IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition Nos.335 of 2020 and 678 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No.1323.P/2019 and Crl. 
Rev. No.260-P of 2019) 
 
 
 
 
Fareed & others 
(in Cr. P.335/2020) 
Usman Shah 
(in Cr. P.678 /2020) 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
The State and another 
 
(in Cr. P.335/2020) 
Fareed & others 
(in Cr. P.678 /2020) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. P.335/2020) 
 
Mr. Hussain Ali, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. P.678/2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the State:  
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzqai, ASC/ 
State Counsel 
 
(in both cases) 
 
For Respondent(s):  
Mr. Hussain Ali, ASC  
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. P.335/2020) 
 
Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr. P.678 /2020) 
 
Date of hearing: 
29.09.2020. 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Petitioners, real 
brothers inter se, were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at 
Mardan for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Ghulam Muhammad, 56, and 
assaulting his son Usman Shah (PW-5) held under their restraint; they 
were returned a guilty verdict vide judgment dated 31.10.2019 whereby 
they stood convicted under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860  as well as on the coordinate charge; sentenced to 10-years and 
Crl. P. Nos.335 & 678 of 2020 
2
1-year Rigorous Imprisonment, respectively, each they were directed to 
pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased; the High Court maintained 
the convictions, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to a 
period of 5-years RI vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2020, vires 
whereof, are being assailed by the petitioners through Criminal Petition 
No.335 of 2020 on a variety of grounds, casting of a larger net, being 
the most prominent. The complainant has also sought enhancement of 
the sentence through Criminal Petition No.678 of 2020.  
2. 
 
On the fateful day, i.e. 24.6.2013, in the backdrop of a 
previous altercation, the petitioners accompanied by two unknown 
companions assaulted the complainant/PW-5 and his father Ghulam 
Muhammad with butt blows; former was thereafter detained in a Hujra; 
casualties were shifted to DHQ Hospital Mardan; medical officer 
confirmed receipt of multiple injuries caused by blunt weapon. Ghulam 
Muhammad succumbed to the injuries on 26.06.2013; Ikram and 
Zahir Shah, petitioners, were arrested on 14.11.2013 followed by Farid 
Khan and Muhammad Saeed on 08.05.2014; they were sent to face 
trial albeit with no recovery. Dying declaration by Ghulam Muhammad 
deceased and ocular account furnished by his injured son received 
acceptance both by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court to 
view the incident as Qatl Shibhi-i-Amd within the contemplation of 
section 316 of the Code ibid. 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners/convicts contends that 
entire clan comprising four real brothers has been implicated in a 
sudden affair; that the number of injuries do not correspond with the 
assailants and thus, there was no occasion for the courts below to 
settle en bloc culpability on the statement of a witness who despite 
alleging assault surprisingly remained unscathed, next argued the 
learned counsel to conclude that in the given background, reliance 
upon dying declaration was highly unsafe. The learned Law Officer 
assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant defended the 
impugned judgments. It is argued in Criminal Petition No.678 of 2020 
that that death being the obvious consequence of the injuries inflicted 
by the convicts to the deceased, in his mid-sixties, their culpability 
most aptly fell within the mischief of clause (b) of section 302 of the 
ibid and, thus, interference by this Court is most called for; in any 
case, there was no occasion for the High Court to substantially reduce 
the sentence without any extenuating reason, concluded the learned 
counsel.  
Crl. P. Nos.335 & 678 of 2020 
3
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Deceased was medically examined shortly after the incident 
and the medical officer observed following injuries on his person: 
1. 
Blunt trauma lower abdomen 
2. 
Blunt trauma nose with epistaxis 
Though apparently trivial, the deceased with the fragility of old age 
could not endure the injuries; the autopsy report noted multiple red 
colour bruises of various sizes starting from 2 x 3 cm to 7 x 10 cm on 
various parts of the body accompanied by laparotomy and surgical 
wound. According to the medical officer, the deceased died due to 
injuries in small intestine and abdominal blood vessels, seemingly 
insufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, 
nonetheless, unmistakably suggesting infliction of violence that 
proportionates to the number of assailants, additionally confirmed by 
the investigative conclusions. Wholesale participation by the four 
brothers in a situation ignited on some trivial issue, in a rural 
neighbourhood of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, without anticipating an 
homicidal death does not raise eyebrows.  
 
Though the medical officer has blamed the above noted injuries 
as the cause behind the death, however, it cannot be held with any 
degree of certainty that the said injuries were essentially caused by 
blunt weapons to invoke the doctrine of novus actus interveniens so as 
to saddle the petitioners with the mischief of clause (b) of the section 
ibid as argued by the complainant’s counsel. Prosecution’s failure to 
effect recovery reflects upon the allegation of infliction of butt blows; 
violence appears to be result of modes other than conventional and, 
thus, view taken by the Courts below being, well within the remit of 
law, calls for no interference. Petitions fail. Leave declined.    
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
29th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-