| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2351 2026 SLD 2351 = 2026 LHC 3668 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025 , Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025 , Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026, Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026
Presented By: (ABHER GUL KHAN) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 11.06.2026 Appellants by: Mr. Javed Bashir, Advocate (for appellant-Jaffar alias Zafar in Crl.Appeal No.63502 of 2025), M/S Rafiq Ahmad Bhatti & Mahr Hassan Mahmood, Advocates (for appellant-Ghulam Rasool in Crl.Appeal No.66013 of 2025). Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Zubair Khalid Chaudhry, Advocate. State by: Rana Muhammad Asif Iqbal, Assistant District Public Prosecutor.
Criminal Appeal No.63502 of 2025 , Criminal Appeal No.66013 of 2025 , Criminal Revision No.7019 of 2026, Criminal PSLA No.7010 of 2026
Presented By: (ABHER GUL KHAN) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 11.06.2026 Appellants by: Mr. Javed Bashir, Advocate (for appellant-Jaffar alias Zafar in Crl.Appeal No.63502 of 2025), M/S Rafiq Ahmad Bhatti & Mahr Hassan Mahmood, Advocates (for appellant-Ghulam Rasool in Crl.Appeal No.66013 of 2025). Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Zubair Khalid Chaudhry, Advocate. State by: Rana Muhammad Asif Iqbal, Assistant District Public Prosecutor.
(Jaffar alias Zafar v. The State etc.) and (Ghulam Rasool v. The State etc.) and (Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Jaffar alias Zafar etc.) and (Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Jaffar alias Zafar etc.)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34, 334
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 382-B
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 129(g)
TAGLINE Benefit of Doubt: Acquittal in Nose-Severing Case due to Significant Improvements, Delayed Statements, and Unreliable Ocular Evidence. SUMMARY The appellants, Jafar (alias Zafar) and Ghulam Rasool, were initially convicted by the Trial Court for severing the noses of two brothers, Ata Ullah and Abdullah, during a night-time attack in 2014. They were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and heavy fines under Section 336/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The conviction arose from a private complaint filed by the victims' father after he expressed dissatisfaction with the police investigation of the initial FIR. Upon review, the High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt based on the following critical flaws in the prosecution's case: Material Improvements in Testimony: In the initial FIR, only one person was accused of severing both noses. However, in the subsequent private complaint and court testimony, the prosecution materially improved its version by splitting the roles between two individuals (Zafar and Ghulam Rasool). Unreliable Ocular Account: The complainant (father) was found not to be an eyewitness; evidence suggested he arrived at the scene after the incident. Furthermore, the injured victims admitted during cross-examination that proper identification of the assailants was not possible due to the darkness prevailing at the time of the occurrence. Medical and Physical Discrepancies: While the medical reports confirmed the nasal injuries, they showed no other bodily marks (such as friction or drag marks) to support the victims' claims that they were beaten, stripped, and dragged across fields. Additionally, the medical histories provided by the victims at the hospital (describing a fight in a field) contradicted the FIR narrative (an attack while asleep at home). Procedural and Forensic Lapses: There was an unexplained delay in recording the victims' statements despite them being conscious at the hospital. Moreover, the prosecution failed to provide forensic confirmation (blood grouping) for the recovered dagger, failing to link the…