03/01/2026
⚖️ 2025 P Cr. LJ 1698
اس فیصلے میں عدالتِ عالیہ لاہور نے ایک کم عمر بچے کے اغوا، بدفعلی اور قتل کے جرم میں ملزم کی سزائے موت کو عمر قید میں تبدیل کر دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ استغاثہ نے واقعاتی شہادت، خاص طور پر "آخری بار ساتھ دیکھنے" (Last Seen Evidence)، اعترافی بیانات اور طبی شواہد کے ذریعے مقدمہ ثابت کر دیا، البتہ محرک (Motive) ثابت نہ ہونے کے باعث سزائے موت برقرار نہیں رکھی جا سکتی۔
عدالت: لاہور ہائی کورٹ
بینچ: چیف جسٹس عالیہ نیلم، جسٹس ابھر گل خان
ملزم: محمد ندیم اسلم
مقدمہ: کرمنل اپیل نمبر 8752 آف 2022 بمقابلہ مرڈر ریفرنس نمبر 26 آف 2022
فیصلہ: 10 جون 2025
---
📜 الزامات (Charges)
قانون دفعات نوعیتِ جرم
تعزیراتِ پاکستان (PPC) Ss. 302(b), 363, 377, 201 اغوا، بدفعلی، قتلِ عمد، اور شواہد چھپانے کا جرم
---
📘 مقدمہ کے حقائق (Facts)
8 مئی 2017 کو شکایت کنندہ کا نابالغ بیٹا لاپتہ ہوا۔
گواہوں (متوفی کے بھائی اور کزن) نے گواہی دی کہ انہوں نے ملزم کو مقتول بچے کے ساتھ مین بازار کی جانب جاتے دیکھا۔
اگلے روز (9 مئی) پولیس نے ملزم کو گرفتار کیا، جس نے پولیس کی موجودگی میں اعترافی انکشافات کیے اور بتایا کہ:
اس نے بچے سے بدفعلی کی؛
پھر بجلی کے جھٹکوں سے قتل کیا؛
اور لاش تھیلے میں ڈال کر جھاڑیوں میں پھینک دی۔
ملزم کی نشاندہی پر لاش برآمد ہوئی، جس سے مقدمہ کا رخ واضح ہو گیا۔
میڈیکل افسر نے بدفعلی کے نشانات اور قتل کو “ہومیسائیڈل” (قتل عمد) قرار دیا۔
---
⚖️ عدالتی مشاہدات و وجوہات (Findings of the Court)
(a) “Last Seen Evidence” کا اعتبار (Reliability of Last Seen Evidence)
مقتول کو آخری بار ملزم کے ساتھ جاتے دیکھا گیا۔
وقت (12:00 دوپہر) دونوں گواہوں اور مدعی کے بیانات سے مطابق پایا گیا۔
گواہوں کے بیانات میں معمولی تضادات کو عدالت نے "قدرتی" قرار دیا کیونکہ بیانات 3 سال بعد قلمبند ہوئے۔
عدالت نے کہا:
> "وقوعہ کے قریب وقت اور فاصلے کی بنیاد پر ‘آخری بار ساتھ دیکھنے’ کی شہادت مضبوط اور قابلِ بھروسہ ہے۔"
(حوالہ: Rehmat alias Badshah v. The State, PLD 1977 SC 515)
---
(b) ملزم کے اعترافی انکشافات (Disclosure Before Police)
ملزم نے پولیس حراست میں انکشاف کیا اور لاش کی نشاندہی کی۔
اس کا بیان:
بدفعلی کے ارتکاب؛
بجلی کے جھٹکوں سے موت؛
اور لاش چھپانے سے متعلق تھا۔
ان انکشافات کے نتیجے میں نئے حقائق برآمد ہوئے جن کی تصدیق طبی شواہد نے بھی کی۔
عدالت نے آرٹیکل 40 قانون شہادت کے تحت قرار دیا:
> “اگر پولیس حراست میں ملزم کے بیان سے کوئی نیا قابلِ تصدیق حقائق سامنے آئیں،
تو وہ شہادت قابلِ قبول ہوتی ہے۔”
---
(c) طبی شواہد (Medical Evidence)
پوسٹ مارٹم: 9 مئی 2017، شام 7 بجے۔
نتائج:
مقعد کے دو تازہ زخم (3 بجے اور 11 بجے پوزیشن پر)؛
خون کے دھبے (بدفعلی کے نتیجے میں)؛
موت قتل عمد (Homicidal Death) قرار پائی؛
وفات کا وقت: 24 سے 36 گھنٹے قبل۔
یہ تمام شواہد گواہوں کے بیانات اور وقوعہ کے وقت سے مطابقت رکھتے تھے۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
---
(d) ڈی این اے رپورٹ (DNA Report)
دفاع نے کہا کہ DNA رپورٹ “منفی” ہے۔
عدالت نے کہا:
> “رپورٹ دراصل ‘Compromised’ تھی؛
یعنی لیبارٹری نے ٹیسٹ کیا ہی نہیں۔”
یہ واضح کیا گیا کہ DNA نہ کرنے سے ملزم بری نہیں ہو جاتا کیونکہ:
ڈی این اے کی عدم انجام دہی شکایت کنندہ یا پراسیکیوشن کی غلطی نہیں؛
بلکہ ایجنسی کی غفلت ہے۔
لہٰذا DNA کی غیر موجودگی کا فائدہ ملزم کو نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔
---
(e) محرک (Motive) ثابت نہ ہونا
استغاثہ کے مطابق: چند دن قبل بچوں کے تنازع پر ملزم اور مدعی میں جھگڑا ہوا۔
مگر:
جھگڑے کے گواہ پیش نہیں کیے گئے؛
تفتیشی افسر نے خود اقرار کیا کہ اس نے بچوں کے نام بھی درج نہیں کیے۔
عدالت نے کہا:
> “محرک ثابت نہ ہونا ایک ہلکا کرنے والا (Extenuating) عنصر ہے؛
لہٰذا سزائے موت کو عمر قید میں تبدیل کیا جاتا ہے۔”
(حوالہ: Hasil Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 1936)
---
🧾 فیصلہ (Held / Decision)
قتل، اغوا، بدفعلی اور شواہد چھپانے کے جرم ثابت۔
استغاثہ نے کیس شک کے بغیر ثابت کیا۔
تاہم محرک ثابت نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے:
سزائے موت → عمر قید میں تبدیل۔
اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
مرڈر ریفرنس جواباً نامنظور۔
---
📚 حوالہ جات (Key Citations)
نظیر حوالہ
Nazir Shehzad v. The State 2009 SCMR 1440
Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704
Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State 2013 SCMR 1602
Hasil Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 1936
Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97
---
⚖️ خلاصہ (Conclusion in Urdu)
> عدالتِ عالیہ لاہور نے کہا:
“گواہوں کی ‘آخری بار ساتھ دیکھنے’ کی شہادت قابلِ اعتماد ہے۔”
“ملزم کے انکشافات سے مقتول کی لاش برآمد ہوئی، جو جرم کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔”
“میڈیکل شواہد بدفعلی اور قتل کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔”
“ڈی این اے کی عدم انجام دہی ملزم کو فائدہ نہیں دے سکتی۔”
“تاہم محرک ثابت نہ ہونے پر سزائے موت کو عمر قید میں بدلا جاتا ہے۔”
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2025 P Cr. LJ 1698
[Lahore]
Before Aalia Neelum C.J and Abher Gul Khan, J
MUHAMMAD NADEEM ASLAM---Appellant
versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 8752 and Murder Reference No. 26 of 2022, decided on 10th June, 2025.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 363, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, so**my, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence confidence inspiring---Accused was charged for kidnapping and murdering the minor son of complainant after committing so**my with him---In the instant case, elder brother and cousin of deceased while appearing before the Trial Court deposed that on 08.05.2017 at about 12:00 noon they while being present at Main Bazar in connection with some work had seen that appellant along with deceased going towards the Main Bazar and after sometime, complainant met them who informed him that they had seen deceased in the company of the appellant who were going towards Main Bazar and ultimately a criminal case was registered against the appellant---While appearing before the Trial Court, both the said witnesses took a unanimous stance that they had seen the deceased alive in the company of the appellant on 08.05.2017 at 12:00 Noon, thus the time of seeing the appellant by both those witnesses very much coincided with the statement of complainant whereby the time of missing his son was mentioned as 12:00 Noon---Both the said witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing favourable to the appellant could be extracted---Though the defence during cross-examination of the said witnesses became able to bring on record certain omissions but the same in the peculiar circumstances of the case were nothing but natural---Moreover, it was observed that the case in hand pertained to year 2017, the examination-in-chief of both the witnesses was recorded by the Trial Court on 02.09.2019, whereas the cross-examination was conducted on 30.06.2021---With the passage of time a normal person could not retain the memory regarding an event like a machine---If a person was asked to give detail regarding an event having taken place 3/4 years before and asked probing questions the occurring of omissions pointed out by the defence during the cross-examination of said witnesses would be natural---In these circumstances, the evidence of both the witnesses of last seen was confidence inspiring and could be based for upholding the appellant's conviction---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the case, therefore death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---With the modification in the sentence, appeal was dismissed.
(b) Criminal trial---
----Last seen evidence---Scope---Evidence of last seen is required to be appraised on the strict criteria of proximity of time and the distance---Evidence of last seen qualified for acceptance if it fit into the criteria of proximity of time and distance, according to which the time and distance between the event of last seen and death of deceased must not be too long---Lesser the duration and distance between the event of last seen and homicidal death of the victim, stronger is such evidence.
Rehmat alias Rhaman alias Waryam alias Badshah v. The State PLD 1977 SC 515 rel.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 363, 377 & 201---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, so**my, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Disclosure of accused before police---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for kidnapping and murdering the minor son of complainant after committing so**my with him---Record showed that appellant was arrested on 09.05.2017 by Investigating Officer, who summoned complainant and other witnesses in the Police Station where the appellant made disclosures about commission of so**my with deceased, commission of murder of the deceased through giving him electric shock and pointing out the place where he threw the dead body of deceased---Admittedly said facts were not known to complainant and other witnesses prior to the arrest of the appellant which had changed the dynamics of the case---Pursuant to the said disclosures the appellant got recovered the dead body of deceased---Regarding the recovery of dead body, Investigating Officer prepared the memo. of place of recovery, the perusal of which unfolded that he got recovered a sack from the bushes, out of which the dead body of deceased was recovered---Investigating Officer also prepared the memo. of identification attested by witnesses---As far as the disclosure of the appellant that he committed so**my before murdering deceased through giving him the electric shocks was concerned, the medical evidence furnished by Medical Officer was very much relevant in that regard---According to medical evidence, blood clots were present on a**l ca**l, two a**l tears were found in 03 O'clock and 11 O'clock position and were fresh having blood surface---In this view of the matter, there was no ambiguity that deceased was sodomized before he was done to death---Other disclosure of appellant was regarding the manner by which victim was done to death---Though Medical Officer did not comment upon the cause of death, however it was due to mild to moderate stage of putrefaction and the manner of disposal of dead body described by the doctor was homicidal in nature---Even otherwise, the recovery of extension lead and wire at the disclosure of the appellant proved his culpability as far as it related to death of deceased through electric shocks---Though the disclosures were made by the appellant in police custody even then discovery of any fact on the information of accused in custody of police was admissible in the eye of law and under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, thus due weight would be given keeping in view the new facts brought on record---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the case, therefore death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---With the modification in the sentence, appeal was dismissed.
Nazir Shehzad and others v. State 2009 SCMR 1440; Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704; Pervaiz Masih v. The State, 2005 PCr.LJ 1232; Fazal Akbar and another v. The State through A.A.G and another 2013 PCr.LJ 369 and Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1212 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 363, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, so**my, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for kidnapping and murdering the minor son of complainant after committing so**my with him---Medical Officer conducted the autopsy of deceased on 09.05.2017 at about 7:00 p.m. and described the cause of death as homicidal---Medical Officer while appearing before the Trial Court also confirmed that he found a**l tears owing to the so**my committed by the appellant---Medical Officer also gave the duration between death and postmortem as 24 to 36 hours---Time when the child went missing given by complainant was 12:00 noon on 08.05.2017 and the victim was also last seen by witnesses at about 12:00 noon on the eventful day---Thus, the medical evidence provided corroboration to the prosecution case as far as it related to the time of missing son of the complainant as well as the duration within which he was done to death after sodomizing---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the case, therefore death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---With the modification in the sentence, appeal was dismissed.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 363, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, so**my, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---DNA a**lysis not performed---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for kidnapping and murdering the minor son of complainant after committing so**my with him---Accused alleged that since the report of DNA was negative, hence on that sole score alone he deserved clean acquittal---Validity---Said contentions raised by accused had no force because Forensic Science Agency had issued a compromised report wherein it was crystal clear that "no a**lysis was conducted on items #1 and 2"---In that case item No.l was the reference swabs from victim/deceased, whereas item No.2 was the reference swabs from accused/appellant---No explanation whatsoever was given by the Analyst of Forensic Science Agency that as to why the required test was not conducted when sufficient samples were with him and apparently the undue benefit seemed to have been extended to the appellant through the said report---No doubt DNA was a powerful investigative tool because with the exception of identical twins, no two people have the same DNA, therefore, DNA evidence collected could be linked to a suspect or could eliminate a suspect from suspicion----Nevertheless, Forensic Science Agency Report could not be considered as negative report because by not performing DNA a**lysis it did not eliminate the suspect from suspicion---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the case, therefore death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---With the modification in the sentence, appeal was dismissed.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 363, 377 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, so**my, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for kidnapping and murdering the minor son of complainant after committing so**my with him---Record showed that a specific motive was set out in FIR, according to which appellant and complainant were neighbourers and about 8/10 days prior to the incident an altercation over the issue of children took place inter se the parties for which the appellant had nourished grudge and abducted the complainant's son---Though complainant while appearing before the Trial Court deposed regarding the motive part of the occurrence, however no witness of the quarrel incident over the issue of the children was éither produced at investigative phase or at trial stage---Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that he did not mention any of the children between whom the altercation took place---Thus, the prosecution failed to prove its motive part of the incident---Moreover, failure to prove motive itself warranted the Court to have resort to the alternate sentence of imprisonment for life---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the case, therefore death sentence was converted into life imprisonment---With the modification in the sentence, appeal was dismissed.
1602 rel. Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State and another 2013 SCMR
(g) Criminal trial---
----Motive not proved---Scope---Failure to prove motive is an acknowledged extenuating circumstance.
Hasil Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 1936 and Noor Muhammad v. The State and another 2010 SCMR 97 rel.
