IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 201 and 202 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in criminal Revisions 
No. 382 and 428 of 2016) 
 
 
Syed Azhar Hussain Shah 
(in Cr. A. 201 of 2018) 
Rafi Ullah Jan 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 202 of 2018)  
…Appellants 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
The State, etc.   
 
(in both cases) 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the appellants: 
Mr. Hassan Raza Pasha, ASC 
 
(in Cr. A. 201 of 2018) 
Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, ASC 
(in Cr. A. 202 of 2018) 
 
For the complainant: 
Malik Waheed Anjum, ASC 
 
(in both cases) 
 
On Court’s Notice:  
Syed 
Nayyab 
Hussain 
Gardezi, 
Deputy 
Attorney-General 
for 
Pakistan 
Barrister Ghulam Shabbir Shah, 
Additional Advocate-General, Sindh 
Mr. 
Salim 
Akhtar, 
Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Sindh 
Mr. 
Ayaz 
Sawati, 
Additional 
Advocate-General, Balochistan 
Mr. Qasim Ali Chohan, Additional 
Advocate-General, Punjab 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab  
Mr. 
Zahid 
Yousaf 
Qureshi, 
Additional 
Advocate-General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa  
Syed Baqaq Shah, State Counsel  
(in both cases) 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
10.01.2019 
Criminal Appeals No. 201 and 202 of 2018 
 
2
JUDGMENT  
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 3 & 8 of 2019 and 
2103, 2074, 2075, 2076, and 2077 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal 
No. 201 of 2018 
 
 
These miscellaneous applications are allowed and the 
documents appended therewith are permitted to be brought on the 
record of the main appeal. Disposed of.  
 
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2018 
 
2. 
Syed Azhar Hussain Shah appellant was booked and tried in 
case FIR No. 66 registered at Police Station Saddar Talagang, 
District Chakwal on 06.05.2014 in respect of an offence under 
section 324, PPC read with section 34, PPC and upon completion 
of the trial he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for 
offences under sections 324, 334 and 336, PPC. For the offence 
under section 324, PPC the appellant was sentenced by the trial 
court to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 
2,00,000/- or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple 
imprisonment for one year. On appeal the Court of Session upheld 
and maintained all the convictions and sentences of the appellant 
recorded by the trial court except the sentence passed against him 
for the offence under section 324, PPC which was reduced by the 
Court of Session to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine 
of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default of payment thereof to undergo 
simple imprisonment for six months. A revision petition filed by the 
appellant before the High Court in that regard was subsequently 
dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellant 
recorded by the Court of Session were upheld and maintained. 
Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 
16.03.2018.  
 
3. 
On 16.03.2018 leave to appeal had been granted by this 
Court 
and 
various 
questions 
were 
framed 
which 
needed 
consideration. The said questions are reproduced below: 
Criminal Appeals No. 201 and 202 of 2018 
 
3
 
“(i) Whether Magistrate empowered u/s 30 read with section 35 
Cr.P.C. is competent to try offences which are punishable with 
Diyat or Arsh which has not been specifically mentioned 
therein because these are entirely new punishments provided 
under the new dispensation of justice after the introduction of 
Qisas and Diyat laws based on Islamic injunction, now 
permanent part of the PPC. 
 
(ii) 
Whether the trial held by the Magistrate in these two petitions 
awarding Diyat and Arsh respectively, in case the first point is 
answered in the negative, would not become corum non judice 
and without jurisdiction and the conviction so awarded would 
be liable to set at naught. 
 
(iii) 
The learned Additional Prosecutor General pointed out that 
vide Act No. II of 1997 the punishment by way of Arsh and 
Daman was for the first time included through Amendment 
Act in clause A of section 32 of Cr.P.C. conferring jurisdiction 
on the Magistrate empowered u/s 30 to award such 
punishment and whether the Diyat is thus not excluded 
because after the new amendment it was not included to fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate so empowered. 
 
(iv) 
Whether the organs specified in different provisions of the PPC 
with regard to partial pairment or complete impairment of 
organs or pair of organs, the Diyat amount can exceed fixed 
for Qatl-e-Amad by the government from time to time and 
which Court have jurisdiction in that case too. 
 
(v) 
Whether the organs specifically mentioned in the relevant 
chapter of the PPC for the purpose of awarding Diyat, Arsh or 
Daman would exclude the internal organs in the human body 
in case it is injured, if the injuries enter in the cavities of 
trunk of human body i.e. cranium cavity, chest cavity and 
abdominal cavity. And whether these organs can be brought 
at par with those specifically mentioned in different provisions 
of the PPC and if not, then how a punishment can be awarded 
for that and whether the provision of sections 336 and 337-D 
would resolve the dispute or not.” 
 
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the 
learned Law Officers we have attended to the said questions.  
 
4. 
According to the Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 an offence under section 324, PPC is triable by a 
Court of Session and the said Schedule had been appended to the 
Code by virtue of the provisions of section 28 of that Code whereas 
section 30 of the said Code clearly provided that notwithstanding 
anything contained in sections 28 and 29 of the Code the 
Provincial Government may invest any Magistrate of the first class 
with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with 
death. In the case in hand the trial of the appellant was conducted 
by a Magistrate invested with such power under section 30 of the 
Criminal Appeals No. 201 and 202 of 2018 
 
4
Code and, thus, there was no jurisdictional infirmity vis-à-vis the 
authority of the concerned Magistrate to try the appellant for 
offences under sections 324, 334 and 336, PPC. It may be true that 
section 34 of the Code provides that the Court of a Magistrate 
specially empowered under section 30 of the Code may pass any 
sentence authorized by the law except the sentence of death or 
imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years but that limitation 
on the sentence to be passed by a Magistrate only regulates the 
punishment and not the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try an 
offence. In the order granting leave to appeal some reference had 
also been made to the issue of payment of Diyat vis-à-vis trial of a 
case by a Magistrate but we note that by virtue of the provisions of 
section 299, PPC Diyat is relevant only to a case of death of a 
victim and the quantum of Diyat is governed by the provisions of 
section 323, PPC whereas the case in hand was a case regarding 
offences under sections 324, 334 and 336, PPC wherein the victim 
had actually survived. In this view of the matter any issue 
regarding Diyat appears to be hardly relevant to the case in hand. 
These observations made by us take care of most of the questions 
raised in the order granting leave to appeal and we have also 
noticed in this respect that some observations made in the case of 
Allah Wasaya and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others (2012 
SCMR 193) had also clarified the relevant issues mentioned in the 
order granting leave to appeal .  
 
5. 
As regards the merits of the case of the appellant we have 
found that the occurrence in this case had taken place in broad 
daylight, an FIR in that respect had been lodged with sufficient 
promptitude and the appellant had been named in the FIR as the 
principal perpetrator of the alleged offences and firearm injuries on 
the thigh, penis and below the belly of the victim had been 
attributed to him therein. The eyewitnesses produced by the 
prosecution included the injured victim namely Syed Ahsan Raza 
Shah (PW1) and the ocular account furnished by the victim and 
Syed Muhammad Raza (PW2) was consistent and the same had 
found full support from the medical evidence. Both the courts 
below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence 
Criminal Appeals No. 201 and 202 of 2018 
 
5
available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion 
regarding guilt of the appellant having been proved to the hilt and 
upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not 
been able to take a view of the matter different from that 
concurrently taken by the courts below. The appellant has already 
been treated leniently in the matter of his sentences. We, however, 
note that his sentences of imprisonment had not been ordered to 
run concurrently to each other which relief ought to have been 
extended to him.  
 
6. 
For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed, 
the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the 
Court of Session are upheld and maintained and it is clarified that 
the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the 
appellant and all his sentences of imprisonment shall run 
concurrently to each other. This appeal is disposed of in these 
terms.  
 
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2018 
 
7. 
The legal questions raised in the order granting leave to 
appeal have been answered by us today in the connected Criminal 
Appeal No. 201 of 2018. In view of the judgment rendered in the 
said connected appeal no occasion has been found by us for 
interference with the impugned orders passed by the courts below 
in the present case. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
10.01.2019 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif