IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl A. No.364-
J/2011, Crl. Revision No.1211/2011 along with M.R. 
No.476/2011) 
 
 
Amjad & another 
(in Crl. P. No.457-L/2016) 
Imtiaz Ahmed 
(in Crl. P. No.400-L/2016) 
 
 
Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State & another 
(in Crl. P. No.457-L/2016) 
Amjad & others 
(in Crl. P. No.400-L/2016) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. M. Baleegh-uz-Zaman, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P.457-L/2016) 
 
Mr. Imran Raza Chadhar, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P.400-L/2016) 
 
For the State 
Mr. Amjad Rafique, 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General. 
 
Date of hearing: 
19.10.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J U D G M E N T 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Azam, 
20, deceased, was shot dead at 11:00 p.m. on 3.3.2008 within the 
precincts of Police Station Barrana District Jhang, while irrigating 
his land alongside the witnesses; incident was reported by deceased’s 
brother Imtiaz Ahmed (PW-1), same night 12:30 a.m. at Adda 
Kalokay. According to the complainant, they were simultaneously 
ploughing and irrigating the land when at about 11:00 p.m, the 
deceased went to turn off the electric switch, surprised by the 
petitioners, son and father inter se, accompanied by Imtiaz and 
Fayyaz with two unknown assailants, differently armed. In the 
Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 
  
 
2
electric bulb light, Fayyaz accused exhorted to avenge the previous 
insult whereupon the witnesses rushed to rescue the deceased, who 
took refuge inside a small room and it was within their view that 
Amjad petitioner with a .30 caliber pistol targeted the deceased on 
the left side of his belly followed by another shot by his father while 
he had already fallen on cot; remainder of the accused threatened 
the witnesses to stay at bay. It is alleged that a short while latter, the 
accused shot one of the females of their clan to colour the incident as 
a reaction over family honour. It is further alleged that a day before 
the fateful incident, the deceased had an altercation with the 
accused over use of electric motor without his permission and it is in 
this backdrop that the accused on the instigation of Nawaz son of 
Maali and Mahni son of Muhammad settled the score. Autopsy, 
conducted at 11:30 a.m, noted two entry wounds on left lower side of 
the abdomen. Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigation, the 
complainant preferred to prosecute the case through a private 
complaint; upon indictment on 4.11.2009, the accused claimed trial; 
they rallied themselves behind the position taken by Amjad 
petitioner. Unimpressed by the plea, the learned trial Judge 
proceeded to convict the petitioners under clause (b) of Section 302 
of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death vide 
judgment dated 26.10.2011; remainder of the accused were 
acquitted from the charge; a learned Division Bench of Lahore High 
Court Lahore vide impugned judgment dated 16.2.2016 maintained 
the convictions, however, altered the penalty of death into 
imprisonment for life, vires whereof, are being assailed, both by the 
convicts as well as the complainant, latter seeking revival of the 
death penalty.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that facts 
manifestly evident on the record do not justify a guilty verdict as the 
prosecution miserably failed to establish “proof beyond doubt” to 
sustain the charge; while highlighting the improbability of the 
episode, the learned counsel has referred to firearm injury sustained 
by Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, completely suppressed in the crime 
report; he has also referred to medico legal examination, twice 
conducted on Shahida Bibi daughter of Yousaf petitioner on 
4.3.2008 and 26.3.2008 to argue that position taken by the accused 
during the trial truthfully preponderates over the inherently flawed 
Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 
  
 
3
ocular account furnished by the prosecution. Acquittal of majority of 
co-accused, though with roles inconsequential, has, nonetheless, 
been cited as an additional predicament confronting the prosecution. 
The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment; according to him, the scales are in balance with a 
conscionable wage. The learned counsel for the complainant, 
however, prayed for enhancement of life imprisonment into penalty of 
death on the ground that once the Court had believed the 
prosecution evidence, coldblooded murder of the deceased, a youth 
in prime part of his age, petitioners ought to have been visited with 
the penalty aptly imposed by the learned trial Court. There was no 
judicially recognized mitigating circumstance to alter the penalty of 
death, a legal sentence, into imprisonment for life, concluded the 
learned counsel. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Prosecution case is founded on ocular account furnished 
by Imtiaz Ahmed, Amjad Ali and Wajid Ali, examined respectively as 
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3; their testimonies have been unreservedly 
received by the Courts below with the exception of acquitted  
co-accused, 
assigned 
roles 
trivially 
different. 
Besides 
the 
complainant, Sajiad Ali (PW-6) testified to independently establish 
the motive, however, discarded by the High Court, nonetheless. 
Going by the graphic details of ocular account, both the petitioners 
are unambiguously shown being responsible for one shot each to the 
deceased, opined as cause of death, individually as well as 
collectively, in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased received 
both the fire shots inside a small room, improvised at the venue to 
house tube-well gears. According to the crime report as well as 
statements of the witnesses, the deceased received both the shots on 
a cot covered by a bedding, a position that runs counter to depiction 
of the dead body in column 24 of the inquest report. Unanimous 
acceptance of prosecution evidence both by the learned trial Judge 
as well as the High Court, nonetheless, escaped fundamental issues 
raised by the defence, in the following plea: 
“I am innocent. The complainant party is big landlord of the 
Allaqa. I am the poor man and labourer by profession. On the 
day of occurrence, Amjad, Imtiaz and Waris along with 
Muhammad Azam, since deceased, abducted my sister Mst. 
Shahida from my house for the purpose to commit forcible 
rape with her and took her at an abandoned place, confined 
her and locked the room and Muhammad Azam was busy in 
committing rape upon her. When I came to know, I went there, 
broke/open the door to rescue Mst. Shahida from the hands of 
Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 
  
 
4
Muhammad Azam deceased. Muhammad Azam started firing 
from inside the room on me. I also made fire shot in self 
defence of my person and honour during this cross firing, 
Shahida my sister, Yousaf my father were injured at the 
hands of Muhammad Azam  deceased and Muhammad Azam 
also sustained injury who later on died. The local police was 
under the influence of complainant party, he refused to got 
medically examined Mst. Shahida for rape as well as her 
injuries. My mother applied to the Area Magistrate in this 
respect but the I.O. only got medically examination of her 
injury. My mother again applied for medico legal of Mst. 
Shahida for rape and under the order of Area Magistrate, she 
was medically examined. I made firing to save the honour and 
person of my sister Mst. Shahida from Muhammad Azam and 
others. Shahida was not cited as PW in this case, nor she was 
made accused. The investigation was conducted by malafide. 
My mother Sattan filed an application before Mr. Nazeer 
Ahmed Aqeel, learned ASJ u/s 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C. for 
registration of case. The certified application is Ex.DB. The 
learned ASJ pleased to pass order dated 28.4.2008 which is 
Ex.DB/1. The act of accused is very desperate and palace. I 
am innocent.” 
 
These two diametrical positions essentially require a thorough 
examination as the latter in the event of being found near to reality, 
even if not found as the whole truth, would devastatingly undermine 
the entire prosecution case. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner was 
medically examined under a police docket shortly after the 
occurrence at 4:15 a.m. and the medical officer observed following 
injuries on his person: 
1. 
A lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm with inverted margins, on 
the palmer of the index finger of the left hand near base. 
Injury was kept under observation and X-Ray was 
advised. 
2. 
A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm with everted margins on 
dorsum of the index finger of the left hand, 3 cm above the 
base of the finger. KUO.  
 
Probable duration of the injuries is given as between 3 to 9 hours; 
medical examination conducted at 4:15 a.m; the time frame on the 
outer side suggests that Muhammad Yousaf had already received the 
bullet injury and was, thus, physically incapacitated to shoot the 
deceased at the stated point of time as alleged by all the witnesses 
with one voice. Prosecution’s complete silence on the receipt of 
firearm injury by Muhammad Yousaf, intriguingly reflects upon its 
case. There is yet another part of the story that may not find a buyer; 
according to the witnesses, Amjad petitioner first shot the deceased 
who then felled on the cot inside the room and it was thereafter that 
Muhammad Yousaf petitioner targeted him with the second shot, 
landing on the same part of the body; there does not appear any 
earthly reason for Muhammad Yousaf to join the undertaking already 
being effectively carried out by his son. Presence of a cot with a 
bedding in a small room, otherwise designed to manage tube-well 
apparatus, nonetheless, in the backdrop of plea raised by the 
Criminal Petition Nos.457-L and 400-L of 2016 
  
 
5
petitioners appears to be a circumstance fraught with suspicion, 
reinforced by medico legal examination of Shahida Bibi at 9:45 a.m. 
under a police docket with following observations:  
1. 
A stitched wound of about 19 cm long having 13 stitches 
extending from xiphisternum to pubic area on the interior 
abdominal wall. 
2. 
A wound of 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the right lateral aspect of 
abdominal wall about 16 cm below and lateral to injury 
No.1.  
 
She was once again examined through police on a magisterial 
direction for the determination of sexual assault albeit with findings 
inconclusive. 
Recovery 
of 
pistol 
from 
Amjad 
petitioner 
is 
inconsequential whereas hatchet attributed to Muhammad Yousaf 
runs counter to the prosecution case set up qua the accused. 
Massive suppression of injuries endured by some of the accused and 
screening of Shahida Bibi from the scene are circumstances that 
inevitably cast their shadows on the prosecution case. Even if the 
explanation offered by the accused is not viewed as the whole truth, 
in view of circumstances mentioned above, the occurrence does not 
appear to have taken place in the manner as alleged in the crime 
report with events faltering on the scales of probability. An innocent 
proxy lurking behind a twisted tale presents a real danger of error 
and, thus, it would be expedient as well as safe to extend benefit of 
doubt to both the petitioners to rule out the apprehended risk. 
Criminal Petition No.457-L of 2016 is converted into appeal and 
allowed. The petitioners/appellants are acquitted of the charge and 
shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other 
case. 
 
As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.400-L of 2016 
stands dismissed.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
  
Judge 
Lahore, the 
19th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat*