IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.48-L of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 15.02.2002 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
in Criminal Appeal No.2101 of 2002). 
 
Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Shahid Azeem, ASC 
 
 
 
Respondent No.2 
: In person 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan, 
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 07.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Shafi 
alias Kuddoo, appellant herein, was tried along side Abdul Razzaq 
and Sakina Bibi, co-accused for committing qatl-e-amd of Khalil 
Ahmed at fajarwela on 15.2.2002 within the remit of Police Station 
Chunian, District Kasur. According to the complainant, on the 
fateful day, after offering fajar prayer, he was on way back home 
with Khalil Ahmed deceased a head of witnesses; as the deceased 
went past house of Sakina Bibi accused he was intercepted by the 
appellant as well as Abdul Razzaq. Upon exhortation, the appellant 
and Abdul Razzaq co-accused gave sota blows to the deceased; 
motive for crime is cited as alienation of immovable property by the 
deceased in favour of Sakina Bibi co-accused, his second wife as 
well as the appellant, a transaction that he attempted to revoke in 
the wake of differences with his better half.  
2. 
  
 
The accused were indicted before the Additional 
Sessions Judge, who proceeded to acquit them vide judgment 
dated 30.10.2002 vires whereof were challenged through appeal 
Criminal Appeal No.48-L of 2016.  
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
admitted to the extent of present appellant and finally allowed vide 
impugned judgment dated 15.2.2016 whereby the appellant stand 
convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860; sentenced to imprisonment for life, he is directed to pay 
compensation in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- or to undergo six 
months S.I. with benefit of Section 382-B of Code of Criminal 
Procedure.  
3. 
 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
there was no occasion for the learned High Court to reverse the 
appellant’s acquittal that too after dissecting his case from 
identically placed co-accused, extended benefit of doubt. It is next 
argued that view taken by the learned trial Court being a possible 
view compatible with the evidence brought on the record was not 
open to any legitimate exception; the bottom line is that the 
impugned reasoning formulated by the learned High Court to 
convert appellant’s acquittal into conviction being in conflict with 
settled norms of safe administration of criminal justice and judicial 
principles applicable to reversal of acquittal warrants interference 
by this Court.  
4. 
 
A variety of reasons weighed with the learned trial 
Judge to acquit the accused from the charge; inordinate delay in 
recourse to law being foremost, these include improbability of 
witnesses’ presence; their enmity with the accused, as well as, 
contradictions in their depositions and thus he found it unsafe to 
return a guilty verdict. None of the reasons cited by the learned 
trial Judge has been found by us as artificial or unrealistic. Even 
otherwise on an independent analysis, genesis of prosecution case 
does not appear to be free from doubt. Deceased was 70 years of 
age and in a chilled winter morning his presence at the crime 
scene within the view of witnesses, admittedly inimical towards the 
accused, available per chance and with formidable past has rightly 
been viewed with caution by the learned trial Judge. Ocular 
account is in conflict with medical evidence inasmuch as according 
to the crime report both the appellant, as well as, Abdul Razzaq, 
co-accused, are assigned one blow each to the deceased, whereas 
according to the initial medical examination, Medical Officer noted 
Criminal Appeal No.48-L of 2016.  
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
solitary injury on the head, its impact on the eye has been utilized 
by the witnesses to array the latter in the crime. Deputation of 
Sakina Bibi to monitor deceased’s arrival so as to inform her son 
about deceased’s arrival is also an aspect of the case that requires 
a pinch of salt. Certainly there was no occasion for the learned 
High Court to convert appellant’s acquittal into conviction after it 
had itself disbelieved prosecution evidence qua two out of three 
accused, one with an identical role.  
 
It is by now well settled that acquittal carries with it double 
presumption of innocence; it is reversed only when found blatantly 
perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into 
miscarriage of justice. It cannot be set aside merely on the 
possibility of a contra view. The High Court has derogated from 
settled principles of law and thus departure does not commend 
itself with approval. Resultantly, Criminal appeal is allowed, 
impugned judgment dated 15.2.2016 is set aside. The appellant is 
acquitted from the charge and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if 
not required in any other case. Above are the reasons of our short 
order of even date which is reproduced as under: 
“For detailed reasons to follow, the instant criminal 
appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of 
the appellant Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo are 
set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed 
against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not 
required to be detained in any other criminal case.”     
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
07th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE