IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2022 
(Against the judgment dated 08.11.2016 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad bench in Cr. 
Appeal No. 139-A/2012) 
 
Imran Mehmood 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Haider Mehmood Mirza, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Raja Muhammad Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Ms. Humaira Jabeen, in person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
13.02.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant Imran Mehmood 
along with two co-accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, 
Haripur pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 566 dated 23.12.2010 
under Sections 302/324/34 PPC read with Section 13 of the Arms 
Ordinance at Police Station Saddar, Haripur for committing murder of 
Ghulam Murtaza and Ghulam Kibriya, father and uncle of the complainant 
and for attempting to take life of complainant and her mother. The 
learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.10.2012 while acquitting 
the two co-accused convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and 
sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation 
amounting to Rs.200,000/- each to the legal heirs the deceased. In appeal 
the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of death 
awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by 
the impugned judgment, the appellant filed Criminal Petition No. 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 2 :-
1235/2016 before this Court wherein leave was granted by this Court vide 
order dated 08.02.2022 and the present appeal has arisen thereafter.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“2. 
To sum things up stated facts leading to the pressing appeal are 
that the complainant (Mst. Umaira Jabeen) while reporting the crime in the 
Casualty Ward of DHQ Hospital Haripur alleged that she was married to the 
accused-appellant some three (03) years back and after spending one year, 
due to strained relations, her husband gave her oral divorce and shunted 
her out from his house, thus, she was residing at her parents' house, 
situated at Hassan Abdal. However, on the fateful day at 17:30 hours, 
consequent upon obtaining a decree from the Family Court regarding 
dowry articles, she alongwith her mother (Mst. Naseem Bibi) and both the 
deceased namely, Ghulam Murtaza and Ghulam Kibriya (father and uncle 
respectively) including two bailiffs of the court, went to the house of the 
accused-appellant for taking the dowry articles, where besides the 
accused-appellant, his brother Ashiq and Mst. Asmat Sultan Gohar, his 
mother were also present. During the course of loading household dowry 
articles in the vehicle, Ashiq and Mst. Asmat Sultan Gohar, brother and 
mother of the accused-appellant, raised Lalkara to him to kill them, 
whereupon the accused-appellant started firing with his pistol upon the 
complainant party, as a result her father was hit on his chest and her uncle 
sustained firearm injuries on his neck and head, thus both fell on the 
ground and died on the spot, whereas she and her mother escaped unhurt, 
hence the FIR ibid.” 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order 
to prove its case produced thirteen witnesses. In his statement recorded 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not appear as his 
own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of 
the allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any evidence 
in his defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant 
contends 
that 
there 
are 
glaring 
contradictions 
and 
dishonest 
improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which have 
escaped the notice of the learned courts below. Contends that the 
prosecution case is based on whims and surmises and it has to prove its 
case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to do so. 
Contends that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 3 :-
Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive as 
alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. Contends that 
the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the 
appellant are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned 
judgment may be set at naught. In the alternative, learned counsel 
contended that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and 
the same is sufficient mitigating factor to reduce the sentence of death 
into imprisonment for life.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
complainant in person submitted that to sustain conviction of an accused 
on a capital charge, un-rebutted ocular evidence alone is sufficient. 
Contends that the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence, 
therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency by this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their 
able assistance.  
7. 
 
It is the prosecution case that complainant Mst. Humaira 
Jabeen was married with the appellant but due to strained relations, the 
appellant had given him divorce a year before the occurrence. The 
complainant had instituted a suit for recovery of dowry articles in the 
court of competent jurisdiction wherein a decree had been issued against 
the appellant. On the fateful day and time, the complainant party along 
with two bailiffs of the court had arrived at the house of appellant Imran 
to take the dowry articles pursuant to the decree of the court. However, 
while the household articles were being loaded in the vehicle parked in 
the street, the appellant took out a pistol and opened fire at the 
complainant party resulting into death of father and uncle of the 
complainant. The unfortunate incident took place on 23.12.2010 at 05:30 
pm whereas the crime report was lodged in the Casualty Ward of DHQ 
Hospital, Haripur at 06:25 pm just within an hour of the occurrence. The 
distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7 
kilometers whereas the distance between Police Station and DHQ 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 4 :-
Hospital, Haripur was 7.7 kilometers. Thus, it can be safely said that FIR 
was lodged with promptitude. Promptness of FIR prima facie shows 
truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excludes possibility of 
deliberation and consultation. There was hardly any time with the 
complainant or other witnesses to fabricate a false story. The occurrence 
took place in the broad day light and the parties were known to each, 
therefore, there is no chance of misidentification. The ocular account in 
this case has been furnished by Mst. Humaira Jabeen, complainant (PW-
11), Munsif Khan, bailiff (PW-8) and Muhammad Sharif, bailiff (PW-9). 
These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination 
by the defence but nothing favourable to the appellant or adverse to the 
prosecution could be produced on record. These witnesses have given all 
necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of 
accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used 
in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence. 
These PWs remained consistent on each and every material point 
inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the circumstances 
happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular 
account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and 
confidence inspiring. There is no denial to this fact that the PWs Munsif 
Khan and Muhammad Sharif were bailiffs of the Family Court Haripur, who 
went to the house of the appellant in compliance with the decree passed 
by the Family Court. No doubt they are independent witnesses. They did 
not know the appellant before the occurrence. They also did not have any 
enmity or ill-will against the appellant to falsely involve him in the case. 
Although Mst. Humaira Jabeen was related to the deceased. However, it is 
by now a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the 
prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard 
the testimony of such witnesses out-rightly. If the presence of the related 
witnesses at the time of occurrence is natural and their evidence is 
straight forward and confidence inspiring then the same can be safely 
relied upon to award capital punishment. Learned counsel for the 
appellant could not point out any reason as to why the complainant has 
falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let off the real 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 5 :-
culprit, who has brutally murdered her father and uncle. Substitution in 
such like cases is a rare phenomenon. These witnesses have reasonably 
explained the circumstances of their going to the house of the appellant 
i.e. they went there to take the dowry articles pursuant to a decree issued 
by the Family Court.  The medical evidence available on the record 
corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and 
impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased is concerned. Even 
otherwise, it is settled law that where ocular evidence is found 
trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over 
medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of 
an accused. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1996 
SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar Vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396), Faisal 
Mehmood Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1025) and Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The 
State (2011 SCMR 460). It is settled principle of law that the value and 
status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its 
nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction. Minor 
discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular 
version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During occurrence 
witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the 
distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where 
accused caused injuries. It becomes highly improbable to correctly 
mention the number and location of the injuries with exactitude. Minor 
discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do 
not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give pen 
picture of ocular account. Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with 
medical evidence being not material imprinting any dent in prosecution 
version would have no adverse affect on prosecution case. Requirement of 
corroborative evidence is not of much significance and same is not a rule 
of law but is that of prudence. During the course of proceedings, the 
learned counsel contended that there are material discrepancies and 
contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses but on our specific 
query he could not point out any major contradiction, which could shatter 
the case of the prosecution in its entirety. It is a well settled proposition of 
law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 6 :-
truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence. If an 
omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can 
take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, 
the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to 
have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting 
the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt 
the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies 
which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be 
ignored. To prove the motive part of the prosecution story, the witnesses 
of the ocular account appeared in the witness box and deposed against 
the appellant. The perusal of the record reflects that neither the defence 
seriously disputed the motive part of the prosecution story nor the PWs 
were cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. In this view of the 
matter, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has successfully 
proved the motive against the appellant. The Investigating Officer had 
collected four crime empties from the place of occurrence. The appellant 
was arrested on the same day after couple of hours of the occurrence 
along with the weapon of offence i.e. pistol .30 bore. Although, the 
weapon of offence and the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science 
Laboratory together on 28.01.2011 but as the appellant was arrested on 
the same day, therefore, the same is of no help to the appellant. According 
to the positive report of FSL, the empties were found fired from the 
weapon recovered from the appellant.  
8. 
 
After three days of his arrest, on 27.12.2010, the appellant 
appeared before Fazal Gul, Judicial Magistrate to confess his guilt. 
Acquitted co-accused Ashiq was also produced before the Judicial 
Magistrate but it was only the appellant who showed his willingness to 
record his confessional statement. The said Judicial Magistrate appeared 
during trial as PW-3. He in categorical terms stated that the handcuffs of 
the appellant were removed; the Police, State counsel and the Naib Court 
were ousted from the court; the accused was told that he is not bound to 
make any statement and was given sufficient time to think over the 
matter. He was also informed that he is not bound to make any 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 7 :-
confessional statement and if he does so, it would be used against him. 
The appellant also signed the confessional statement and put his thumb 
impression over it. When the appellant was confronted with such 
confessional statement while recording his statement under Section 342 
Cr.P.C. he did not deny the same but stated that the same was extracted 
by the Police by using force with connivance of complainant party and the 
same was not recorded under the requirements of law. However, we are 
of the view that such assertion is just an afterthought. The evidence 
available on record clearly suggests that the appellant did not inform the 
Judicial Magistrate about the alleged coercion at the time of making his 
judicial confession. The appellant also did not place on record any 
evidence to show that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards him 
and forced him to confess his crime. According to Article 119 of the 
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden of proof to any particular fact 
lies on the person who wishes the court to believe its existence. There is 
no denial to this fact that the prosecution has to discharge the burden of 
proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, once the 
prosecution becomes successful in discharging the said burden, it is 
incumbent on the accused who had taken a specific defence plea to prove 
the same with certainty. Even otherwise, if the confessional statement of 
the appellant is excluded from consideration, there is sufficient material 
available on the record in the shape of unbiased and unimpeachable 
ocular account supported by medical evidence, motive and recovery to 
sustain conviction of the appellant.   
9. 
 
In the alternative, learned counsel contended that the 
occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, without any 
premeditation on the part of the appellant, therefore, the said aspect may 
be considered as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of 
death into imprisonment for life. However, we are not convinced with the 
argument of the learned counsel. The perusal of evidence available on 
record clearly shows that pursuant to the outcome of proceedings carried 
out in the Family Court, the appellant knew that the complainant is 
coming to take her dowry articles. The testimonies of all the PWs reveal 
Criminal Appeal No. 82/2022 
-: 8 :-
that he was duly armed with pistol and consequent events reflect his 
mindset. Such evidence is sufficient to indicate premeditation of appellant, 
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of 
punishment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present 
case, we are of the view that the prosecution has established each limb of 
its case by producing unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. The 
learned High Court has evaluated the evidence in its true perspective and 
has come to the conclusion, which is just and equitable, hence it is neither 
arbitrary nor perverse. No exception can be taken to the findings arrived 
at by the learned High Court.  
10. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this appeal, which is dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
13th of February, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram