26/04/2026
⚖️ 2026 P Cr. LJ 335 (سندھ)
تاج محمد بنام سرکار (دی اسٹیٹ)
🏛️ کیس کا عنوان
مقدمہ نمبر: کرمنل اپیل نمبر 105 آف 2012
عدالت: ہائی کورٹ آف سندھ
جج: جناب جسٹس عمر سیال
تاریخِ فیصلہ: 26 اکتوبر، 2022
📚 متعلقہ قوانین اور قانونی نکات (Key Legal Points)
نقشہ موقع (Site Plan) کی حیثیت:
📍 عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ نقشہ موقع بذاتِ خود کوئی "ٹھوس شہادت" (Substantive Evidence) نہیں ہے۔ اسے چشم دید گواہان کے بیانات (Ocular Account) کو جھٹلانے کے لیے استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
ایف آئی آر میں تاخیر (Delay in FIR):
⏱️ اگر ایف آئی آر کے اندراج میں تاخیر کی معقول اور منطقی وجہ بیان کر دی جائے، تو اسے استغاثہ کے خلاف استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس کیس میں 15 گھنٹے کی تاخیر کو مدعی کے زخمی ہونے اور ہسپتال میں علاج کی بنیاد پر درست تسلیم کیا گیا۔
گواہ کو پیش نہ کرنا (Withholding a Witness):
👤 عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ شہادتوں کی "کوالٹی" اہم ہے، "کوانٹٹی" (تعداد) نہیں۔ اگر تین چشم دید گواہان واضح بیان دے دیں، تو کسی ایک گواہ (مثلاً مدعی کے بیٹے) کو پیش نہ کرنے سے کیس پر منفی اثر نہیں پڑتا۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
📝 کیس کا پس منظر (Case Background)
وقوعہ: ملزم تاج محمد پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے اپنے ساتھی کے ساتھ مل کر مدعی کے بھتیجے کو قتل کیا اور مدعی کو فائرنگ کر کے زخمی کیا۔
تاریخ و وقت: وقوعہ 9 مئی 2008 کو صبح 7:45 بجے ہوا۔
رپورٹ: ایف آئی آر اسی دن رات 11:15 بجے درج ہوئی (تقریباً 15 گھنٹے بعد)۔
🔍 عدالت کے مشاہدات اور شواہد (Court's Observations)
عدالت نے استغاثہ کے حق میں درج ذیل نکات پر غور کیا:
طبی شہادت: میڈیکل افسر نے تصدیق کی کہ موت اور پوسٹ مارٹم کے درمیان 2 گھنٹے کا وقفہ تھا، جو وقوعہ کے وقت سے مطابقت رکھتا ہے۔
ریکوری (Recovery): ملزم کے گھر سے وہ بندوق برآمد ہوئی جو وقوعہ میں استعمال ہوئی۔ فارنسک لیبارٹری کی رپورٹ کے مطابق جائے وقوعہ سے ملنے والے خ*ل (Empties) اسی بندوق سے فائر کیے گئے تھے۔
فوری کارروائی: پولیس وقوعہ کے 45 منٹ کے اندر پہنچ گئی تھی اور زمین سے خون آلود مٹی اور خ*ل قبضے میں لے لیے تھے، جس سے ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ کہانی گھڑی نہیں گئی۔
⚖️ سزا میں کمی اور حتمی حکم (Final Verdict)
عدالت نے جرم ثابت ہونے کے باوجود ملزم کی سزا میں کمی کی، جس کی وجوہات درج ذیل تھیں:
اچانک اشتعال: ٹرائل جج کے مطابق واقعہ پہلے سے طے شدہ نہیں تھا بلکہ اچانک پیش آیا (Without Pre-meditation)۔
ملزم کی عمر: ملزم کی عمر 76 سال تھی اور وہ ممکنہ طور پر کینسر کے مرض میں مبتلا تھا۔
کارروائی کا دورانیہ: ملزم 2008 سے (تقریباً 15 سال) مقدمے کی سختی جھیل رہا تھا۔
حتمی فیصلہ: عدالت نے ملزم کی عمر قید کو 10 سال قید میں تبدیل کر دیا۔ چونکہ ملزم پہلے ہی 10 سال سے زیادہ جیل کاٹ چکا تھا، اس لیے اس کی اپیل سزا میں اس ترمیم کے ساتھ نمٹا دی گئی۔
📖 عدالتی اصول (Key Principle)
"عدالتوں کو صرف گواہوں کی تعداد نہیں دیکھنی چاہیے، بلکہ ان کے بیان کی سچائی اور شواہد کے تسلسل کو دیکھنا چاہیے۔ ایف آئی آر میں تاخیر اگر فطری ہو، تو وہ شک کا فائدہ دینے کے لیے کافی نہیں ہوتی۔"
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2026 P Cr. LJ 335
[Sindh]
Before Omar Sial, J
TAJ MUHAMMAD---Appellant
versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2012, decided on 26th October, 2022.
