IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah  
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revisions No. 194537 and 198776 
of 2018) 
 
 
Khadija Siddiqui 
 
(in Cr. A. 34-L of 2018) 
The State  
 
 
(in Cr. A. 35-L of 2018) 
…Appellants 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Shah Hussain, etc. 
 
(in Cr. A. 34-L of 2018) 
Shah Hussain 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 35-L of 2018) 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the appellants: 
Barrister Salman Safdar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
with the appellant in person 
(in Cr. A. 34-L of 2018) 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 35-L of 2018) 
 
For respondent No. 1:  
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr. ASC 
with respondent No. 1 in person 
(in both cases) 
  
Date of hearing: 
 
 
23.01.2019 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
         Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: On 23.01.2019 both these 
appeals had been allowed and disposed of by us through a short 
order which read as follows: 
 
“For the reasons to be recorded later these appeals are allowed, 
the impugned consolidated judgment passed by the High Court is 
set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge, Lahore on 30.03.2018 convicting and sentencing 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
2
respondent No. 1 for various offences is restored. The said 
respondent shall be taken into custody and shall be lodged in a 
prison so as to serve his remaining sentences.” 
 
The following are the reasons for the said short order passed by us 
on 23.01.2019. 
 
2. 
According to the prosecution respondent No. 1 namely Shah 
Hussain had given multiple Chhurri blows to his class-fellow 
namely Khadija Siddiqui appellant and her minor sister namely 
Sofia Siddiqui at about 02.00 P.M. on 03.05.2016 in and outside a 
motorcar belonging to the victims’ family parked on a roadside in 
front of the Ambassador Hotel, Davis Road, Lahore and in respect 
of the said incident an information was laid by a driver of the 
victims’ family namely Riaz Ahmed before a police officer at 03.23 
P.M. on the same day at the Services Hospital, Lahore whereafter 
formal FIR No. 300 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, 
Lahore at 03.45 P.M. during the same afternoon. As a consequence 
of the said FIR respondent No. 1 was arrested by the local police 
and upon completion of all the necessary steps taken during the 
investigation a Challan was submitted against him. A charge in 
that regard was framed by the trial court against respondent No. 1 
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. During the trial 
the prosecution produced twelve witnesses in support of its case 
against respondent No. 1. Riaz Ahmed complainant (PW5), Khadija 
Siddiqui (PW6) and Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) furnished the ocular 
account of the incident in issue and out of the said witnesses 
Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) were injured 
eyewitnesses. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Rozina 
Mustafa (PW11) who had medically examined both the injured 
victims soon after the alleged occurrence and Javed Iqbal, Incharge 
Investigation (PW12) stated about the various steps taken by him 
during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence 
produced by the prosecution was more or less formal in nature. In 
his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant 
denied and controverted all the allegations of fact leveled against 
him by the prosecution and professed his innocence. He, however, 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
3
opted not to make a statement on oath under section 340(2), 
Cr.P.C. and did not produce any evidence in his defence. Upon 
conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore 
Cantonment convicted and sentenced respondent No. 1 on 
29.07.2017 for various offences the details whereof are as follows: 
 
i. 
Under section 324, P.P.C. to seven years rigorous 
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of 
the 
payment 
thereof, 
to 
further 
undergo 
simple 
imprisonment for one year; 
 
ii. 
Under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. to two years rigorous 
imprisonment with Daman of Rs. 50,000/-; 
 
iii. 
Under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. to five years rigorous 
imprisonment with Arsh of Rs. 84,016/-; 
 
iv. 
Under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. to one year rigorous 
imprisonment with Daman of Rs. 50,000/-; 
 
v. 
Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. to three years rigorous 
imprisonment with Daman of Rs. 50,000/-; 
 
vi. 
Under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. to five years rigorous 
imprisonment with Daman of Rs. 50,000/-.  
 
The accused was ordered not to be released till the 
payment of Arsh and Daman even after completion of 
sentence of imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered 
to be run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, 
Cr.P.C. was extended. 
 
Respondent No. 1 challenged his convictions and sentences before 
the Court of Session, Lahore through an appeal which was partly 
allowed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide 
judgment dated 30.03.2018 and various convictions and sentences 
passed by the trial court against respondent No. 1 were modified 
as follows: 
 
i. 
Under section 324, P.P.C. for attempting to commit Qatal-
i-Amd of Khadija Siddiqi, sentenced to five years rigorous 
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of 
the 
payment 
of 
fine 
to 
further 
undergo 
simple 
imprisonment for three months; 
 
ii. 
Under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. for causing injury on the 
left side of forehead of Khadija Siddiqi, sentenced to three 
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay Arsh Rs. 84,016/- 
to the injured Khadija Siddiqi; 
 
iii. 
Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. for causing three injuries to 
Khadija Siddiqi to pay Daman Rs. 50,000/- to Khadija 
Siddiqi; 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
4
 
iv. 
Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. for causing injury on the 
person of Khadija Siddiqi to pay Daman of Rs. 40,000/- to 
Khadija Siddiqi; 
 
v. 
Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. for causing injury to 
Khadija Siddiqi and sentenced to pay Daman of Rs. 
40,000/- to Khadija Siddiqi; 
 
vi. 
Under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. for causing injury to 
Khadija Siddiqi and sentenced to pay Daman of Rs. 
10,000/- to Khadija Siddiqi; 
 
vii. 
Under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. for causing simple injury to 
Sufia 
Siddiqi, 
sentenced 
to 
six 
months 
rigorous 
imprisonment with Daman of Rs. 30,000/- to Sufia 
Siddiqi.  
 
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and 
benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended. 
 
Thereafter a revision petition was filed by respondent No. 1 before 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore assailing his convictions and 
sentences whereas another revision petition was filed by Riaz 
Ahmed complainant seeking enhancement of respondent No. 1’s 
sentences and vide consolidated judgment dated 04.06.2018 a 
learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
allowed the revision petition field by respondent No. 1, set aside all 
the convictions and sentences of respondent No. 1 and acquitted 
him of the charge whereas the revision petition filed by the 
complainant was dismissed. Hence, the present appeals by leave of 
this Court granted on 13.06.2018.  
 
3. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have gone through the record of the case with their 
assistance.  
 
4. 
It has been argued by the learned counsel for Khadija 
Siddiqui appellant that the prosecution had produced three 
eyewitnesses before the trial court out of whom Khadija Siddiqui 
(PW6) and Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) were injured witnesses whose 
presence at the spot could not be doubted and the third eyewitness 
namely Riaz Ahmad complainant (PW5) was an independent 
witness having no reason to falsely implicate respondent No. 1 in a 
case of this nature. He has also argued that the case in hand is a 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
5
classic case of non-reading of the record by the High Court 
because the statement made by one of the injured eyewitnesses 
namely Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) had not even been discussed by the 
High Court in the impugned judgment passed by it whereas the 
merits of the statement made by Riaz Ahmad complainant (PW5) 
had not even been adverted to by the High Court. He has further 
argued that the High Court had also misread some crucial parts of 
the record of the case which misreading had clouded its vision and 
had distorted its perception of the facts of the case vitiating the 
impugned judgment passed by it. The learned counsel has also 
contended that the present case was a case of a broad daylight 
occurrence taking place at a thickly populated area of Lahore, an 
FIR had been lodged in respect of the occurrence with sufficient 
promptitude, the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution had 
consistently pointed their accusing fingers towards respondent No. 
1 as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences, the medical 
evidence had provided full support to the ocular account, the 
background of good relations between the assailant and the 
victims turning sour was admitted by both the parties, the trial 
court as well as the appellate court had concurred in their 
conclusion regarding guilt of respondent No. 1 having been proved 
to the hilt and the High Courts was not justified in acquitting the 
said respondent. It has been maintained by the learned counsel 
that the impugned acquittal of respondent No. 1 by the High 
Court, based primarily upon serious misreading and non-reading 
of the relevant record, has occasioned grave miscarriage of justice 
clamouring for interference in the matter by this Court. The 
learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the 
State/appellant has adopted and supported the contentions of the 
learned counsel for Khadija Siddiqui appellant and has also prayed 
for setting aside of the impugned judgment passed by the High 
Court and restoration of the judgment passed by the learned 
Additional Sessions judge, Lahore. As against that the learned 
counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the infirmities in the 
prosecution’s case against the respondent noticed by the High 
Court in the impugned judgment passed by it had rendered the 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
6
allegations leveled against him quite doubtful; the misreading and 
non-reading of the record by the High Court highlighted by the 
learned counsel for the appellants were not serious enough to 
dislodge the High Court’s judgment in its entirety; the High Court 
had recorded very cogent reasons for concluding that the 
circumstances in which respondent No. 1 had belatedly been 
implicated in this case were not free from serious doubts; and the 
law is settled that a judgment of acquittal may not be interfered 
with by a higher Court in the absence of perversity in the same.   
 
5. 
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going 
through the record it has straightaway been observed by us that 
the incident in issue had taken place in broad daylight and at a 
place which was thickly populated and was buzzing with activity at 
the relevant time. An FIR in respect of the said incident had been 
lodged with sufficient promptitude and the medical examination of 
the injured victims had also been conducted without loss of time. 
The ocular account of the said occurrence had been furnished 
before the trial court by three eyewitnesses namely Riaz Ahmed 
complainant (PW5), Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and Sofia Siddiqui 
(PW7) out of whom the last two witnesses had the stamp of injuries 
on their bodies vouchsafing their presence at the scene of the 
crime at the relevant time. The said eyewitnesses had consistently 
pointed their accusing fingers towards respondent No. 1 as the sole 
perpetrator of the alleged offences and ostensibly they had no 
earthly reason to falsely implicate respondent No. 1 in a case of 
this nature or to substitute him for the actual culprit. The medical 
evidence had provided sufficient support to the ocular account 
furnished by the above mentioned eyewitnesses and the trial court 
as well as the appellate court had found the evidence produced by 
the prosecution to be worthy of implicit reliance but the High Court 
had taken a different view of the matter and had acquitted 
respondent No. 1 of the charge. The reasons prevailing with the 
High Court for acquitting respondent No. 1 of the charge may be 
summed up as follows: 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
7
i) 
The blood-stained clothes of the injured victims 
had not been produced before the investigating 
officer and were not secured during the 
investigation. 
  
ii) 
Respondent No. 1 was a class-fellow of Khadija 
Siddiqui (PW6) and they were known to each 
other quite well but the said injured victim had 
nominated respondent No. 1 as the culprit for 
the first time on 08.05.2016, i.e. after five days 
of the occurrence despite the fact that Dr. 
Rozina Mustafa (PW11) had stated before the 
trial court that at the time of arrival of the said 
injured victim at the hospital she was well 
oriented and on that occasion the victim had 
only stated that a boy had attacked her and had 
not named respondent No. 1 as that boy. 
 
iii) 
While medically examining Khadija Siddiqui 
(PW6) Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) had initially 
noticed only eleven injuries sustained by the 
said victim but subsequently the said number 
had been swelled to twenty-three and such 
additional injuries had been mentioned by the 
said doctor on the basis of the operation notes of 
the victim and not on the basis of her own 
examination 
of 
the 
victim. 
The 
Doctors 
conducting the operation on Khadija Siddiqui 
(PW6) had not been produced during the trial. 
 
iv) 
If the condition of Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) was 
critical soon after the occurrence then she could 
not have gone to the Illaqa Magistrate seeking an 
order for her medical examination. 
 
v) 
Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had failed to appear 
before the District Standing Medical Board for 
fresh examination of her injuries despite having 
repeatedly been summoned by the Board for the 
purpose. 
 
vi) 
According to the eyewitnesses there was profuse 
bleeding of the victims inside their motorcar but 
admittedly no foot-mat or any other article 
stained with blood was taken into possession 
during the investigation from inside the said 
motorcar nor any such article had been 
produced before the trial court. 
  
vii) 
Riaz 
Ahmed 
complainant 
(PW5) 
had 
not 
informed the parents of the victims or any other 
member of their family about the incident and 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
8
had proceeded to lodge an FIR in respect of the 
same on his own. 
 
viii) 
The motive set up by the prosecution had not 
been proved by it because according to Khadija 
Siddiqui (PW6) respondent No. 1 used to harass 
her and wanted to marry her but she had 
rejected the proposal whereas the said stance of 
Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had been contradicted by 
her letter brought on the record as Exhibit-DW 
wherein she had volunteered and had repeatedly 
stated that she was ready and eager to marry 
respondent No. 1. 
 
ix) 
The alleged recovery of a Chhurri at the instance 
of respondent No. 1 was legally inconsequential 
because the said recovery had been affected 
after about five months of the incident in issue, 
the recovered Chhurri was not stained with blood 
and the recovery had been affected from an open 
place which was accessible to all and sundry. 
 
x) 
The alleged recovery of a helmet statedly 
belonging to respondent No. 1 from inside the 
motorcar 
of 
the 
victims 
was 
not 
readily 
believable because the recovered helmet was of 
red colour whereas Asghar Ali, F.C. (PW10), a 
witness of the said recovery, had clearly stated 
before the trial court that the recovered helmet 
was of black colour. 
 
xi) 
The statements made by the injured victims 
namely Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and Sofia 
Siddiqui (PW7) did not inspire confidence 
because 
Khadija 
Siddiqui 
(PW6) 
had 
not 
divulged the true and complete tale. 
 
