IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
JAIL PETITION NOs. 255 & 272 OF 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Capital 
Sentence Reference No. 04-T/2014, Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 31/2014 & 11-J/2014) 
 
Ali Taj  
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In JP 255/2018)  
 
Afzaar @ Afzaal 
 
 
 
 
 
(In JP 272/2018) 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In both cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Qari Abdul Rasheed, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
12.01.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioners Ali Taj and Afzaar @ 
Afzal were tried by the learned Anti Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi Division 
pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 269 dated 08.07.2012 under 
Sections 302/324/353/186/341/394/224/225/427/34 PPC read with Section 
7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Saddar, Attock for 
committing murder of Najam ul Hassan and Mudassar Riaz and for causing 
injuries to Jamil Ahmed and Asfhaq Ahmed. The learned Trial Court vide its 
judgment dated 15.01.2014 convicted the petitioners as under:- 
 
i) 
Under Section 302(b) PPC 
 
 
Sentenced to death on two counts.  
 
 
ii) 
Under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
Sentenced to death on two counts and to pay compensation of 
Rs.100,000/- each as compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. 
and fine of Rs.100,000/- each under Section 7(a) of the ATA. 
The compensation and fine payable shall be recovered as 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 2 :-
arrears of land revenue and in default whereof to undergo SI 
for six months each.  
 
 
iii) 
Under Section 396 PPC 
Sentenced to death each and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each or 
in default whereof to undergo SI for six months.  
 
 
iv) 
Under Section 324 PPC 
Sentenced to 10 years RI each on two counts along with fine of 
Rs.20,000/- each on two counts, in default whereof to undergo 
SI for six months each. They were further directed to pay 
compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to Jamil Ahmed and Azshfaq 
Ahmed PWs under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. The compensation and 
fine payable shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and 
in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months each.  
 
 
v) 
Under Section 353 PPC 
 
 
Sentenced to one year RI each.  
 
 
vi) 
Under Section 186 PPC 
 
 
Sentenced to three months RI each.  
 
 
vii) 
Under Section 412 PPC 
Sentenced to ten years RI each with fine of Rs.10,000/- each or 
in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months.  
 
 
viii) 
Under Section 341 PPC  
Sentenced to one month RI each along with fine of Rs.1000/- 
each.  
 
 
ix) 
Under Section 225 PPC 
Sentenced to two years RI each along with fine of Rs.10,000/- 
each or in default whereof to further undergo six months SI 
each.  
 
 
x) 
Under Section 148 PPC 
Sentenced to three years RI each along with fine of Rs.5000/- 
each or in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months 
each.  
 
All the sentences except under Section 302(b) PPC and 7 of the 
Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, were ordered to run concurrently. 
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the 
petitioners.  
2. 
 
In appeal the learned High Court maintained the convictions 
and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the learned Trial Court. The 
prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment reads as under:- 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 3 :-
“The brief facts as narrated in the complaint (Ex.PCC) lodged by Jamil 
Ahmed, complainant (PW.16) are that on 08.072012, he along with Ashfaq 
Ahmed, Najam ul Hassan, on a yellow cab car No.RIW/993, being driven by 
Mudassar Riaz, were going to District Jail Attock to lodge accused Amjad 
Khan of case F.I.R No.203/2012 dated 26.06.2012, under Sections 381-A/411 
PPC registered at Police Station City, Rawalpindi. At about 02:45 p.m. due to 
a speed breaker, Kamra Road, District Attock, when the speed of the car was 
reduced, they were surprised by four armed persons, who started firing with 
their pistols 30-bore from the sides which resulted into death of Najam-ul-
Hassan, 8981/C and Mudassar Riaz (cab driver) and the others including 
complainant received injuries. The features of the accused persons were 
that they were young persons of middle height, wearing shalwar qamiz. 
After that, they took Amjad Khan accused in handcuffs along with them. The 
accused also snatched official SMG rifle, 30-bullets and magazine and fled 
away from the spot towards Teen Meela Haji Shah, on two motorcycles.” 
 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to 
prove its case produced 18 witnesses. In their statements recorded under 
Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioners pleaded their innocence and refuted all 
the allegations leveled against him. However, they did not appear as their 
own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of 
the allegations leveled against them. They also did not produce any evidence 
in their defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners argued 
that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses, which have escaped the notice of the 
learned courts below. Contends that the prosecution case is based on whims 
and surmises and it has to prove its case without any shadow of doubt but it 
has miserably failed to do so. Contends that the medical evidence contradicts 
the ocular account. Contends that although the injured PWs and the 
deceased had sustained injuries on the different parts of the bodies but there 
is not even a single scratch on the car, which shows that the occurrence had 
not taken place in the manner as stated by the prosecution witnesses. 
Contends that the identification parade was conducted without observing 
the instructions/guidelines enunciated by the superior courts, as such, it has 
no value in the eye of law. Lastly contends that the reasons given by the 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 4 :-
learned High Court to sustain conviction of the petitioners are speculative 
and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at 
naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer submitted that to 
sustain conviction of an accused on a capital charge, un-rebutted ocular 
evidence alone is sufficient. Contends that the ocular account is supported by 
the medical evidence, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency 
by this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the evidence available on the record with their able 
assistance.  
7. 
 
A bare perusal of the record reflects that the instant case is a 
case of promptly lodged FIR. The unfortunate incident wherein Najam-ul-
Hassan, Police Constable and Mudassir Riaz, driver of the yellow cab were 
brutally murdered and two persons were grievously injured, took place at 
02:45 PM on 08.07.2012 whereas the crime report was lodged at 04:20 PM 
i.e. just after two hours of the occurrence. The distance between the place of 
occurrence and the Police station was five kilometers. Thus, it can be said 
that FIR was lodged with promptitude. Promptness of FIR shows truthfulness 
of the prosecution case and it excludes possibility of deliberation and 
consultation. There was hardly any time with the complainant or other 
witnesses to fabricate a false story. The ocular account in this case has been 
furnished by Jamil Ahmed, Sub-Inspector (PW-16) and Ashfaq Hussain, 
Constable (PW-17). Both these witnesses had sustained injuries during the 
occurrence, which have fully been supported by the medical evidence given 
by Dr. Muhammad Ali Bokhari, who appeared as PW-7. The testimonies of 
these injured PWs as well as the stamp of injuries on their person clearly 
proves their presence at the place of occurrence. They had no relationship 
with the deceased nor had any animosity against the petitioners, therefore, 
they are regarded as the most reliable and credible witnesses. These 
prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 5 :-
defence but nothing favourable to the petitioners or adverse to the 
prosecution could be produced on record. These witnesses have given all 
necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of witnesses, 
manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in the occurrence and the locale 
of injuries. These PWs remained consistent on each and every material point 
inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the circumstances 
happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular 
account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and 
confidence inspiring.  This Court in a number of judgments has held that 
testimony of police officials is as good as any other private witness unless it is 
proved that they have animus against the accused. However, no such thing 
could be brought on record by the petitioners in this case. This Court has 
time and again held that reluctance of general public to become witness in 
such like cases has become judicially recognized fact and there is no way out 
to consider statement of official witnesses, as no legal bar or restriction has 
been imposed in such regard. Police officials are as good witnesses and could 
be relied upon, if their testimonies remain un-shattered during cross-
examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any 
reason as to why these injured PWs have involved the petitioners in the 
present case and let off the real culprits, who have committed murder of not 
only of their colleague but of an innocent taxi driver. Admittedly, these PWs 
had no animosity or ill-will against the present petitioners. If they had any 
reason to substitute the real culprits, they would have nominated the 
petitioners in the FIR on the very first day when the occurrence took place. 
As the petitioners were not known to the PWs, therefore, they were not 
nominated in the FIR but their features had been given by the injured PWs. 
After their arrest, the petitioners were identified by the PWs during 
identification parade, which was conducted under the supervision of Tahir 
Mehmood, Judicial Magistrate (PW-15). The said Judicial Magistrate 
categorically stated that the injured witness Jameel Ahmed had identified the 
accused in unambiguous terms and this process was repeated twice so that 
no ambiguity could be left and after completion of identification parade, he 
prepared the form and then issued the certificate. Both Tahir Mehmood, 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 6 :-
Judicial Magistrate (PW-15) and Jameel Ahmed (PW-16) were subjected to 
lengthy cross-examination but they remained consistent on all material 
particulars of the prosecution case and their testimony could not be 
shattered despite lengthy cross-examination. Even otherwise, process of 
identification parade has to be essentially carried out having regard to the 
exigencies of each case in a fair and non-collusive manner and such exercise 
is not an immutable ritual, inconsequential non-performance whereof, may 
cause failure of prosecution case, which otherwise is structured upon clean 
and probable evidence. Reliance is placed on Tasar Mehmood Vs. The State 
(2020 SCMR 1013). During the course of arguments, learned counsel argued 
that although the injured PWs and the deceased had sustained injuries on 
the different parts of the bodies but there is not even a single scratch on the 
car. However, this argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. The 
learned Trial Court has very elaborately dealt with this issue and observed 
that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and the scaled site 
plan reflect that the accused persons were very close to the car when they 
had fired on deceased and the injured PWs. The petitioners were armed with 
.30 bore pistols. The occurrence took place in the month of July when the 
summer is at its peak, therefore, it was obvious that the windows of the car 
were opened, therefore, it was natural that the bullets did not hit the car.  
8. 
 
The medical evidence available on the record corroborates the 
ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on 
the person of the deceased and the injured PWs is concerned. Even 
otherwise, it is settled law that where ocular evidence is found trustworthy 
and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence 
and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Reliance 
is placed on Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar 
Vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396), Faisal Mehmood Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 
1025) and Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 460). It is settled 
principle of law that the value and status of medical evidence and recovery is 
always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain the 
conviction. Casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 7 :-
and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During 
occurrence witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment 
of the distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where 
accused caused injuries. It becomes highly improbable to correctly mention 
the number and location of the injuries with exactitude. Minor discrepancies, 
if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the 
direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular 
account. Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with medical evidence 
being not material imprinting any dent in prosecution version would have no 
adverse affect on prosecution case. Requirement of corroborative evidence is 
not of much significance and same is not a rule of law but is that of prudence. 
During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there 
are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-
witnesses but on our specific query he could not point out any major 
contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. It is a well 
settled proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence 
have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the 
evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence. 
If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can 
take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, 
the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have 
a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the 
material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the 
courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies which do 
not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored. The 
petitioners were arrested on 17.07.2012 and from their possession the 
weapons of offence i.e. pistols .30 bore were recovered. The Investigating 
Officer had already sent eight crime empties, which were collected from the 
place of occurrence, to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 
16.07.2012 whereas the pistols were sent on 23.07.2012. According to the 
report of the FSL, the empties were found fired from the pistols recovered 
from the petitioners. After their arrest, the petitioners also got recovered 
snatched official SMG along with 25 live bullets and handcuffs, which also 
Jail Petition Nos. 255 & 272 of 2018 
 
-: 8 :-
provides corroboration to the prosecution story. To prove the motive part of 
the prosecution story, the witnesses of the ocular account appeared in the 
witness box and deposed against the petitioners. The perusal of the record 
reflects that neither the defence seriously disputed the motive part of the 
prosecution story nor the PWs were cross-examined on this aspect of the 
matter. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we 
are of the view that the prosecution has established each limb of its case by 
producing unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. The learned High Court 
has evaluated the evidence in its true perspective and has come to the 
conclusion, which is neither arbitrary nor perverse. No exception can be 
taken to the findings arrived at by the learned High Court.  
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in 
these petitions, which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
12th of January, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram