IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2017  
(Against the judgment dated 13.04.2017 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Capital Sentence Reference No. 
38-T/2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 1747/2014) 
 
Muhammad Nasir 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Punjab 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mst. Razia Muzafar, In person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
13.10.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Muhammad Nasir was 
tried by the learned Judge Anti Terrorism, Court No. II, Lahore pursuant to a 
case registered vide FIR No. 93/2014 under Sections 302/324/336-
B/109/337-A(I)/337-F(3) PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 
1997 at Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore, for committing murder of his wife 
Mst. Sakeena Bibi and for causing injuries to Mst. Rasheeda Bibi, Shaukat Ali 
and Ibrahim, minor. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 
25.09.2014 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- 
 
1) 
Under Section 302(b) PPC 
To death with a direction to pay Rs.500,000/- as 
compensation to legal heirs of deceased or in default whereof 
to further undergo six months SI.  
 
 
2) 
Under Section 7(1)(a) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
To death with a fine of Rs.100,000/- or in default whereof to 
further undergo three months SI.  
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2017  
-: 2 :-
 
3) 
Under Section 336-B PPC 
To imprisonment for 14 years on two counts alongwith fine of 
Rs.10,00,000/- for each count or in default whereof to further 
undergo SI for six months for each default.  
 
 
4) 
Under Section 7(1)(c) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
To 10 years imprisonment on two counts with fine of 
Rs.50,000/- on two counts or in default whereof to further 
undergo SI for three months for each default.  
 
The property of the petitioner was also directed to be 
forfeited in favour of State under Section 7(2) of the ATA, 
1997, in addition to the above-referred sentences. All the 
sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefit of 
Section 382-B Cr.P.C. 
2. 
 
In appeal the learned High Court maintained the convictions 
and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the 
impugned judgment, the petitioner/convict has filed the instant Jail 
Petition.  
3. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the learned 
Trial Court reads as under:- 
“2. 
The brief facts as came out from complaint Ex.PA/1 made by 
Sakeena Bibi alias Billo (now deceased) while in injured condition to 
Muhammad Hussain SI Police Post Sabzi Mandi Police Station, Ravi 
Road, Lahore on 09.02.2014 on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA was 
recorded are that she is housewife and dispute of divorce is pending 
between her and her husband Nasir and due to it 5/6 days earlier she 
alongwith her children came to house of her parents at Shams Pura. 
Today i.e. 09.02.2014 at about 1:30 pm she alongwith her son Ibrahim 
aged one year, her brother Shaukat Ali, her Bhabi Rashedan Bibi were 
taking meal at the roof top of the house when Nasir accused came and 
threw acid on them which fell on her face and other parts of the body 
and on right cheek and right arm of Rasheedan Bibi and on left arm of 
her brother Shaukat Ali and on face and on back side of belly and on 
right arm of Ibrahim and they became injured whereas, the accused fled 
away. This occurrence was also seen by Mazhar Ali and Mst. Razia Bibi. 
The injured were shifted to hospital by Rescue-1122. The motive of 
occurrence is that a dispute of divorce is pending in between her and 
her husband and due to that grudge he threw acid on them.”  
 
4. 
 
During the course of proceedings before this Court, it 
transpired that the petitioner committed murder of his wife from whom he 
had a son namely Ibrahim, who was about one year of age at the time of 
incident. The said minor son is alive and in-fact direct descendant of the 
JAIL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2017  
-: 3 :-
petitioner and is his ‘wali’. Before proceeding further, it would be in order 
to reproduce Sections 306 & 308 PPC, which reads as under:- 
"306. Qatl-i-amd not liable to qisas.---Qatl-i-amd shall not be 
liable to qisas in the following cases, namely:- 
  
(a) when an offender is a minor or insane: 
         
Provided that, where a person liable to qisas associates himself in 
the commission of the offence with a person not liable to qisas, 
with the intention of saving himself from qisas, he shall not be 
exempted from qisas; 
  
(b) when an offender causes death of his child or grand child, how 
low-so-ever; and 
  
(c) when any wali of the victim is a direct descendant, how low-so-
ever, of the offender." 
 
