IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Jail Petition No.324 of 2015  
(Against judgment dated 09.04.2015 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur 
in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2011 along with M.R. 
No.3 of 2011) 
 
Munir Ahmad 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mian M. Tayyab Wattoo, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.04.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted by the 
learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur, alongside 12 others, 
Munir Ahmed, petitioner, is the lone recipient of a guilty verdict vide 
judgment dated 07.02.2011, upheld vide impugned judgment dated 
09.04.2015, albeit with alteration of death penalty into imprisonment 
for life on two counts with concurrent commutation, pre-trial period 
inclusive. Being a proclaimed offender in a case of murderous assault, 
the petitioner resisted a police contingent on 27.7.2008 at 8:05 p.m. 
within the remit of Police Station Kot Sabzal, District Rahim Yar Khan; 
his accomplices joined him in the quest; one of the fire shots caught 
Shafqat Ali 1083/C in the line of duty with his boots on; ensuing 
darkness facilitated the assailants to take on their heels; they were, 
however, subsequently taken to the task. Solitary fatal fire shot, 
attributed to the petitioner weighed with the learned trial Judge to let 
off the co-accused, a view juridically flawed in the totality of 
circumstances, nonetheless, countenanced by the State.  
 
According to the prosecution, on a tip off, Abdul Hameed ASI  
(PW-4), surprised the petitioner, a proclaimed offender in his hideout; 
he along with the accomplices opened fire on the police contingent; 
taking shelter behind the official van, the complainant kept the 
Jail Petition No.324 of 2015  
2
assailants at bay and continued to engage them till arrival of 
reinforcement headed by Junaid Ahmad, Assistant Superintendent of 
Police with whom the deceased was deputed as a guard, fatally hit 
soon after he alighted the official vehicle.  
2. 
 
Petition filed by the convict through Superintendent Jail is 
barred by 72 days, condoned in the interest of justice; it has been 
taken up by Mian Muhammad Tayyab Wattoo, ASC, to argue that there 
was no occasion for the Courts below to return a guilty verdict after 
prosecution’s wholesale failure qua the majority of the accused, no less 
than 12 in numbers; he has argued that the darkness had shielded the 
identity of the assailants and, thus, it was not humanly possible for the 
witnesses for having seen the petitioner while taking on the deceased; 
negative forensic report of gun P-3 squarely vindicated petitioner’s 
position, leaving nothing in the field to sustain the impugned 
conviction  without potential risk of error, shrouded in the haze, 
concluded the learned counsel. Syed Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional 
Prosecutor General Punjab has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Prosecution case is structured upon ocular account 
furnished by Nisar Ahmed/C (PW-3), Abdul Hameed, ASI (PW-4) and 
Muhammad Riaz, Inspector (PW-6); they have furnished details of 
criminal case wherein petitioner’s arrest along with others was 
required and, thus, successfully established the purpose behind the 
raid; petitioner being prominent amongst the accused was required by 
law. 
Deceased’s 
detachment 
as 
a 
guard 
with 
an 
Assistant 
Superintendent of Police posted in the Sub-Division has not been 
disputed. The darkness had not yet engulfed the scene when the 
encounter commenced and it is so mentioned in the cross-examination 
itself “As soon as, we reached at the place of occurrence, the accused 
made firing on us. Firing was started at about 7:30 pm. There was some 
daylight at that time. When firing started, I came out of my vehicle and 
made wireless calls to SHO Police Station Bhong SHO Police Station Kot 
Sabzal and SHO Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma for my help”. Cross-
examination is a continuation of examination-in-chief. Disclosures 
solicited by defence’s own choice and election from the witness during 
the process, if found embarrassing or counterproductive, their adverse 
consequences cannot be skipped or hushed up to ward off cumulative 
impact of the exercise. It rules out the theory of complete darkness at 
Jail Petition No.324 of 2015  
3
the fag-end of the month of July. The witnesses are in a comfortable 
corroborative unison on all the salient aspects of the prosecution case 
as well as details collateral therewith; they being functionaries of the 
Republic are second to none in status, having otherwise no axe to 
grind; a directionless cross-examination, couched in suggestions, each 
vehemently denied, reflects nothing but an exercise in futility. Position 
taken by the defence that no encounter took place on the fateful day 
nor at a place depicted in the site plan is a far cry in the face of 
formidable evidence comprising seizure of human blood and a large 
number of casings secured vide inventories of even date from the 
designated spot in the village. Petitioner’s absence from law for a 
considerable span of time (1 year 8 months) and involvement in 
antedated criminal cases do not brilliantly reflect upon his credentials; 
his absconsion in retrospect withers away the impact of negative 
forensic report; similarly, he cannot claim benefit of en bloc acquittal of 
his co-accused as they had been acquitted by the trial Judge without 
any determinative finding excluding their participation in the combat; 
their acquittal merely on the premise that none fell prey to their 
retaliation is a conclusion, inherently incompatible with the well 
entrenched principle of community of intention for prosecution of a 
common object and mere absence of harm in consequence thereof by 
itself does not vitiate culpability of an unlawful assembly. A flawed 
acquittal without recourse cannot be viewed as a failure intriguing 
upon an indictment otherwise positively established. Even a most 
stringent analysis of prosecution evidence does not allow space to 
admit any hypothesis other than petitioner’s guilt. Petition fails. Leave 
refused.   
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
27th April, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-