With these considerations weighing with the High Court it had 
been concluded by it that the occurrence might have taken place 
and the two injured victims might have received their injuries 
during the same occurrence but the manner in which the 
occurrence had taken place and its background might have been 
quite different from those described and stated by the said victims. 
  
6. 
Taking up the above mentioned grounds weighing with the 
High Court for disbelieving the case of the prosecution and for 
acquitting respondent No. 1 one by one we note that the first 
ground prevailing with the High Court was based upon a 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
9
misreading of the record on its part. According to the High Court 
the blood-stained clothes of the injured victims had not been 
produced or secured during the investigation whereas the record of 
the case shows that blood-stained clothes of Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) 
had not only been produced and secured during the investigation 
but a memorandum of such recovery had duly been exhibited 
before the trial court as Exhibit-PG.  
 
7. 
The second consideration weighing with the High Court 
based upon failure of Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) to name respondent 
No. 1 straightaway as the culprit despite their previous intimacy 
has been found by us to be based upon an incomplete reading of 
the record of the case by the High Court. The statement made 
before the trial court by Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) had clearly 
established that immediately upon receipt of her injuries Khadija 
Siddiqui (PW6) had become semi-conscious and in the next few 
days repeated attempts made by the investigating officer to record 
her statement had failed because according to the recorded opinion 
of the concerned doctor the said victim was unfit to make any 
statement. It is true that upon having been taken to the hospital 
immediately after the occurrence Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had 
stated before Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) that a boy had attacked 
her but the statement made by the said doctor before the trial 
court clearly shows that at the relevant time the condition of 
Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) was critical and the surgeons were ready to 
operate upon her and when Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) wanted to 
know from the victim the identity of the boy the said doctor was 
required by the surgeons to immediately leave the operation 
theatre so that they could commence the operation straightaway in 
order to save the victim’s life. In the next few days the said injured 
victim had remained under the effect of anesthesia and soon after 
regaining consciousness after a few days she had divulged the 
name of respondent No. 1 as the culprit. Unfortunately this part of 
the statement made by Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) had been 
completely ignored by the High Court.  
 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
10
8. 
The next consideration weighing with the High Court 
regarding Dr. Rozina Mustafa (PW11) noticing eleven injuries on 
the body of Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) ignored that part of the 
statement made by the said doctor before the trial court according 
to which when the said doctor was examining the victim her 
condition was critical and the surgeons ready for the operation had 
required the said doctor to leave the operation theatre and, thus, 
recording of the remaining injuries of the victim by that doctor in 
the Medico-legal Certificate being prepared by her had been 
deferred till after the operation and the said task was subsequently 
completed by her on the basis of the operation notes because for 
the next many days the victim was unconscious and under the 
effect of anesthesia. Be that as it may the fact remains that even 
sustaining of eleven injuries by the said victim instead of twenty-
three could have conveniently attracted the provisions of section 
324, PPC and nothing actually turned in this case on the fact that 
eleven of the victim’s injuries had been recorded by the concerned 
doctor in the first phase whereas the remaining injuries had been 
recorded by the said doctor at a subsequent stage after the 
operation of the victim.  
 
9. 
As regards the next consideration weighing with the High 
Court we have been surprised to notice that according to the High 
Court the injured victim namely Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had gone 
to the Illaqa Magistrate first seeking an order regarding conducting 
of her medical examination and thereafter she was medically 
examined on the basis of such an order passed by the Illaqa 
Magistrate. This consideration weighing with the High Court was 
squarely based upon a misreading of the documents brought on 
the record as Exhibit-PN and Exhibit-PJ which clearly established 
that 
Khadija 
Siddiqui 
(PW6) 
was medically 
examined 
on 
03.05.2016 without any intervention or order of a Magistrate and 
on the next day, i.e. 04.05.2016 the investigating officer had filed 
an application before the Illaqa Magistrate seeking a direction 
regarding supply of a copy of the Medico-legal Certificate 
pertaining to Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) to him. We are constrained to 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
11
observe that the High Court had not demonstrated the requisite 
care in examining the record of this case and resultantly such a 
glaring misreading of the record on the part of the High Court had 
been occasioned. We expect the High Court to do better in this 
regard in future.  
 
10. 
The High Court had also observed that Khadija Siddiqui 
(PW6) had failed to appear before the District Standing Medical 
Board for re-examination of her injuries and an adverse inference 
had been drawn by the High Court in that regard against the 
prosecution. The record, however, shows that the order passed by 
the Illaqa Magistrate requiring Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) to appear 
before the District Standing Medical Board had been suspended by 
the High Court through a Writ Petition filed against that order and 
that order never stood revived till the conclusion of the trial. 
Unfortunately this ground weighing with the High Court was also 
based upon a serious non-reading of the relevant record of the case 
by it.   
 
11. 
It had also weighed with the High Court that no blood-
stained foot-mat or any other article had been secured by the 
investigating officer from inside the relevant motorcar but the High 
Court had failed to read the statement made by the investigating 
officer of this case namely Javed Iqbal, Incharge Investigation 
(PW12) properly who had categorically stated before the trial court 
that the relevant motorcar had been inspected by him soon after 
the occurrence and that he had noticed blood being available 
inside that motorcar. Any inefficiency on the part of the said 
investigating officer in securing any blood-stained article from 
inside that motorcar was insufficient in the circumstances of this 
case to conclude that the two injured victims had not been injured 
at all or that no blood had spilled inside that motorcar at the time 
of taking place of the occurrence. Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had 
received as many as twenty-three injures on different parts of her 
body through the use of a Chhurri and it was unimaginable that no 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
12
blood of the said victim had come out of her body while being 
subjected to such a fierce assault through a lethal weapon.  
 
12. 
The consideration weighing with the High Court that Riaz 
Ahmed complainant (PW5) had not informed the parents or other 
members of the family of the victims before proceeding to lodge an 
FIR has been found by us to be insignificant and irrelevant 
because the complainant was the driver of the victims and if the 
victims had been subjected to a very serious assault with the use 
of a Chhurri then it was nothing but natural and proper for the 
said driver to have straightway taken the injured victims to the 
nearest hospital and upon arrival of the police to inform the police 
about the incident. Such conduct on the part of the driver in fact 
could be cited in support of the prosecution’s case as the FIR had 
been lodged by the driver straightaway without even consulting 
anybody belonging to the victims’ family. This aspect of the case 
ruled out any deliberation taking place before lodging of the FIR 
and the same augmented its credibility rather than weakening its 
reliability.  
 
13. 
The High Court had observed that the motive set up by the 
prosecution had not been proved by it because on the one hand 
Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) had maintained that she had refused to 
marry respondent No. 1 but on the other hand a letter written by 
her to respondent No. 1 showed that she was quite willing and 
eager to marry him. The High Court had failed to read that portion 
of the statement of Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) wherein she had 
explained that she was being harassed by respondent No. 1 and 
she wanted to complain against him to her mother and, therefore, 
an attempt was made by respondent No. 1 to silence her. Khadija 
Siddiqui (PW6) had also been suggested by the defence itself that 
respondent No. 1 had shunned her company but the young lady 
persisted in continuing her relationship with respondent No. 1 
which suggestion clearly showed that there was a break in the 
close friendship between that young lady and respondent No. 1 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
13
prompting the respondent to make an attempt to get rid of her 
which provided a plausible motive to respondent No. 1. 
 
14. 
The High Court had discarded the alleged recovery of a 
Chhurri at the instance of respondent No. 1 and the reasons 
recorded by the High Court in that regard have been found by us 
to be valid and cogent.  
 
15. 
The reasons recorded by the High Court for discarding the 
recovery of a helmet from inside the motorcar of the victims have 
failed to impress us. The High Court had failed to notice in that 
regard that a helmet had been recovered by the investigating officer 
on the very day of occurrence and in the Memorandum of Recovery 
(Exhibit-PF) no colour of the recovered helmet had been recorded. 
It could be a lapse of memory on the part of the recovery witness 
namely Asghar Ali, F.C. (PW10) when he had stated about the 
colour of the recovered helmet or it could also be attributed to a 
dishonest concession on his part but the matter of colour of the 
recovered helmet was not serious enough to throw out the entire 
case of the prosecution against respondent No. 1, particularly 
when such case was strongly based upon statements of two 
injured victims who were a young lady and a minor girl having no 
reason to substitute the actual culprit who, according to the 
suggestions of the defence itself, was quite well known to them. 
  
16. 
The High Court had completely failed to refer to that part of 
the evidence brought on the record which had clearly established 
that Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and respondent No. 1 were class-
fellows and it had consistently been suggested by the defence to all 
the relevant prosecution witnesses, including the two injured 
victims, that Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and respondent No. 1 were 
close friends, they used to visit parks, hotels and the house of 
PW6’s maternal grandmother as well as the house of the victims’ 
parents besides watching movies in cinema houses together and, 
thus, there was hardly any question of Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) not 
recognizing respondent No. 1 as the sole culprit in an occurrence 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
14
taking place in broad daylight and at a populated place. The 
defence had itself brought on the record many photographs, some 
in intimate positions, establishing a close and intimate relationship 
between Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and respondent No. 1. The letter 
written by Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) to respondent No. 1 brought on 
the record of the case by the defence as Exhibit-DW left no room 
for doubt regarding very close friendship between the two which 
friendship had statedly hit some complications in the recent past.  
 
17. 
We note with some concern that in the entire operative part 
of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court no discussion 
had taken place as to why the High Court had ignored or 
disbelieved the ocular account furnished by the minor and injured 
eyewitness namely Sofia Siddiqui (PW7). The said injured victim 
was six years old and the incident had taken place just outside her 
school when her elder sister, the other injured victim, had gone to 
bring her back from the school. The said minor injured victim had 
identified respondent No. 1 as the culprit on the first occasion that 
she got after the occurrence when respondent No. 1 had appeared 
before a Court for the purpose of seeking interim pre-arrest bail in 
connection with the present criminal case. Even Riaz Ahmed 
complainant (PW5) had identified respondent No. 1 on that 
occasion and had straightaway informed the investigating officer 
that respondent No. 1 was the person who had launched the 
murderous assault on and had injured Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) and 
Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) a few days ago. Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) had 
made her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on the very day of 
occurrence and it was suggested to her by the defence itself that 
she as well as her elder sister, i.e. Khadija Siddiqui (PW6) used to 
visit parks, hotels and cinema houses in the company of 
respondent No. 1 and the defence itself had suggested to her that 
she knew respondent No. 1 since before the occurrence as 
respondent No. 1 used to visit the victims’ house. In this backdrop 
failure on the part of Sofia Siddiqui (PW7) to name respondent No. 
1 straightaway but recognizing him at the spot and naming him as 
the sole culprit at the first opportunity 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
15
after the occurrence did not detract from the over all strength of 
the case of the prosecution against respondent No. 1. Be that as it 
may, the High Court was not justified in completely ignoring the 
statement of the said injured eyewitness who had absolutely no 
reason to falsely implicate respondent No. 1 in a case of this 
nature. 
 
18. 
We have noticed that some downright misreading of the 
evidence had been committed by the High Court and for some of 
the reasons prevailing with it the High Court had ignored many 
critical aspects of the case available in the evidence brought on the 
record. The exercise of appreciation of evidence in this case by the 
High Court has, thus, been found by us to be laconic and 
misreading and non-reading of the record by the High Court has 
been found by us to have led the said Court into a serious error of 
judgment occasioning failure of justice and clamouring for 
interference in the matter by this Court. A judgment of acquittal 
suffering from serious misreading or non-reading of the evidence 
materially affecting the final outcome of the case is nothing short 
of being perverse and, hence, not immune from interference. Apart 
from that the High Court ought to have appreciated that it was 
only seized of revision petitions and not an appeal and in exercise 
of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court ought to have confined 
itself to correctness, legality, regularity or propriety of the 
proceedings of the courts below rather than embarking upon a full-
fledged reappraisal of the evidence, an exercise fit for appellate 
jurisdiction. In the case in hand the trial and appellate courts had 
undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the 
record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt 
of respondent No. 1 having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
In the absence of any error of law committed by the courts below 
and in the absence of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety 
committed by the courts below in the trial or hearing of the appeal 
the High Court ought to have been slow in interfering with the 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 34-L and 35-L of 2018 
 
16
19. 
For what has been discussed above these appeals are 
allowed, the impugned consolidated judgment passed by the High 
Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 30.03.2018 convicting and 
sentencing respondent No. 1 for various offences is restored. The 
said respondent shall be taken into custody and shall be lodged in 
a prison so as to serve his remaining sentences.   
                        
  
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
January 23, 2019 
Approved for reporting.  
Arif 