 
308. Punishment in qatl-i-amd not liable to qisas, etc.: (1) Where 
an offender guilty of qatl-i-amd is not liable to qisas under Section 
306 or the Qisas is not enforceable under clause (c) of Section 
307, he shall be liable to diyat: 
 
Provided that, where the offender is minor or insane, diyat shall 
be payable either from his property or, by such person as may be 
determined by the Court: 
 
Provided further that where at the time of committing qatl-i-amd 
the offender being a minor, had attained sufficient maturity or 
being insane, had a lucid interval, so as to be able to realize the 
consequences of his act, he may also be punished with 
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 
to twenty-five years as ta'zir. 
 
Provided further that, where the Qisas is not enforceable under 
clause (c) of Section 307, the offender shall be liable to diyat only 
if there is any wali other than offender and if there is no wali 
other than the offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment 
of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five 
years as ta'zir. 
 
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the 
Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in 
addition to the punishment of diyat, may punish the offender with 
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 
to twenty-five years, as ta'zir.” 
 
 
5. 
 
There are various judgments of this Court, which enunciate 
that the provisions of Sections 306 & 308 PPC would only be attracted in the 
JAIL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2017  
-: 4 :-
cases of qatl-i-amd liable to ‘qisas’ under Section 302(a) PPC. However, at 
the same time, the view persists that “in case we subscribe to the view that 
provisions contained in Sections 306 and 308 PPC apply to the cases of qisas 
only, it is apt to give rise to an anomaly. The anomaly is that if sentence in 
qatl-i-amd liable to qisas, despite stern and stringent forms of proof, 
can be lenient in view of the circumstances mentioned in sections 306 and 
308 PPC why can't it be lenient in view of the same circumstances in the 
case of tazir notwithstanding the forms of proof and sentence provided 
thereunder are comparatively less stern and stringent.” Reliance is placed 
on Zahid Rehman Vs. The State (PLD 2015 SC 77). There is no direct 
judgment on the subject except Khalil-uz-Zaman Vs. Supreme Appellate 
Court (PLD 1994 SC 885) wherein while dealing with a similar case, this 
Court held that “language of Sections 306 and 308 PPC is plain enough to 
show that Qatl-i-Amd committed by the petitioner was not liable to Qisas 
and Qatl-i-Amd not liable to Qisas is specifically punishable under Section 
308 PPC only. So, the petitioner could be convicted under Section 308 PPC 
and not under section 302 PPC to death as Qisas or Ta'zir.” Although review 
was filed in this case i.e. Faqirullah Vs. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203), 
which was accepted, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302(b) 
PPC as Ta’zir was maintained and he was ultimately executed but from 
perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that the Court itself observed that 
the provisions of Sections 306 to 308 PPC are not violative of any Quranic 
text or the Sunnah. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- 
“Due to paucity of time we have not been able to make further 
research in the matter ourselves. The opposite side had also not 
assisted us on the subject. Nonetheless, the amendments were 
introduced in the year 1990 in the Pakistan Penal Code including 
the provisions of clause (c) of section 306 and clauses (a) and (b) 
of section 304 of the P.P.C. with a view to bringing those 
provisions in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam and Sunnah. 
The presumption, therefore, is that aforementioned provisions 
are not violative of any Qur'anic text or the Sunnah of the Prophet 
(p.b.u.h.). The second contention is, therefore, devoid of any 
force.” 
 
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the questions as to (i) 
whether the case of the petitioner is covered under Section 306(c) PPC for 
which the maximum punishment provided under Section 308 PPC is 25 
JAIL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2017  
-: 5 :-
years along with payment of diyat, and (ii) whether the conviction and 
sentence recorded against the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC as Ta’zir 
was appropriate as per scheme of law squarely, requires consideration. We, 
therefore, grant leave to appeal in this petition. As the matter requires 
interpretation of the afore-referred provisions as per the intent of the 
Legislature, therefore, we deem it appropriate to send the matter to 
Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench to adjudicate the 
matter for authoritative judgment, as the earlier matter was heard by a 
bench comprising five members.  
 
  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on _______________ 
 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram