IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Jail Petition No.14 of 2016 and  
Criminal Petition No.180 of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi 
in Crl. Appeal Nos.265 & 434/2010, Crl. Revision 
No.170/2010 with M.R. No.35/RWP/2010) 
 
 
 
Shaukat Ali 
(in J.P. No.14 of 2016) 
Muhammad Akhtar 
(in Cr.P. No.180 of 2016) 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
The State  
(in J.P.14/2016) 
Shaukat Ali & others 
(in Cr.P.180/2016) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Basharat Ullah Khan, ASC 
 
(in J.P.14/2016) 
 
For the Complainant:  
Mr. Sanaullah Zahid, ASC 
 
(in Cr. P.180/2016) 
 
Date of hearing: 
18.09.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- The petitioner was 
indicted alongside seven others, since acquitted, for a fatal shot to 
Sakina Bibi, 45, at 7:00 p.m. on 2.7.2008 within the precincts of Police 
Station Domaili, District Jhelum; she succumbed to the injuries on 
4.7.2008. The mischief struck the family a week before the incident in 
an otherwise peaceful neighbourhood, followed by a brawl between the 
women folk over petitioner’s move to get some girls snapped through 
Adil PW, given up as having been won over. It is in this backdrop that 
on the fateful day the petitioner armed with a rifle accompanied by 
Niaz Ali and Muhammad Saleem, differently armed, confronted the 
deceased with the fatal shot while she was busy in fetching water at 
Jail Petition No.14 of 2016 
2
the spot; she was rushed to the hospital and it is prosecution’s case 
that the acquitted co-accused, variously armed, intercepted the PWs on 
way to the hospital and dealt them injuries, however, after intervention 
by the locals, they succeeded to reach the hospital. Gasping for life, 
Sakina Bibi was examined by Dr. Gul Nisa (PW-2) at 8:15 p.m. with a 
semi circular entry wound in the right hypochondrial region with a 
corresponding exit, confirmed in autopsy, held on 4.7.2008, as cause 
of death. Muhammad Ashraf (given up) and Khalid Mehmood (PW-15) 
were also medically examined on 2.7.2008; they were noted with 
multiple injuries comprising mostly of swellings and lacerations. The 
accused claimed trial. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 
30.04.2010 returned a guilty verdict to the petitioner; convicted under 
clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was 
sentenced to death; remainders were acquitted from the charge. 
Appeals filed, both by the convict as well as the complainant, were 
dismissed by the High Court; penalty of death awarded to the 
petitioner was altered into imprisonment for life vide impugned 
judgment dated 27.10.2015. Shoukat Ali, petitioner, has assailed his 
conviction through J.P. No.14 of 2016 whereas the complainant, 
dissatisfied with consecutive failures qua the acquitted accused as well 
as alteration of death penalty, seeks conviction as well as enhancement 
through Crl. P. No.180 of 2016; bound by a common thread, these are 
being decided through this single judgment.  
2. 
 
 Mr. Basharat Ullah Khan, ASC, has argued for the convict; 
he contends that after wholesale acquittal of co-accused there was no 
occasion for the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court  to 
condemn the petitioner on the strength of evidence massively 
disbelieved vis-à-vis the co-accused; adds that in the absence of any 
forensic comparison recovery of gun P-4 cannot be viewed as 
independent corroboration against the convict, particularly after 
prosecution’s failure on the motive  set up in the crime report and, 
thus, the only juridical course available to the courts below was his 
acquittal. Contrarily, learned counsel for the complainant submits that 
the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents without citing any 
cogent or plausible reason by extending benefit of doubt, on grounds 
vague, non-specific and illusory, an error that escaped High Court’s 
notice as well and, thus, intervention by this Court is called for in  
circumstances to avoid miscarriage of justice.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
Jail Petition No.14 of 2016 
3
4. 
 
The incident is split into two episodes, though in quick 
succession; the petitioner, in the first place, effectively shot Sakina Bibi 
while Niaz Ali and Muhammad Saleem, co-accused accompanied him, 
though armed with a club and an hatchet, they were assigned no harm 
the deceased. It was after receipt of solitary shot assigned to Shoukat 
Ali petitioner that on way to the hospital the witnesses were allegedly 
intercepted where another brawl took place. Insofar as first part of the 
occurrence is concerned, we do not find any error of approach by the 
trial Court to hold the petitioner guilty for the crime; the injury assigned 
to him is confirmed by medico legal examination of Sakina Bibi 
conducted shortly after the assault; it proved fatal as was confirmed by 
the medical officer who conducted the autopsy. Occurrence taking place 
at 7:00 p.m. in the month of July in a small rural neighborhood does 
not allow to admit hypothesis of mistaken identity or substitution. 
Absence of empty from the spot in the face of single shot without 
repetition cannot be viewed as a circumstance intriguing upon the 
prosecution case; similarly, failure, in the wake of defection by Adil PW 
to testify in support of the motive, does not tremor the foundational 
structure of the prosecution case, otherwise firmly founded on ocular 
account furnished by the witnesses of the locality, having no axe to 
grind. Culpability in the first part of the occurrence revolves around the 
petitioner alone with no escape route seemingly available to him nor 
prosecution’s failure in the second part of the occurrence cast any 
shadow thereon. Scales are in balance with a wage settled conscionably. 
No interference is called for. Insofar as acquittal of co-accused 
entangling the witnesses on way to hospital is concerned, much water 
has flown under the bridge and in view of the period, the respondents 
endured tribulation of trial for causing injuries to the witnesses one of 
whom abstained from the witness box, their acquittal cannot be viewed 
as perverse or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Petitions fail. Leave 
declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
18th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-