Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 5135 2025 SLD 5135 = 2025 LHC 4238 = 2025 PCRLJ 1698
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No.8752 of 2022, Murder Reference No.26 of 2022.
PRESENT; (AALIA NEELUM) JUDGE            (ABHER GUL KHAN) CHIEF JUSTICE        
10.06.2025 Appellant by: M/S Rana Khizar Hayat and Rana Muhammad Akmal Khan, Advocates. Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Imtiaz Pahaat, Advocate. State by: Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General with Basharat SI and Muhammad Rafique SI.

(Muhammad Nadeem Aslam v. The State & another) and (The State v. Muhammad Nadeem Aslam)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 363, 377 & 201, 302(B), 342, 374, 382(B)

Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section:

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section:

TAGLINE 

Criminal trial—Circumstantial evidence—Last seen, extra-judicial confession, recovery of dead body and articles—Medical corroboration—DNA report “compromised” (no analysis conducted)—Motive not proved—Death sentence converted to life imprisonment—Convictions under Ss. 363, 377, 201 PPC upheld—Conviction under S.302(b) PPC maintained but death penalty not confirmed.

✅ SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT

The appellant was tried for kidnapping, sodomy and murder of a 3½-year-old child and was convicted under Ss. 363, 377, 201 & 302(b) PPC; he was awarded the death penalty for the charge of murder. In appeal, the Court examined the circumstantial evidence which consisted of: (i) last seen testimony by PWs 6 & 7, (ii) disclosure information leading to recovery of the dead body and incriminating articles, (iii) medical evidence confirming sodomy and homicidal disposal of body, and (iv) conduct of the accused.

The delay in FIR was found to be satisfactorily explained and immaterial. The last-seen evidence was held to be credible, consistent and proximate in time and place. Recovery of the dead body and articles on the appellant’s pointation fulfilled the requirements of Art. 40 QSO, 1984, and the disclosures introduced new, previously unknown facts, making them legally admissible. The medical evidence corroborated sodomy and supported the prosecution’s timeline.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register