Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015

(Khalid Hameed v. The State)
and
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015
(The State v. Khalid Hameed)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 05.11.2018

Appellant by: M/S Muhammad Khaliq-uz-Zaman and Zohaib

Ashraf Mughal, Advocates.
Complainant by: Raja Fakhar Inayat, Advocate.
State by: Mr. Umer Hayat Gondal, Additional Prosecutor
General.

-----------------------------------
Ch. Abdul Aziz, J. Khalid Hameed (appellant), involved in
case FIR No.685/2014 dated 13.11.2014 registered under sections
302,376 & 364-A PPC at Police Station Pir Wadhai, Rawalpindi, was
tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The learned
trial court vide judgment dated 27.07.2015 proceeded to convict and
sentence the appellant in the following terms:-
Under section 302 (b) PPC to suffer death sentence. He was also
directed to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- under section 544-A,
Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Zainab Bibi (deceased) and in default
whereof to undergo SI for six months.
Under section 364-A PPC to suffer death sentence as Ta’zir.
Under section 376 PPC to suffer death sentence as Ta’zir.

Challenging his conviction and sentence, Khalid Hameed

(appellant) filed Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015, whereas trial
court sent reference under section 374, Cr.P.C. which was numbered
as Murder Reference No.26 of 2015 for the confirmation or
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 2
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

otherwise of death sentence awarded to Khalid Hameed (convict).

Both these matters are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as narrated by Munir
Khan complainant (PW.4) in FIR (Exh.PJ/2) is to the effect that he
along with his family members was residing at Loharan Street Near
Walaytan Mosque and was a government servant; that he had two
daughters, namely, Iffat Bibi and Zainab Bibi and a son Kabeer Khan;
that on 11.11.2014 at about 3:00 p.m. his daughter Zainab Bibi aged
about 6/7 years who was a student of 1st class went to a nearby shop
for purchasing something to eat; that after the lapse of considerable
time, when Zainab Bibi did not return, he got curious and went in the
locality for search of his daughter and asked the residents about her
whereabouts; that when he found no traces, he went to the police
station and informed regarding missing of his daughter; that he also
kept on searching his daughter by himself; that on 13.11.2014 at about
1:00 a.m. he along with Malik Dilshad Khan and Jahangir Khan went
near Mobilink Franchise in the search of his daughter where they saw
Khalid Hameed (appellant) going towards the graveyard having a sack
on his shoulder and from search of which dead body of Zainab Bibi
was recovered.
3. The law was set into motion on the written application (Exh.PJ)
of Munir Khan complainant (PW.4) presented before Mumtaz SI
(PW.15) during his visit to the spot. Muhammad Mumtaz SI sent
Exh.PJ to the police station through Muhammad Sajjad Constable for
the registration of formal F.I.R. and arrested Khalid Hameed
(appellant) from the said place. The personal search of Khalid
Hameed (appellant) led to the recovery of wallet (P.3) containing
Rs.250/-, CNIC (P.7), lock (P.8) along with key (P.9), mobile (P.10)
which were taken into possession vide memo Exh.PQ. He also
secured sack (P.11) along with rope (P.12) through seizure memo
Exh.PR. He also prepared injury statement Exh.PF, inquest report
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 3
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

Exh.PG and sent the dead body to the mortuary for the postmortem
examination through Mehmood Ahmad Constable. Khalid Hameed at
the time of arrest made disclosure and in pursuance thereof led the
police party to the baithak where he committed rape with Zainab Bibi
and from the said place got recovered a pair of shoes of Zainab Bibi
and her shawl/chaddar which were taken into possession vide memo
Exh.PS. From that place, Muhammad Mumtaz SI also took into
possession two stains with semen pieces of cloth, a vest and a dhoti
vide memo Exh.PU. He also secured small pillow and hair of
deceased Zainab Bibi through recovery memo Exh.PV as well as
blood through cotton vide memo Exh.PW. He obtained docket by
filing application to CPO for getting conducted the test of DNA of the
accused. Muhammad Mumtaz SI also arrested Naik Muhammad
father of Khalid Hameed (appellant) on 19.11.2014 but during
investigation he was not found involved in this case and resultantly
discharge report to his extent was prepared. He after declaring Khalid
Hameed guilty in his investigation got submitted report under section
173, Cr.P.C. against him.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellant
fifteen PWs including Munir Khan complainant (PW.4) and
Dilshad Khan (PW.7) who narrated about the recovery of dead body
from the possession of the appellant, Muhammad Younas (PW.11)
and Pervaiz Gul (PW.13) who deposed about the last seen evidence
Dr. Narjis Zaidi (PW.3) and Dr. Azhar Farooq (PW.7) who
furnished the medical evidence and Muhammad Mumtaz SI
(PW.15) who investigated the matter. The remaining PWs more or
less were formal in nature.
5. Lady doctor Narjis Zaidi (PW.3) on 13.11.2014 at about 3:00
a.m. conducted the postmortem examination of Zainab Bibi
(deceased) and gave the following observations:-
“A six year old young girl with fair complexion approximately
three in height, wearing frak with flower print and black coloured
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 4
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

tight. Right eye was semi open but left eye was closed and
conjuctive contused, left face contused, forehead contused and
oedematous. Nose and mouth clear having no ear bubble and
blood. Postmortem lividity was well marked on posterior aspect of
the body. On perennial examination hymen was ruptured
introitious white and bleeding was seen around vagina and staining
of inner thighs. Vaginal swabs taken. Strangulation marks present
on right side of neck half inch long 5 cm below right lope of right
ear. Mark on left side of neck 5 cm long 6 cm below lobe of left
ear. Mark was boat shape.
DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES
(1). On neck half in inch mark on right side of neck 5 cm below
lobe of right ear.
(2). 5 cm mark on left side of neck 6 cm below of lobe of left
ear.
On dissection hyoid bone was looking intact. Four vagina
swabs were taken for semen analysis and DNA testing.
On dissection hyoid bone was looking intact.
Four vaginal swabs were taken for semen analysis and DNA
testing. All the other organs were healthy and intact.
Specimen sent for expert opinion was for chemical examination,
Histopathological examination and DNA testing. Samples were of
small intestine, large intestines, liver, spleen, kidney, heart and
lungs for detection of poison. Hyoid bone and trachea for
Histopathological examination and four vaginal swabs for semen
analysis, blood group and DNA testing.
OPINION
“After completion of postmortem examination, I was of the
opinion that there was clear cut evidence of sexually assault and
strangulation. Final opinion would be given after reports from
Forensic Science Agency Lahore. In case the poison is not detected
in the viscera of the deceased, the cause of death in my opinion
was asphyxia by strangulation coupled with the sexual assault.”

Dr. Azhar Farooq (PW.7) on 13.11.2014 medically examined

Khalid Hameed (appellant) and found him potent to perform sexual
act.
6. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the learned trial
court examined Khalid Hameed (appellant) under section 342, Cr.P.C.
who in response to question “why this case against you and why the
PWs deposed against you” made the following reply:-
“A false case has been registered against me. I was made a
scapegoat in this case. I have nothing to do with the alleged
offence. The PWs are interested and related to the complainant
party.”

Neither appellant opted to appear as witness under section 340

(2) of Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence. On the
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 5
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as

mentioned above, hence, the instant appeal and murder reference.
7. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the case in hand is
arising out of crime report which was registered with an unexplained
delay of two days; that admittedly, the murder occurrence remained
un-witnessed and case of prosecution is comprising upon
circumstantial evidence; that the main component of such
incriminating circumstances is the evidence of last seen and recovery
of dead body from the possession of appellant; that so far as evidence
of last seen which was furnished by PW.11 Muhammad Younas and
PW.13 Pervaiz Gul is concerned, it from face of it is dubious in
nature; that both the witnesses of last seen remained silent till the
registration of FIR, which casts reasonable doubt about the truth of
their claim; that PW.13 Pervaiz Gul while narrating the episode of last
seen neither took the name of deceased nor gave her physical or facial
features; that the medical evidence put forth during trial is also not
supporting the case of prosecution as it runs contrary to the
accusation; that even the DNA report also negates the charge of rape
as no seminal material taken from the vaginal swabs of deceased
matched with the profile of appellant; that so far as, recovery of dead
body from the possession of appellant is concerned, no independent
witness in its support was produced by prosecution, thus such charge
remained unproved and that though reasonable doubt emerges from
the plain reading of prosecution case, however, its benefit was not
extended to the appellant. With these submissions, it was urged that
the conviction awarded to the appellant is not sustainable.
8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted
by learned counsel for the complainant strongly controverted the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that
though the FIR was registered with the delay of two days, however,
the information regarding the missing of deceased Zainab was
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 6
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

provided to police on the very day of occurrence; that the appellant

was apprehended along with the dead body of deceased which is
sufficient proof of his guilt; that on the disclosure and pointation of
appellant, blood stains and clothes of Zainab Bibi deceased were
recovered from his residential room; that during DNA examination it
proved beyond hilt that blood stains secured from the room of
appellant matched with the DNA profile of deceased; that through
cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, the appellant was linked
with the room from where blood stains of deceased were collected;
that the evidence of last seen brought on record through Muhammad
Younas and Pervaiz Gul itself is sufficient to connect the appellant
with the commission of crime; that the belongings of deceased
recovered at the instance of appellant provide sufficient corroboration
to the case of prosecution; that it emerges from the medical evidence
furnished by Lady Doctor Narjis Zaidi that deceased was raped and
strangulated to death and such aspect can be taken as sufficient
supporting circumstance and that since the guilt of appellant stands
proved from the prosecution evidence, hence, the judgment of
conviction passed by the trial court needs no interference in appeal.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. The case of prosecution, so to speak, primarily hinges upon
circumstantial evidence which is in the nature of last seen evidence
furnished by Muhammad Younas and Pervaiz Gul (PW.11 & PW.13),
the recovery of dead body from the constructive possession of
appellant witnessed by Munir Khan and Dilshad Khan (PW.4 &
PW.9), belongings of deceased recovered on the pointation of
appellant and the medical evidence.
11. A wade through the record reveals that the case in hand is
arising out of an incident in which a little girl, namely, Zainab (aged
about 6/7 years) was raped and strangulated to death after abduction.
The little angel left the house of her father, which was nothing less
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 7
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

than a castle for her on 11.11.2014 at about 3:00 p.m. and went
missing subsequent thereto. Though it is obsessively argued that FIR
(Exh.PJ/2) suffers from an unexplained delay of two days, however,
the scrutiny of record reveals that this argument did not find support
from record. In fact, initially the ill-fated father, namely, Munir Khan
(PW.4) made personal efforts to locate his missing daughter but upon
failure he approached Station House Officer Pir Wadai Rawalpindi on
12.11.2014 through application (Exh.PH) which was recorded in
Station Diary through entry No.33. Even otherwise, in cases of
abduction, such delay is apt to happen due to indifferent attitude of
police and over optimistic approach of the families.
12. It alludes from in-depth review of the record that the main
occurrence of rape and murder remained un-witnessed. The
prosecution case is mainly resting upon circumstantial evidence. One
of the components of such incriminating circumstances is the
evidence of last seen narrated by Muhammad Younas and Pervaiz Gul
(PW.11 & PW.13). Before proceeding any further, it appears to be in
fitness of things to see that what in law means evidence of last seen.
Such evidence stands for an event in which the slain person is seen
last time alive in the company of an accused. Though the evidence of
last seen in itself is generally regarded as a weak type in nature but
there is no legal impediment to make it basis for awarding conviction,
if it is corroborated from some other source of unimpeachable
character. The evidence of last seen qualifies for acceptance if it fits
into the criteria of proximity of time and distance, according to which
the time and distance between the event of last seen and death of
deceased must not be too long. The lesser is the duration and distance
between the event of last seen and homicidal death of the victim,
stronger is such evidence. The logic behind evaluating the evidence of
last seen on the touchstone of proximity of time and distance lies
behind the theory that afflux of longer duration and distance between
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 8
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

the two events gives rise to the hypotheses that after having been seen
in the company of accused, the deceased might have parted his way
and joined the company of some other. In support of our such view,
we consider it appropriate to refer the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Pakistan in case reported as Rehmat alias Rhaman alias Waryam
alias Badshah v. The State (PLD 1977 SC 515) which is as under:-
“On a balance of the decided cases, it appears that the
circumstances of the deceased having been last seen in the
company of the accused is not by itself sufficient to sustain the
charge of murder. Further evidence is required to link the accused
with the murder of his companion. Such as incriminating
recoveries at the instance of accused, a strong motive or the
proximity of the time when they were last seen together and the
time when the deceased was killed. Only then will the accused be
called upon to give an explanation of the demise of the person who
was last seen alive in his company”.