(a) Criminal trial---
----Site plan---Scope---Site plan in any case is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to contradict ocular account. [p. 341] A
Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar PLD 1992 SC 211; Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Akram 1996 SCMR 908 and Taj Mohammad v. Muhammad Yousuf PLD 1976 SC 234 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---Delay of 15 hours in lodging the FIR plausibly explained---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant by firing and caused firearm injuries to complainant---Incident occurred on 09.05.2008 at 7:45 a.m. whereas the FIR was registered the same day but at 11:15 p.m.---Delay which took place was explained by complainant---Complainant recorded that about 30 minutes after the incident the police, which had been informed by the complainant party, had reached the spot---Deceased was taken to the local hospital whereas the complainant was taken to the Civil Hospital in the nearby city---Complainant was discharged from the hospital at 9:00p.m. after which he went to the police station and lodged the FIR---Perfectly reasonable, logical and plausible reason was given for the nearly 15 hour delay---There was no room for the facts of the incident to be manipulated by the injured complainant due to the delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused-appellant, however, due to some extenuating circumstances, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said reduction in sentence, the appeal was dismissed. [p. 342] B
(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---Withholding material witness from giving evidence---Inconsequential---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant by firing and caused firearm injuries to complainant---It was alleged by defence that son of complainant was present at the spot but was not produced by the prosecution---It was not the quantity of the evidence but the quality which was important---How old was son of complainant been even if present, was not revealed at trial---Family might not have wanted said witness to be exposed to the rigors of investigation and trial--Moreover, it was up to the prosecution to decide who it would examine at trial---In view of the three eye-witnesses being very clear in their testimony, the absence of said son of complainant at trial, in the circumstances of the present case would not have an adverse impact on the prosecution case---Had son of complainant been included as a witness and then declined to come to record his testimony would have attracted Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but admittedly that was not what happened in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused-appellant, however, due to some extenuating circumstances, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said reduction in sentence, the appeal was dismissed. [p. 342] C
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
Ss. 302(b) 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Sequence of events---Scope---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant by firing and caused firearm injuries to complainant---Incident occurred on 09.05.2008 at 7:45 a.m.---Police was informed immediately and arrived by 8:30 a.m. on the scene---Blood stained earth and 02 empties were recovered at 8:30a.m.---Medical Officer began medical examination of complainant at 9:15 a.m. and the post mortem of the deceased at 9:45 a.m. and he opined that the duration between death and post mortem was about 02 hours---First Information Report was lodged at 11:15 p.m.---Eye-witness statements were recorded the very next day i.e., 10.05.2008---All steps were taken with reasonable promptitude leaving little room for manipulation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused-appellant, however, due to some extenuating circumstances, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said reduction in sentence, the appeal was dismissed. [p. 342] D
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Recovery of crime empties and weapon of offence---Reliance---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant by firing and caused firearm injuries to complainant---Record showed that 02 empties and blood stained earth was recovered from the place of incident---Subsequently, on 17.05.2008, appellant took the police to his house from where the double barrel gun he used was recovered---Gun together with the empties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which opined that the empties were of cartridges fired from the recovered gun---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused-appellant, however, due to some extenuating circumstances, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said reduction in sentence, the appeal was dismissed. [p. 343] E
(f)Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
---Ss. 302(b), 302(c), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Incident taking place without any pre-meditation and at the spur of the moment---Old age of accused---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant by firing and caused firearm injuries to complainant---In this case, trial judge in the sentencing portion of the judgment had concluded that the incident took place without any pre-meditation and at the spur of the moment---High Court agreed with the trial judge that evidence led at trial was not of a nature which could conclusively prove pre-meditation---In such a situation, it would be appropriate if the conviction given to the appellant was converted from that under S.302(b), P.P.C. to 302(c), P.P.C.---Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was 76 years old, potentially suffering from prostate cancer and was arrested on 10.05.2008 and since that date had been suffering the agony of these proceedings for 15 years, it might be appropriate to reduce his sentence to 10 years---Jail roll showed that the appellant had served 10 years and 01 month in prison till today---Life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said reduction in sentence, appeal was dismissed. [p. 343] F
