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 becoming available to her
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