bore along with five alive cartridges. Mushtaq Ahmad, S.I. (PW.16) arrested accused Zahoor on 18.10.2016. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
8. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor after tendering in evidence reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency regarding firearms (Exh.PHH) and (Exh.PJJ), closed prosecution evidence.
9. Statements of appellants and the accused who were acquitted were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C on 09.05.2019. All of them controverted and denied the allegations of facts so put to them from the evidence of PWs and mainly professed their innocence. The appellants did not opt to appear as their own witness under section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, some of them opted to produce defence evidence and learned defence counsel by producing copy of application by the complainant to DPO, Sargodha for recovery of two repeaters, bags, sixty cartridges and a license as Mark-A, copy of statement of Muhammad Ashraf s/o Haji Abdul Rehman as Mark-B, copy of complaint under section 324, 148, 149, Police Station Shahpur City as Mark-B/1, copy of report No.17 dated 24.08.2014 of Police Station Shahpur City as Mark-B/2, copy of F.I.R. dated 24.08.2014 u/s 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Shahpur City, mark-B/3, certified copy of F.I.R. dated 03.02.1973 under section 307, 34, P.P.C. Police Station Shahpur Sadar, Esh.DD, certified copy of F.I.R. No.62 dated 19.03.1973 u/s 307, 320, 34, P.P.C. , Police Station Shahpur Sadar as Exh.DE, certified copy of F.I.R.
No.130 dated 18.07.2005, under section 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Shahpur Sadar Exh.DF, certified copy of F.I.R. No111 dated 05.09.2004, under section 302, 324, 34, P.P.C., Police Station Shahpur City Exh.DG, certified copy of complaint titled Qadir Bakhsh v. Muhammad Ijaz and others under section 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Shahpur City as Exh.DH, certified copy of application under section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. for registration of case Exh.DI, certified copy of report of RESCUE 1122 with regard to the occurrence dated 31.10.2015 as Exh.DJ closed defence evidence vide his statement recorded on 13.05.2019. In answer to the question "Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you", all the appellants replied as under:- "I have been falsely implicated in this case and the PWs have deposed against me being close relative of one Allah bakhsh since dead, head of his party and main opponent and rival of Qadir Bakhsh complainant. Detailed answer had been given in response to question No.2."
10. On conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and gone through the record with their able assistance.
12. The tragic incident in which three persons lost their lives and three became seriously wounded as per prosecution case took place on 31.10.2015 at about 04:30 p.m. and F.I.R. was shown to be lodged at 05:00 p.m. on the same day on the statement of Qadir Bakhsh and after registration of case Imtiaz Ahmad S.I. (PW.17) said to have proceeded to the spot along with other officials and on his arrival he found three dead bodies lying at the spot whereas Mubashar Rehman, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Sajid injured were already sent to THQ Hospital Shahpur Saddar for medical treatment. Haq Nawaz (PW.15), however, during the course of his examination-in-chief stated that they took the injured from the car and then police reached at the place of occurrence and police took the injured to hospital on rickshaws. Qadir Bakhsh (PW.12), in his examination-in- chief stated that after the occurrence when accused persons managed their escape good from the spot, he along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf attended the injured and deceased.
According to him, Sajid Butt, Khadim Hussain and Mubashar Rehman when were attended by them, they were in serious injured condition and shifted to hospital for medical treatment. According to PW-12, he after leaving Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf with the dead bodies went to police station to report the matter. This PW, during the course of his cross-examination contradicted his own stance qua shifting of injured to hospital for treatment in the way that during the course of cross-examination, he deposed that police reached at the place of occurrence at about 5:00 P.M and when police reached at the place of occurrence, the injured were there in senses and crying and they were transported through a rickshaw to hospital in the company of police. If it was so, then non-recording of any statement of the witnesses including three injured persons at the spot would indeed be fatal to the prosecution story qua the presence of complainant and PWs at the spot. One of the injured witnesses namely Mubashar Rehman when appeared as PW-13, he in his examination-in-chief merely gave a vague statement qua the shifting of injured witnesses including himself to hospital for medical treatment; he did not state at all the mode, manner and the persons who shifted them to hospital. He, however, during the course of his cross-examination stated that having received injuries, he remained conscious, however, could not tell as to when police reached at the spot. According to him, they were immediately shifted to hospital on two rickshaws with the help of Haq Nawaz, Altaf and Qadir Bukhsh. This stance of injured PW-13 is totally different from deposition of complainant PW-12 that was brought on the record during the course of cross-examination. He further stated in his cross-examination that after reaching the hospital, police came there and met them and his statement was recorded on 02.11.2015 on the third day of occurrence in DHQ hospital, Sargodha. Statement of another injured witness Khadim Hussain who appeared as PW-14 is also discrepant and in conflict with the deposition of other witnesses qua their shifting to hospital. He during the course of his cross-examination made certain improvements and same were duly got confronted from his previous statement and the same will be dealt with in upcoming paragraphs. According to PW-14, all three injured witnesses were shifted to hospital after the occurrence. He too did not furnish the details qua mode and manner of their shifting from the spot to hospital. He during the course of cross-examination stated that after receipt of injuries, he was well oriented and conscious and they reached hospital at 5:30 P.M.
According to him, they were shifted to hospital on a rickshaw. He further deposed that just after his arrival at hospital, police reached at hospital and he was still conscious. Haq Nawaz PW-15, in his examination-in-chief stated that they took injured from the car and then police reached at the place of occurrence and police took the injured on the rickshaws. Either Investigating Officer was lying or injured witnesses of ocular account and PW-15 were concealing the real facts qua the shifting of injured persons to the hospital. Even evidence of ocular witnesses in this regard, as hinted earlier, was discrepant. We have further noticed that according to PW-12 it was he who along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf shifted the injured on the rickshaw and the clothes of Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf were stained with blood and they produced their clothes before the Investigating Officer, however, no such clothes ever were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer or produced before the Court at trial. Had such clothes been taken into possession and dispatched to laboratory for grouping with the blood stained clothes of the deceased, the same would have lent strongest corroboration to the evidence of Haq Nawaz PW-15 showing his presence at the spot. Said omission also struck at the roots of the case of prosecution.
Guidance in this regard has been sought from the dicta laid down in case reported as "Azhar Abbas and another v The State and others) (2019 MLD 1808 Lahore).
13. According to the Investigator Imtiaz Ahmad SI PW.17, a private vehicle was arranged and dead bodies of three deceased were handed over to Masood Akhtar 1508/C along with relevant papers for autopsy. According to him, he recorded the statements of witnesses of ocular account and also interrogated complainant. He further deposed that it was on 02.11.2015 when he recorded statements of injured PWs under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. after getting permission from Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Sargodha. According to Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1), Mubashar Rehman, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Sajid were medically examined at 05:45 p.m., 06:00 p.m. and 06:15 p.m.
Injury statements of all the three injured witnesses were shown to be prepared by the Investigating Officer at THQ Hospital Shahpur Saddar, however, Investigating Officer did not record the statements of injured witnesses. As per Dr. Shahid Akhtar (PW.1) two injuries i.e injuries No.1 and 3 on the person of Khadim Hussain injured were found to be incised wounds. Similarly injury No.2 on the person of Muhammad Sajid PW was also an incised wound. Muhammad Sajid injured PW was given up being won-over by the other side and Khadim Hussain (PW.14) in the whole of his examination-in-chief could not justify that how he received incised wounds on his person. He merely deposed that he was injured by fire shots made by Muhammad Asif hitting on his right arm and face. Statement of Khadim Hussain PW qua injuries present on his person could not be substantiated from the medical evidence as PW-1 noticed injuries No.1 & 3 and describe the same as incised wounds and only injury No.2 was shown to be caused by fire arm, whereas 4th injury present on the person of Khadim Hussain (PW.-14) was a swelling on the upper part of right shoulder and lower arm. During the course of his cross-examination this PW stated that they were shifted to hospital on a rickshaw. It is simply incomprehensible that when complainant was shown to be present on his car at the spot and witnessed the occurrence why the injured PWs were not immediately shifted to hospital on his car to provide them medical treatment in order to save their lives. This fact gives rise to strong presumption that neither complainant nor the witnesses Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Altaf were present at the spot at relevant time. According to Khadim Hussain (PW.14) when police reached at the hospital he was conscious but his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer at that time and his statement was recorded on 02.11.2015.
According to investigator Imtiaz Ahmad SI (PW.17), it was on 02.11.2015, when he moved an application to Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital Sargodha seeking permission to record statements of injured under section 161 Cr.P.C and after getting permission recorded their statements. No plausible justification, however, was furnished qua belated recording of statements of injured PWs despite the fact that they were conscious when their injury statements were prepared by the Investigating Officer at T.H.Q. Hospital Shahpur Saddar. The belated recording of the statements of injured PWs would reduce their value to nil and no explicit reliance can be placed on such statements particularly where no reason was forthcoming justifying recording of their statements belatedly. Reliance in this regard may safely be placed on case titled "Bashir Muhammad Khan vs. The State"(2022 SCMR 986).
14. Mubashar Rehman injured witness when appeared as PW.13 he besides giving narration of the witnesses of ocular account deposed that he received injuries on his right flank and arm in the result of indiscriminate firing made by all the accused persons. According to him he remained conscious after receiving firearm injuries. According to this PW, they were shifted to the hospital on two rickshaws with the help of Haq Nawaz, Muhammad Altaf and Qadir Bakhsh. Still at the cost of repetition the question that if Qadir Bakhsh was present at the spot on his car then why the injured persons were not shifted to the hospital for medical treatment on the said car remained unanswered throughout. This circumstance too creates doubt qua the presence of Qadir Bakhsh and two other PWs at the spot particularly where PW.12 Qadir Bakhsh during the course of his cross-examination stated in categorical terms that till the arrival of police the car used by him remained in his possession. Qadir Bakhsh who is complainant of this case during the course of his examination in chief stated that he along with Altaf and Haq Nawaz saved their lives by taking shelter of wall and witnessed the occurrence. He during the course of his examination in chief admitted it correct and enmity between the parties started in the year 1972 and he was head of his group whereas other party was headed by Allah Bakhsh father of accused Ejaz. According to him accused did not see him at the place of occurrence. It is simply unbelievable that the head of complainant party was present at the spot and also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and in the wake of previous enmity he would have been the main target being head of the group but he was spared by his opponents. Had complainant been present at the spot as claimed by him, he would have been the prime target of his opponents and there would have been no question of leaving him alive so that he may become a witness of ocular account against the persons belonging to his fast foe particularly when Haq Nawaz PW-15 in his cross-examination stated that when the firing started Qadir Bakhsh and accused were facing each other. We have further observed that presence of complainant along with witnesses has also been reflected in site plan very close to the deceased as well as complainant and very much within the firing range of as many as thirteen duly armed assailants belonging to the rival group. There is no explanation on the record as to why deceased and injured witnesses from the complainant's side alone were targeted by the accused when their main target i.e. complainant was also available at the place of occurrence. Such conduct of assailants and even complainant negates the prosecution story as set up in Exh:PV qua the presence of complainant at the spot. Guidance has been sought from the case Zahir Yousaf and another v. The State and another (2017 SCMR 2002).
15. There is yet another important aspect of the matter that needs to be considered at this juncture.
Haq Nawaz PW-15 during the course of his examination-in-chief only named out Ijaz Ahmad, Fazal Abbas, Muhammad Aslam and Amjad (since all acquitted) by ascribing them specific role of making fire shots hitting on the persons of deceased. He then deposed in a vague term by stating in his examination-in-chief that accused persons started indiscriminate firing. He in the whole of his examination in chief did not name out any of the accused except four accused persons as referred in the preceding lines. He simply omitted to name out any of the appellants. Evidence of this PW, therefore, can conveniently be put aside and in no way be made basis for the conviction of appellant. We, therefore, are of the considered view that evidence of ocular account is neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring to maintain the conviction of appellants on the capital charge.
So far as submission of learned counsel for the complainant that injured PWs namely Mubashar Rehman (PW.13) and Khadam Hussain (PW.14) had sustained injuries on their persons, therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as their presence cannot be doubted at the spot, is concerned, it may be observed that mere stamp of injuries on their persons does not make them truthful witnesses. It is, in fact the intrinsic worth of a witness which is evaluated by a court of law. It is by now a settled principle that injuries on the person of PWs may merely indicate qua their presence at the spot but same in no way can be counted as affirmative proof of their credibility and truth. Even in case "Amin Ali and another vs. The State" (2011 SCMR 323) it was observed by the apex Court that presence of injured witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident but the question was whether they were truthful witnesses or otherwise because merely the injuries on their person would not imprint them as truthful witnesses. In the instant case, two eye witnesses namely Mubashar Rehman (PW.13) and Khadam Hussain (PW.14) are the injured and injuries on their persons indicate that they may be present on the spot, however, this fact by itself, in view of the aforementioned circumstances, would hardly show that they were telling the true picture of the incident. As hinted earlier, injuries on the person of Khadim Hussain (PW.14) even are contradicted with the evidence of ocular account including his own evidence. It has been settled by the apex Court in case "Qaisar Mehmood and another vs. The State" (2021 SCMR 662) that direct evidence furnished even by the injured witnesses that apparently have no axe to grind, still can be dismissed if the same otherwise is found lacking the ring of truth. In the instant matter, we are of the considered view that evidence of even injured witness hardly rings true.
16. It may further be noticed that Khadim Hussain (PW.14), during his examination-in-chief made certain improvements which can very conveniently be considered as dishonest improvements causing serious aspersions on the veracity of deposition made by this injured PW. He during the course of his examination-in-chief stated that from Ahmad Da Lok they were coming to their village; that firing continued for 6/7 minutes; that after the occurrence Niaz Abbas checked them and after being satisfied he took away their two guns; that people of the locality gathered there; that they were shifted to hospital. All these assertions were duly confronted to this PW during the course of cross-examination. Stance qua taking away guns belonging to complainant side by the assailants was even not supported by evidence of recovery from any of the appellants. Similarly, PW-15 Haq Nawaz, in his examination-in-chief narrated certain facts which were not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C and he was duly got confronted from his previous statement made before the police under section 161 of Cr.PC during the course of cross- examination. According to PW-15, on the fateful day he along with Muhammad Ashraf, Khadim Hussain, Mubashar, Tahir, Muhammad Sher, Qadir Bakhsh and Altaf had gone to Ahmad Da Lok for Faateha Khawni; that on return when they reached Roda Tibba, Sajid injured PW was standing on the road and stopped the car of Ashraf and boarded the same; Sajid was driving the car; that when they reached at a distance to 2/3 feet from Ichar Adda, the accused persons waylaid them; that accused persons already arranged Tharra on the road; that Amjad fired with repeater which hit at the right arm and near eye of Khadim Hussain; that after making satisfaction accused persons while brandishing their weapons go to their home; that Qadir Bakhsh, Altaf and he were at a short distance and rushed at the place of occurrence, came near the car, opened the doors of car; that they took injured from the car and police reached at the place of occurrence; that injured Mubashar, Sajid and Khadim were taken to hospital for treatment by Rauf and Masood and that police took dead bodies in their possession. All these depositions were also got confronted with Exh:DC wherein same were not recorded. These improvements indeed were dishonest improvements reacting against the truthfulness of the witnesses of ocular account. It is by now settled principle of law that if improvements are found to be deliberate and dishonest, same would cast doubt on the veracity of the testimony of such witness of ocular account and no reliance can be placed on such testimony for conviction on a charge entailing death penalty for the simple reason that when a witness makes dishonest improvements while deposing before the court, he simply exposes himself to his own dishonesty that ipso facto is sufficient to discard his evidence by counting him a dishonest person. Reliance in this regard may safely be placed on "Fida Hussain and another v. The State and another" (2021 P Cr. L J 174).
17. We have also noticed that Fazal Abbas, Amjad Iqbal and Muhammad Aslam were assigned a specific role in Exh:PV and all the witnesses of ocular account have deposed accordingly at trial, however, all the said accused persons were acquitted by learned trial court and their acquittal has not been assailed by filing any appeal. So the findings of learned trial court qua disbelieving the witnesses of ocular account to the extent of above said co-accused had attained finality. Even otherwise, we are tempted to observe that witnesses of ocular account have given very minute details of the occurrence which can hardly be given by a human particularly when they were under sudden murderous assault by their opponents. Injured PWs in the instant case have also opted to give the minute details qua the occurrence by specifically assigning firearm injuries to Muhammad Ejaz, Fazal Abbas, Muhammad Aslam, Amjad and Muhammad Asif of whom Fazal Abbas, Amjad and Muhammad Aslam were acquitted. Photographic narration of the occurrence by assigning specific roles to each accused including appellants, in such precise terms and with accuracy, was highly improbable rather beyond the feat of human intellect, particularly in a situation as portrayed by complainant himself qua the occurrence. When whole of the prosecution evidence is seen and assessed in the above backdrop, possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant might have thrown the noose wide enough to implicate as many as thirteen persons of his opponents. In such situation, principle of safe administration of criminal justice requires extending of benefit of doubt to the appellants particularly where majority of co-accused persons was acquitted on the same set of witnesses who did not come up with the whole truth, as such their evidence could not be used for convicting some of the accused keeping in view the principle as enshrined in maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' and most importantly in a case where truth was mixed very heavily with something which was untrue and the prosecution witnesses did not disclose true and real facts. In these circumstances, it would become almost impossible to separate the truth from the heap of falsehood, leaving the Court with no other option but to acquit the remaining accused persons by extending them benefit of doubt. Reliance in this regard may safely be placed on case "Rajmeer Khan and another vs. Noor-ul-Haq and others" (2019 SCMR 1949). It may not be out of context to observe here that as per saying of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), the mistake in releasing a criminal is better than punishing an innocent person. Same principle was also followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Ayub Masih v. The State" (PLD 2002 SC 1048), wherein apex Court was pleased to observe that prosecution was obligated to prove its case against accused and if prosecution fails then accused was entitled to get benefit of doubt as a right and Apex Court quoted the saying of Holy Prophet that 'mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing in innocent', and making reference to the maxim of relating jurisprudence, that 'it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted'.
18. So far as recovery of firearm and positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency is concerned same is simply inconsequential in view of the fact that crime empties were shown to be recovered from the spot on 31.10.2015, however, the same were shown to be dispatched to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency on 18.01.2016 after the arrest of appellants namely Niaz Abbas, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Aslam on 30.12.2015. Positive report, if any, qua these three appellants, therefore, was of no avail to prosecution. Reliance in this respect may safely be placed on case Muhammad Amin v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 2057). Even otherwise, evidence of recovery is always considered as a supportive and corroborative evidence and where evidence of ocular account has been disbelieved even positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency would lend no support to the prosecution case as no one can be convicted merely on the basis of positive report qua matching of fire arms with the crime empties.
19. As regards motive, admittedly it is always considered a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. It can be used by the accused to take revenge and at the same time can be a tool used by the complainant for false charge as well. Although it was not necessary for prosecution to set up motive, yet once it is alleged, it becomes the duty of the prosecution to prove the same and in case of failure to prove the same that will adversely affect case of the prosecution. It may further be observed that when evidence of ocular account has been disbelieved, no reliance even can be placed on the evidence of motive, even if proved for the simple reason that proving of motive alone is not sufficient to provide a justifiable basis for the conviction of an accused on a capital charge.
20. We now advert to the very crucial aspect of the matter which vividly demonstrates irresponsible, inefficient and casual behavior of the Investigator of this case that also contributed in spoiling of the whole prosecution case. There is no denial to a settled principle of law that the sole purpose of the First Information Report is to put the machinery of criminal law into motion without any loss of time and it is equally an accepted principle of law that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence unless it is used as dying declaration. FIR is a document that discloses facts qua the occurrence as initially known to the informant and it lays foundation of the case so as to provide clue for investigation by the police. It does not require to contain all minute details about the occurrence as same is not an exhaustive document so as to contain each and every minor details of an incident. There is hardly any need to furnish a photographic version in the FIR with a computer like exactitude for the simple reason that same cannot be expected to be given by a human. Main purpose of the contents of FIR is that investigation be commenced by the police after incorporating the said report in the relevant register if same discloses commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. After registration of an FIR it is the bounden duty of Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter. The true import and object of the investigation is to discover the actual facts of the case and to round up the real offenders and bring them to justice in accordance with law. The powers and duties of the investigator indeed are exercised as a trust by the State and investigator who has vast powers so as to unearth the truth of the matter is required to perform his duties honestly, vigilantly and impartially by collecting evidence and to arrest the real culprits. There is also no cavil with the proposition that fair, impartial and transparent investigation is mandatory even in view of the concept of fair trial as guaranteed by the provisions of Article 10(A) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Guidance in this regard may be sought from the case of "Bank of Punjab and another v. Haris Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" (PLD 2010 SC 1109) wherein it was observed as under:- "30. ............Needless to say that it is evidence and evidence alone which could lead a court of law to a just and fair conclusion about the guilt or innocence of an accused person. It is, therefore, only an honest investigation which could guarantee a fair trial and conceiving a fair trial in the absence of an impartial and a just investigation would be a mere illusion and a mirage. It is, hence, only a fair investigation which could assure a fair trial and thus any act which ensures a clean investigation which is above board, is an act in aid of securing the said guaranteed right and not in derogation thereof..."
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation is required to collect all relevant evidence irrespective of the fact that any evidence favours either prosecution or accused. He in all circumstances is under statutory duty to collect the evidence honestly and fairly so as to bring the truth on the record so that court after recording evidence may reach at a just and fair conclusion.
In case investigation is not conducted honestly and fairly, it would indeed militate against the concept of fair trial as guaranteed by Article 10(A) of the Constitution. It may not be out of context to refer here rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as Police Rules) that deals with the powers and privileges of police officer carrying out investigation and same is reproduced hereunder for the facility of ready reference:- "25.2 Power of investigating officer.--- (1) The powers and privileges of an police officer making an investigation are detailed in section 160 to 175, Criminal Procedure Code. ------
(2) --------
(3) It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders.
He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person."
Duties of the police qua investigation have further been defined in section 4 of the Police Order, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Police Order) and according to same subject to law it shall be the duty of every police officer to detect and bring offenders to justice besides apprehending all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist. Whereas in the instant case investigator Imtiaz Ahmad, S.I. while appearing as PW.17 during the course of his cross examination admitted it correct that as per his investigation Sharafat Hussain Faqir, Junaid alias Joni and Muhammad Younas were accused of the incident but the complainant and PWs were not ready to depose against them or to make statements against them. Justification so put forth by the investigator qua non-arrest of these three persons reflects incompetency of the investigator. He according to the provisions of Police Order and Police Rules in no way was bound by the statements of complainant and PWs and if he during the course of investigation came to the conclusion that real culprits were some other persons, he was fully competent to round them up, collect evidence and bring them to justice. The investigator in the instant case instead of rounding up the real culprits responsible for taking three precious lives proceeded to submit report under section 173 of Cr.PC merely on the wishes of the complainant and finally eight of the accused persons earned acquittal from the learned trial court and four are going to be acquitted by this Court. The investigator during the course of his examination in chief deposed that according to his findings accused Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Iqbal, Habib, Rab Nawaz, Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Usman and Fazal Abbas were neither present at the place of occurrence nor they made any firing. According to him they abetted the occurrence and facilitated the main accused in commission of alleged occurrence and according to him he submitted report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. by placing the names of above referred accused persons in column No.3 of the challan. He during the course of cross examination, however, admitted it correct that no evidence with regard to date, time and place qua abetment of the above hinted accused was either produced before him or he could collect the same during the course of investigation. On one hand the investigator failed to collect some tangible evidence against Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Iqbal, Habib, Rab Nawaz, Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Usman and Fazal Abbas qua their involvement only to the extent of abetment and on the other, failed to apprehend the culprits namely Sharafat Hussain, Faqir, Junaid alias Joni and Muhammad Younas who according to him were the accused of the occurrence. It was the duty of investigator to have discovered the actual facts, collected the evidence and even arrested the real culprits but investigator in the instant case seems to have failed to discharge his duties as required under the provisions of Police Rules and Police Order. It may not be out of context to further mention here that Investigating Officer is not a formal witness.
He is very important witness not only for the prosecution but also for the defence. Similarly, being a neutral authority the duty of investigator is to uncover the real truth of the matter. In the instant case, deposition so made by the investigator indeed was fatal to prosecution case but still he was not declared hostile and was not cross examined to assess the truthfulness of his deposition that was made before Court when he was under oath.
21. So far as submission of learned counsel for the complainant that instant was a heinous crime in the result of which three persons lost their lives and three others were injured is concerned it may be observed that mere heinousness of the crime cannot detract the court of law in any manner from the due course to judge and make the appraisal of evidence as per accepted principles of appreciation of evidence so propounded by the Superior Courts. Heinousness of crime alone in absence of confidence inspiring evidence to prove the charge against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, would hardly be sufficient for making the same a lawful basis for conviction of accused if charge has not been proved through the produced evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Guidance has been sought from case law titled "Najaf Ali Shah vs. The State"
22. Prosecution case, in view of above discussion, is replete with many doubts, benefit of the same would be extended to the appellants not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. In case of Abdul Jabbar v The State (2019 SCMR 129), august Supreme Court held as under: " It is the settled principle of law that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution much less glaring conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or for that matter where presence of eye-witnesses is not free from doubt, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused. . . . ."
23. The upshot of above discussion is that prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case against appellants. Findings of conviction recorded against appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha in the impugned judgment are not sustainable, which are hereby set aside allowing Criminal Appeals No.36092 of 2019. Consequently, appellants Niaz Abbas alias Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aslam alias Mehnga and Muhammad Zahoor are acquitted of the charge extending benefit of doubt to them. Appellants are in jail. They are ordered to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
24. Murder Reference No.150 of 2019 is answered in NEGATIVE and the Death Sentence awarded to appellants Niaz Abbas alias Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aslam alias Mehnga and Muhammad Zahoor is not confirmed.
25. Before parting with the judgment, we are constrained to observe with a level of concern that standard of investigation in the instant case was on its lowest ebb. The purpose of promulgating Police Order was to reconstruct and regulate the police but same has yet to see the day of light.
Matter qua defective, faulty and dishonest investigation is required to be dealt with vigorously as per the provisions of relevant law. We are, therefore, constraint to direct Inspector General of Police, Punjab to pass necessary direction to the Investigators to adhere to the relevant provisions of law as contained in Police Order and Police Rules in respect of conducting investigation and in case of any dereliction from the same to initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law so as to made them an example for others in the police force in order to ensure non-recurrence of any lapse while conducting investigation. Inspector General of Police, Punjab is further directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the delinquent investigator of the instant case, in accordance with law. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are also constrained to direct Regional Police Officer, Sargodha to depute an upright, competent and honest officer not below the rank of DSP so as to reach the bottom of the truth and to book the real culprits responsible for the murder of three persons so that the confidence of public may not be shaken and justice delivery apparatus is strengthened and submit fresh report under section 173 of Cr.PC, if sufficient evidence is collected during the course of investigation in accordance with law against Sharafat Hussain, Faqir, Junaid alias Joni and Muhammad Younas who according to I.O were the real perpetrators of the crime, under the supervision of District Police Officer, Sargodha.
Office is directed to transmit copy of this judgment to Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and Regional Police Officer, Sargodha, for compliance and necessary action.
26. We also acknowledge the valuable contribution made by Mr. Muhammad Waqas Sana, Civil Judge/Research Associate at Lahore High Court Research Centre.