The afore-mentioned view was further affirmed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in a recently pronounced judgment reported as
Muhammad Abid v. The State and another (PLD 2018 Supreme
Court 813).
In the wake of above discussion, we consider it appropriate to
embark upon the testimony of Pervaiz Gul (PW.13), who in no
manner was related to the deceased and instead was a pupil of Khalid
Hameed (appellant). It is noteworthy that even the deceased has not
denied his afore-mentioned rapport with Pervaiz Gul (PW.13) and
even went on to admit it while responding to question No.17 in his
examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. For reference sake, the reply
is being reproduced which is as under:-
“I am Ustad of Pervaiz Gul but he did not arrange Baithak for me.”

It is further observed that according to the deposition of Pervaiz

Gul (PW.13) he went to the place of abode of appellant on 12.11.2014
at about 9:00 p.m. and saw him in the company of a six years old girl.
Admittedly, he neither mentioned the name of Zainab (deceased) nor
gave her physical or facial features in his examination-in-chief.
However, Pervaiz Gul (PW.13) identified photograph (P.13) to be of
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 9
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

Zainab (deceased) when confronted with it during cross-examination.

Similarly, Muhammad Younas (PW.11) who was having no blood
relation with the deceased but hailed from the same vicinity also
appeared in the dock with the claim of having witnessed Zainab
(deceased) in the company of appellant on 11.11.2014 at about 5:00
p.m. and stood firm with this stance. After subjecting the testimony of
both the witnesses of last seen to meticulous examination, we have not
come across any circumstance from which it may even remotely
insinuate that the two witnesses had any axe to grind with the
appellant through falsely implicating him in the case. In reference to
the principle of proximity of time and distance, it is noticed that on the
one hand, Zainab (deceased) was seen by Pervaiz Gul (PW.13) in the
room of Khalid Hameed (convict) at about 9:00 p.m. of 12.11.2014
and on other hand it is observed that her corpse arrived in Holy
Family Hospital Rawalpindi on 13.11.2014 at about 3:00 a.m. In such
state of affair, we have all the good reasons to believe that shortly
after having been seen in the company of appellant, Zainab took her
last breath. It is of immense importance to mention here that appellant
was having his place of abode within the territorial jurisdiction of
Police Station Peer Wadai. The appellant was spotted by the PWs on
the night falling amidst 12 & 13 November, 2014 in a locality situated
in the area of same police station. From above referred facts, it can
safely and legitimately be concluded that the evidence of last seen is
in consonance with the requirements of proximity of time and
distance.
13. Though we have clarity of mind in holding that the deposition
of Muhammad Younas and Pervaiz Gul (PW.11 & PW.13) rings true,
however, as an abundant caution have peeped through the record to
look for further corroboration. It is noticed that the corpse of Zainab
was recovered in a manner which leans every prudent legal mind
towards the guilt of appellant. It is evincible from file that Khalid
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 10
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

Hameed (appellant) was nabbed by Munir Khan and Dilshad (PW.4 &
PW.9) in the thick of an event wherein he was carrying the corpse of
Zainab placed in a sack upon his shoulders. Having critically gone
through the evidence of both witnesses, we have not been able to
come across even an iota of suspicion to shatter afore-mentioned
claim of witnesses. It is also evident from the police proceedings
mentioned at the bottom of crime report (Exh.PJ/2) as well as from
the statement of Investigating Officer Muhammad Mumtaz SI
(PW.15) that upon arrival of police at crime scene, the appellant was
found detained by Munir Khan (PW.4) and two others along with
dead body of Zainab in a sack. Since the recovery of dead body from
the possession of appellant is forming part of a transaction in which
earlier the deceased was abducted, raped and then strangulated to
death, hence is a relevant fact as res gestae. The expression “res
gestae” in Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition is defined in
following manner:-
“The res gestae embraces not only the actual facts of the
transaction and the circumstances surrounding it, but the matters
immediately antecedent to having a direct casual connection with
it, as well as acts immediately following it and so closely
connected with it as to form in reality a part of the occurrence.”

The concept of res gestae also stands embodies in Article 19 of

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which for reference sake is
reproduced hereunder:-
“Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts
which though not in issue are so connected with a fact in issue as
to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they
occurred at the same time and place or at different time and
places.”

In order to treat a circumstance admissible and relevant as res

gestae, the prosecution is to demonstrate through some legally
admissible evidence that it was connected with the fact in issue so
closely as to form part of one transaction. Likewise, the fact in order
to attain admissibility as res gestae should not have occurred with
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 11
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

afflux of such time so as to give rise to the hypotheses of being part of

a different transaction rather it must be contemporaneous with the
incident in issue. The term “res gestae” and Article 19 of Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 came under discussion before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Shabbir Hussain alias
Sukku v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 368) and met with
following observations:-
“In order to attract the application of Article 19 of Qanun-e-
Shahdat it is important to bear in mind that the facts, which are
connected with the fact in issue as “part of the transaction” under
investigation are admissible as relevant facts. In order to apply the
said rule the point for decision will always be whether the said
facts do form part or are too remote to be considered really part of
the transaction before the court.”

On the benchmark of above discussion, we have clarity of mind

that the circumstance of appellant having been found in possession of
Zainb’s corpse is closely connected with the charge of murder and
rape, hence can legitimately be considered as an admissible
incriminating circumstance, relevant to fact in issue.
14. This is also an integral part of the prosecution case that
immediately after his arrest Khalid Hameed (appellant) in pursuance
of a disclosure, led the police to his residential room and got
recovered shoes (P.3/1-2) and shawl/Chadar (P.4) belonging to
deceased. From the floor of same room, blood through cotton was
secured by Muhammad Mumtaz SI (PW.15) vide recovery memo
(Exh.PW), which as per DNA report (Exh.PZ) was proved to be of
deceased Zainab. This circumstance goes long way in proving that
Zainab met her homicidal death in the room where none other than the
appellant was having his abode. Though it is vociferously argued that
since the belongings of deceased and blood from the floor were
secured without associating any resident of the vicinity, thus being in
violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. no explicit reliance can be placed
thereupon. Since such argument runs contrary to the mandate of
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 12
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, hence, holds no ground.

It will not be out of context to mention here that Articles 38 & 39 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 make inadmissible the confession
made before a police officer or in his custody. However, Article 40 of
the Order ibid, is an exception to such rule and it is postulated therein
that if a fact is discovered in consequence of information received
from an accused, may he be in police custody, it can be brought on
record. The word “discovery” is to be construed in literal and
restricted sense and means the lifting of veil from a fact relevant to the
issue in question which must not be in conscious knowledge of any
other person. It is, in these circumstances, that the associating of two
residents of the locality as required under section 103, Cr.P.C., can be
dispensed with. Recoveries effected and facts discovered under
Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 gain credence if
witnessed by any two persons, may they be even from police. In the
aftermath of above discussion recoveries in this case are found to have
been effected on the disclosure and pointing out of the appellant from
a place in his possession, hence are credible in nature. In support of
our view, we are guided by chain of authorities from the jurisdiction
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Hidayatullah and 7
others v. The State and others (1994 P Cr.LJ 20), Gul Muhammad v.
The State (2011 SCMR 670), Mst. Askar Jan and others v.
Muhammad Daud and others (2010 SCMR 1604), Sh. Muhammad
Amjad v. The State (2004 SCJ 33). The observation of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in the case of Sh. Muhammad
Amjad (supra) for reference sake is produced as under:-
“Further, it is noted that as per Article 40, corresponding to section
27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is revealed in consequence
of information received from any accused in custody of a police
officer, such information whether it amounts to a confession or not
as it relates directly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
The information supplied by the appellant, under Article 40 ibid,
relating to incriminatory articles is admissible.”
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 13
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

15. Since the belongings of deceased and her blood was recovered
from a room, hence its nexus is essentially required to be established
with the appellant. For this purpose, prosecution produced
Mst.Hanifan Bibi (PW.12), the owner of house which comprises upon
the room in question. In the absence of any enmity with appellant,
Hanifan Bibi (PW.12) deposed to have rented out the room/Baithak to
Khalid Hameed (appellant) on monthly rent of Rs.2700/-. It is
intriguing to mention here that during his examination under section
342, Cr.P.C., appellant was asked about the obtaining of said room on
rent from Hanifan Bibi to which he responded in following words:-
“I was residing in a rented Baithak of Mst. Hanifan Bibi but I had
not obtained it through Pervaiz Gul PW.”

It can safely be derived from above that on one end this is the
stance of prosecution that the room in question was under the
exclusive possession of Khalid Hameed (appellant) and on other end
there is an admission on his behalf in this regard. Such circumstance,
besides providing strong corroboration to the evidence of last seen,
goes long way in establishing that Zainab Bibi met her death in the
room which was under occupation of appellant.
16. We have also attended to the medical evidence brought on
record through Dr. Narjis Zaidi (PW.3) who conducted autopsy of
Zainab Bibi (deceased) on 13.11.2014 at 4:00 a.m. Besides explaining
the cause of death as asphyxia by strangulation, she described the
duration between the death and postmortem as approximately two to
three hours. The most painful aspect which surfaced from the
deposition of Dr. Narjis Zaidi (PW.3) is to the effect that before
strangulating Zainab to death, she was subjected to rape, an act bereft
of any morality and at the ebb of extreme inhumanity. Though during
DNA examination, seminal material taken from the vaginal swabs and
clothes of Zainab Bibi did not match with the appellant, however it
cannot be resolved adversely to the case of prosecution. While
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 14
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

holding so, we have in our minds that the appellant must have resorted
to safe sex by adopting some precautionary measures for not leaving
behind stains of his semen. Even otherwise, since the cases of
sexually ravishing little kids have increased to many folds in the
recent past, hence, the courts are required to have resort to more
pragmatic, dynamic and realistic approach while catering with them
and must not build the superstructure of acquittal on artificially
stretched concept of doubt.
17. The epitome of what has been discussed above is that
prosecution successfully proved its case on the basis of circumstantial
evidence comprising upon last seen, apprehending of appellant along
with dead body of deceased, nexus between the appellant and the
room where Zainab met her death as well as medical evidence.
Having arrived at such conclusion, we also took pain to peep through
the defence put forth by the appellant in order to see that whether
there is some circumstance, the legitimate benefit of which can be
extended to him in any manner but have come across none. After
pondering in detail upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, we have arrived at conclusion that the case of appellant even
does not call for awarding of alternate sentence of imprisonment of
life under section 302 (b) PPC or some lesser sentence under sections
364-A or 376, PPC. In drawing such conclusion, besides not having
any ambivalence regarding the guilt of appellant, we have also taken
note of the miseries of Zainab extractable from unfortunate saga. The
little angel after getting some money from her father proceeded to a
nearby shop with the joyous feelings of purchasing some sweets
which ended when the little flower was plucked and mutilated by the
appellant through encroaching upon her modesty by savage act of rape
and murder. Unfortunately, we are living in an era wherein the sexual
lust of persons like Khalid Hameed (convict) has gone to an extent
which has made even small and young girls vulnerable to such
 Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2015 & 15
Murder Reference No.26 of 2015

assaults. Though the courts and judges are not the reformists but still
heavy duty is cast upon them to award exemplary punishments in
proved cases of sexual violence to make it a bad bargain for the
likeminded philanderers. In the given circumstances, we are swayed
to uphold the conviction of death awarded to Khalid Hameed
(appellant). Consequently, death sentence awarded to Khalid Hameed
(appellant) on all the charges is maintained and Criminal Appeal
No.328 of 2015 filed by him stands dismissed. Resultantly, Murder
Reference No.26 of 2015 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE and
death sentence awarded to Khalid Hameed (convict) IS
CONFIRMED.

(Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi) (Ch. Abdul Aziz)

Judge Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

(Ch. Abdul Aziz)

Judge

Najum*