IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN  
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
Criminal Appeal No.324/2011 and Criminal Appeal No.325/2011 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17.6.2010 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
passed in Crl.A.No.2124/05, Crl.Rev.No.150/05 and M.R.No.107/05). 
 
 
Mst. Rukhsana Begum 
 
 
 
 
 
….Appellant  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In Crl.A.324/2011) 
VERSUS  
 
1. Sajjad son of Inayat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Mehdi son of Inayat 
3. Abdul Salam son of Walayat 
4. Zaraat son of Inayat 
5. Abid son of Bahadar 
6. Bilal son of Mehdi Khan 
7. Khushi Muhammad son of Zarrat 
8. Afzaal Mehdi son of Mehdi Khan 
9. Masood alias Rana son of Adalat Khan 
10. The State 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In Crl.A.324/11) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
….Respondents 
------------------------ 
1. Sajjad son of Inayat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Mehdi son of Inayat 
3. Afzaal Mehdi son of Mehdi Khan 
4. Masood alias Rana son of Adalat Khan 
…Appellants (In Crl.A.325/2011) 
 
VERSUS  
 
The State 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In Crl.A.325/11) 
….Respondent 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________  
 
In Crl.A.324/2011 
For the appellant: 
 
 Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
Respondents-2,5,6,8,9:  
Mr. Allah Bakhsh Gondal, ASC 
Respondent-10/State:  
Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl.PG, Pb 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
2 
In Crl.A.325/2011 
For the appellants: 
 
Mr. Allah Bakhsh Gondal, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mian Ghulam Hussain AOR (Absent) 
 
For State: 
 
 
Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl.PG, Pb 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
25.1.2017 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, Judge:- Both these appeals 
have been filed with leave of the court dated 3.8.2011 for reappraisal 
of the evidence. 
2. 
 
We have heard learned ASCs for the parties and the State 
and have carefully made the reappraisal of evidence. 
3. 
 
Muhammad 
Faazil, 
while 
reporting 
the 
crime 
to 
Inspector/SHO Police Station, Sarai Alamgir on 22.2.2003, apparently 
at 1.35 A.N. shown, at some place out of police station, has alleged 
that on the fateful day at about 11.00 am, he alongwith his sons 
Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Yar (deceased), Muhammad Sharif 
and Fayyaz son of Rahimdad after taking round of their wheat crop 
near ‘Khohar’ sat in the open plot and were smoking ‘HUKKA’, when in 
the meanwhile, Inayat son of Qutab Din  armed with hatchet, Zaraat, 
Mehdi, Sajjad sons of Anayat armed with rifles, Abdul Salam son of 
Walayat armed with rifle, Abid son of Muhammad Sajjad armed with 
hatchet, Bilal son of Mehdi armed with hatchet, Afzaal Mehdi alias Bodi 
son of Mehdi Khan armed with hatchet, Khushi Muhammad son of 
Zaraat armed with hatchet and Muhammad Masood alias Rana son of 
Adalat Khan (gunman of accused Sajjad) armed with hatchet, in a 
concerted manner attacked them after encircling all of them. Zaraat 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
3 
fired at Muhammad Fayyaz hitting him on his left thigh, followed by 
Mehdi whose fire shot hit Muhammad Fayyaz on left lower thigh then, 
Sajjad fired at Muhammad Fayyaz which hit the dorsal of right foot, 
which was broken. Abdul Salam fired at his son Muhammad Yar which 
hit on his left shoulder then Mehdi fired at Muhammad Yar which hit on 
his lower belly. As a result, both of his sons fell down and while lying 
on the ground, accused Inayat gave hatchet blow to Muhammad 
Fayyaz on the right shin/calf. Abid caused hatchet injury to 
Muhammad Yar on his right shoulder and thereafter, accused Masood, 
Abid, Bilal, Afzaal Mehdi alias Bodi and Khushi Muhammad gave 
hatchets blows to both of his sons one after another as a result both 
sustained serious injuries on the mandible, neck, forehead and skull 
and after satisfying that both had died, threatened us not to come 
near them otherwise, they would meet the same fate. 
 
 
Motive for the crime has been shown enmity between the 
two families. 
4. 
 
On this report, FIR No.65 was registered for crimes under 
sections 302/148/149 PPC by police station Sarai Alamgir District 
Gujrat. 
5. 
 
The Investigating Officer, inspected the spot and recovered 
blood stained earth from the places of the two deceased while on 
29.3.2003, at the instance of Sajjad accused, .8 mm, rifle was also 
recovered from his residential house. 
6. 
 
On 29.3.2003 at the instance of Mehdi accused one rifle 
apparently of Kalashnikov shape, was recovered from his house while, 
on the same date, at the instance of Abid accused a hatchet was 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
4 
recovered from his house which was found blood stained. Similarly, at 
the instance of accused Mehdi alias Bodi alleged crime hatchet was 
recovered from his house which too was blood stained. In the same 
fashion, at the instance of accused Masood alias Rana alleged crime 
hatchet was recovered on the same day from his house. All these were 
taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex-PE, Ex-:PF, Ex-PG, Ex-
PH and Ex-PJ. 
7. 
 
The dead bodies along with injury sheets and inquest 
reports, were sent to mortuary, for postmortem examination under the 
supervision of escorting constables. Autopsy on both the dead bodies 
was conducted on the same date but at 11.00 pm and 11.30 pm 
respectively.  
8. 
 
Rough site plan and scale site plan were prepared, during 
spot inspection eight crime empties of .8-mm rifle were secured from 
near the two dead bodies and taken into possession vide memo-Ex-PT. 
9. 
 
At the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was 
submitted to the trial court, where, the prosecution examined 12 PWs 
in all and after recording the statement of the accused under section 
342 Cr.PC., accused Zaraat, Mehdi, Sajjad and Abdul Salam were 
sentenced to death on two counts while accused Masood, Bilal, Afzaal, 
Mehdi, Khushi Muhammad and Abid were awarded life imprisonment. 
All the accused were also awarded three years R.I. under section 148 
PPC, however, accused sentenced to life imprisonment, were given 
benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC. 
10. 
 
The convict appellants filed criminal appeal No.2124/2005 
while the trial court sent a Murder Reference No.107/2005. On the 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
5 
other 
hand, 
the 
complainant, 
filed 
Criminal 
Revision 
Petition 
No.150/2005, in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 
11. 
 
Through, the impugned judgment dated 17.6.2010, the 
appeal of present appellants (Criminal Appeal No.325/2011) i.e. of 
Mehdi, Masood alias Rana, Sajjad and Afzaal Mehdi was dismissed. 
12. 
 
Admittedly, there was a longstanding enmity between the 
parties, therefore, we have to see as to what extent the witnesses who 
were inimical to the accused, are supported by any corroboratory 
evidence of independent and un-impeachable nature.  
13. 
 
In the ridder to the FIR, the Investigating Officer has 
mentioned 
that 
the 
complainant 
Muhammad 
Faazil 
met 
him 
somewhere in the way while proceeding to the police station. In past, 
it had become routine practice of the police that indeed in such like 
crimes, the FIR/written complaints were being taken on the crime spot 
after preliminary investigation, however, after this court had 
disapproved this practice, they have invented a new way of misleading 
the court of law because invariably, in every second or third case, 
same and similar practice is adopted but with newly invented 
methodology. 
14. 
 
In the inquest report of Muhammad Fayyaz, the time of 
death is shown 12.40 noon on 22.2.2003, while in the FIR, the time of 
occurrence is shown 11.00 am which lasted only for few minutes. The 
same time of death is given in the case of Muhammad Yar-deceased in 
the inquest report. Both the inquest reports were prepared on the 
crime spot as has been shown on the last page of each one. In column 
No.23, no crime empty has been shown present there, albeit in the 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
6 
recovery memo and in the site plan, these empties had been shown 
recovered lying very close to both the dead bodies. This deliberate 
omission, creates reasonable doubts about the recovery.  
15. 
 
Another intriguing aspect of the matter is that, according 
to the FIR, all the accused encircled the complainant, the PWs and the 
two deceased thus, the apparent object was that none could escape 
alive. The complainant being father of the two deceased and the head 
of the family was supposed to be the prime target. In fact he has 
vigorously pursued the case against the accused and also deposed 
against them as an eye witness. The site plan positions would show 
that, he and the other PWs were at the mercy of the assailants but 
being the prime target even no threat was extended to him. Blessing 
him with unbelievable courtesy and mercy shown to him by the 
accused knowing well that he and the witnesses would depose against 
them by leaving them unhurt, is absolutely unbelievable story. Such 
behavior, on the part of the accused, runs counter to natural human 
conduct and behavior explained in the provisions of Article 129 of the 
Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order 1984, therefore, the court is unable to 
accept such unbelievable proposition.  
16. 
 
The site plan would further show that, the complainant 
party was having no land near or around the crime spot and even the 
cattle-shed where, they were, allegedly sitting, was belonging to one 
Nazir Ahmad, therefore, the claim of the complainant that they took a 
round of their crop prior to the occurrence, stood falsified. This was 
the only purpose for the complainant and the PWs to be present with 
the 
deceased 
which 
has 
not 
been 
established 
through 
any 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
7 
documentary or other evidence. The second eye witness namely 
Muhammad Sharif (PW-9) undeniably belongs to another village. It 
was suggested to him by the defence that his village is 30-Kilometer 
away from the crime spot. Although he denied the same but the 
witness was attempting to conceal the true distance as is evident from 
the observation recorded by the trial court (page-76), therefore, he 
can be construed as a chance witness. The defence also suggested to 
him that his daughter is married to the nephew of the complainant 
which he denied. He also admitted that 2/3 cattle lifting cases were 
registered against him, however, he denied that one case was 
registered against him by the Zaraat accused/appellant. He also 
admitted that while coming from his village to the village of the 
complainant, river Jhelum intervenes. This witness, has also made 
dishonest improvements in his statement at the trial from the one he 
had given to the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further 
admitted that, after arrival of the police at the spot, the statement of 
the complainant was recorded first thus, it provide strength to the 
view of the Court that FIR was lodged at crime spot after deliberation 
and consultations. 
17. 
 
In ordinary parlance, a chance witness is the one who, in 
the normal course is not supposed to be present on the crime spot 
unless he offers cogent, convincing and believable explanation, 
justifying his presence there.  
18. 
 
In the instant case, this witness has shown no work or 
definite purpose of visit to crime spot, therefore, his presence on the 
crime spot is not believable and his testimony, for this reason alone is 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
8 
rejected. More so, when for reaching the spot, he had confronted 
surging waves of fast flowing water of the river. 
 
 
A 
single 
doubt 
reasonably 
showing 
that 
a 
witness/witnesses’ presence on the crime spot was doubtful when a 
tragedy takes place, would be sufficient to discard his/their testimony 
as a whole. This principle may be pressed into service in cases where 
such witness/witnesses are seriously inimical or appears to be a 
chance witness because judicial mind would remain disturbed about 
the truthfulness of the testimony of such witnesses provide in a 
murder case, is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system.  
19. 
 
As discussed earlier, the complainant was at the mercy of 
the accused as according to his version he alongwith the two deceased 
was encircled and was under direct and immediate threat of death but 
he was still able to give photographic narration of the occurrence by 
attributing individual role to each one of the several accused inflicting 
injuries with hatchets and fire arms on specific parts of the bodies of 
the two deceased. This fact, by itself is sufficient, to disbelieve his 
presence at the crime spot at the fateful time.  
20. 
 
As we have already declared that, investigation conducted 
in this case, was neither fair nor honest, therefore, the recovery 
effected of the so-called crime weapons has also lost its legal worth 
which otherwise, is not implicating the appellants except Sajjad.  
21. 
 
It is also pertinent to mention here, that the attesting 
witness to all these recoveries of incriminating articles is Muhammad 
Sharif (PW-9) whose testimony we have already disbelieved as a 
whole. It is fundamental principle of justice that corroboratory 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
9 
evidence, must come from independent source providing strength 
and endorsement to the account of the eye witnesses, therefore, eye 
witnesses, in the absence of extraordinary and very exceptional and 
rare circumstances, cannot corroborate themselves by becoming 
attesting witness/witnesses to the recovery of crime articles. In 
other words, eye witnesses cannot corroborate themselves but 
corroboratory evidence must come from independent source and 
shall be supported by independent witnesses other than eye 
witnesses, thus, these recoveries are equally of no judicial efficacy.  
22. 
 
In 
this 
case, 
some 
of 
the 
accused 
have 
been 
killed/murdered allegedly by the complainant party and some died 
during imprisonment thus, the private execution to death of some of 
the accused, by the complainant party, would suggest that they 
themselves took the revenge from those, who were involved in the 
crime albeit, the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed 
this view but he was unable to controvert that some of the acquitted 
accused have been killed. 
23. 
 
In view of the analysis and combined study of the entire 
evidence by way of reappraisal, with much care and caution, we are of 
the considered view, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case 
against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, this 
appeal (Criminal Appeal No.325/2011) is allowed and while extending 
benefit of doubt to the appellants, they are acquitted of all the charges 
leveled against them. For the reasons given above, Criminal Appeal 
No.324/2011 filed by Mst. Rukhsana Begum is dismissed.  
24. 
 
These are the detailed reasons for our short order of even 
date 25.1.2017 which is reproduced below: 
Crl.As.324-325/2011 
10 
“Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2011: 
For reasons to be recorded later, this appeal is 
dismissed. 
Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011: 
Per report of the Superintendent, District Prison, 
Gujrat and as was admitted at the bar by the learned 
ASC for the appellants, Sajjad son of Muhammad 
Inayat one of the appellants has died, therefore, to 
his extent this appeal stands abated, while the 
convictions 
and 
sentences 
awarded 
to 
other 
appellants/accused, namely, Mehdi son of Inayat, 
Afzaal Mehdi son of Mehdi Khan and Masood alias 
Rana son of Adalat Khan by the learned High Court 
vide the impugned judgment dated 17.6.2010 are 
set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges 
leveled against them. They be set free forthwith, if 
not required in any other case. Detail reasons to 
follow separately.” 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the   
25th January, 2017 
Sarfraz/-‘ 
 
 
 
 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’