IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mr. Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed 
by the Balochistan High Court, Quetta in Crl. 
(ATA) Appeal No.281 of 2007)  
 
 
 
Muhammad Yaseen 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Shabbir Rajput, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Baqir Shah, State counsel 
 
Date of hearing: 
22.10.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Yasin, 
appellant, was tried alongside Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad 
Hadi by the learned Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court-I, Quetta in 
the absence of absconding co-accused, namely, Qurban Ali alias 
Shutar, Zakir and Asif, for abduction and subsequent murder of Qari 
Haji Muhammad, 30/32, while he was on a pleasure trip with his 
companions Noor Muhammad (PW-4) and Fateh Khan on 30.3.2007; 
they were frisked and thrashed before confined in a cave wherefrom the 
deceased was subsequently separated from his companions, let off 
unscathed. Upon receipt of information, the members of the deceased 
family set out in his search; during the process, they were confronted 
and forced to retreat by the tribesmen that included the proclaimed 
offenders as well. Incident was reported by deceased’s maternal uncle 
Haji Agh Muhammad (PW-1) on 5.4.2007 at Police Station Quaid Abad, 
District Quetta. As the investigation commenced, the appellant was 
confronted to the witnesses in a test identification parade held under 
magisterial supervision on 16.4.2007; the co-accused were also picked 
up by the witnesses on different dates. Upon a disclosure, on 9.4.2007, 
the appellant led a police contingent to a spot on Koh-e-Murdar for the 
Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2019 
 
2
recovery of corpse of Qari Haji Muhammad, concealed underneath a 
boulder, subsequent whereto, once again he got recovered a .30 caliber 
pistol, secured vide inventory dated 18.4.2007; he later accompanied 
the Investigating Officer to secure a casing from the spot, forensically 
found wedded with the weapon earlier recovered. The absconders were 
proceeded against while the appellant and co-accused, upon 
indictment, claimed trial that resulted  into appellant’s conviction 
under section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 read sections 302(b), 
148 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 12.10.2007; 
he was sentenced to death and three years RI on the coordinate charge 
whereas Muhammad Hadi co-accused was convicted under sections 
395, 506, 148 read with section 34 of the Code ibid; he was handed 
down sentences ranging from 3-years to 7-years including direction for 
payment of fine; Muhammad Hussain co-accused was acquitted from 
the charge. Having served out the sentences, Muhammad Hadi has 
since been released. State Reference clubbed with convict’s appeal, 
came up before a learned Division Bench of the High Court of 
Balochistan; with a cleavage of opinion, it was decided by a Referee 
Judge; majority judgment dated 18.09.2017 upheld the conviction, 
however, altered the penalty of death into imprisonment for life, vires 
whereof, are being assailed through leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is 
inordinate and inexplicable delay in recourse to law which becomes all 
the more intriguing as it is prosecution’s own case that soon after 
deceased’s disappearance members of his clan set out in his search 
and that in the process they also encountered resistance and, thus, 
complainant’s silence for so long a period raises serious question 
regarding the credibility of the story put-forth during the trial; he has 
referred to the statement of Noor Muhammad (PW-4)  to argue that test 
identification parade,  relied upon by the courts below, hardly carried 
any evidential significance inasmuch as the witness admittedly claimed 
to have already identified the appellant in his previous encounters. 
Inconsequentiality of the recovery of weapon and disclosure leading to 
the discovery of the dead body from an open space has been 
highlighted as missing links in the chain of circumstances. It would be 
grievously unsafe to maintain conviction on the basis of inconsistent, 
incoherent and flawed pieces of evidence belatedly put together, 
concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully 
defended the impugned judgment. 
Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2019 
 
3
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Dr. Shamim Gul Meshwani (PW-10) examined the putrefied 
dead body; it was burnt from neck to head, missing limbs of the body 
included skin and muscles from head to face. Overall condition of the 
corpse seriously hampered the possibility of identification beyond 
doubt and, according to the witness, it was identified on the basis of 
clothes, a mobile phone handset and some papers found in the pocket. 
The condition of the corpse, particularly massive burns, belies the 
possibility of its presence underneath a boulder, a circumstance that 
in retrospect seriously shadows the hypothesis of disclosure by the 
appellant and, thus, jolts the very foundation of the case. Even if it is 
assumed that the decomposed corpse was that of the deceased, its 
presence at an openly accessible place drastically diminishes 
inculpation of the disclosure, heavily relied upon by the prosecution. 
Presence of a mobile phone handset and papers left with the corpse to 
provide space to the possibility of identification by the witnesses in 
itself is a circumstance far from being plausible.  During appellant’s 
examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
1898, though the appellant was confronted with the pointing out of the 
place wherefrom the dead body of the deceased was recovered, 
nonetheless, his alleged disclosure leading to the discovery of dead 
body is conspicuously omitted. Statement of Noor Muhammad (PW-4) 
who identified the appellant is limited to the extent of handing over of 
Chaddar and Chappal purportedly last worn by the deceased. It is 
mindboggling as to why the appellant would undertake such an idiotic 
exercise when on the other hand he is taking pains to conceal the dead 
body with additional steps to set ablaze its face to blur the identity. 
Even if the witness is believed, his testimony does not take prosecution 
beyond the line of handing over of the items mentioned above. Forensic 
report does not advance prosecution case either inasmuch as, the 
seizure of casing after lapse of a period exceeding three weeks is a 
position that requires a pinch of salt. The story may not find a buyer. 
Argument that the appellant was roped in after deliberation and 
consultation spanning over a pretty long period of time exactly on the 
day the dead body was recovered cannot be dismissed out of hand. 
Acquittal of Muhammad Hussain though assigned a somewhat 
different role, nonetheless, inseparably within the integrity of the 
charge is yet another setback to the prosecution; the failure that went 
unchallenged is not without consequences. Cleavage in judicial opinion 
Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2019 
 
4
demands extra caution. On our own independent analysis, prosecution 
evidence otherwise deficient and inconclusive is fraught with doubts, 
substantially 
failing 
to 
constitute 
chain 
of 
circumstances 
to 
conclusively establish appellant’s culpability beyond doubt; appellant 
is entitled to benefit thereof. Impugned judgment dated 18.09.2017 is 
set aside; the appellant is acquitted from the charge; he has already 
been ordered to be released, if not required to be detained in any other 
case, vide short order of even date. Appeal allowed. 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
22nd October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-