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.6-P/2010 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
14.5.2009 
passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in 
Cr. Revision No.158/2002) 
 
 
 
Alamgir 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Gul Zaman & others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Astaghfirullah, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.1 
: Nemo.  
 
For the State: 
 
:  
Barrister Qasim Wadud,  
Additional 
Advocate 
General, 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 29.04.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.  Through leave of the Court, 
impugned herein is judgment dated 14.5.2009, whereby a learned 
division bench of the Peshawar High Court altered respondents’ 
conviction from clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860 into clause (c) thereof. The issue has arisen out of incident dated 
10.8.2006 within the remit of Police Station Lund Khwar, District 
Mardan reported by Alamgir, appellant herein; he arrayed the 
respondents as well as one Umar Din in the crime report for committing 
qatl-e-amd of his father Gul Mehmood, who surprised them while cutting 
branches of keekar tree and excavating stones from his area. The 
Criminal Appeal No.6-P/2010 
2
appellant endured the assault, however his father succumbed to the 
injuries. While Umar Rehman co-accused stayed away from law, indicted 
by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents were returned a 
guilty verdict on multiple counts; for qatl-e-amd of Gul Mehmood 
deceased they were convicted under clause (b) of the Section ibid and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life along with direction to collectively pay 
diyat to the tune of Rs.3,65,921/-, to be apportioned amongst the legal 
heirs. In appeal the learned High Court set aside diyat amount and 
instead directed payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 
each; respondents’ conviction was altered from clause (b) into clause (c) 
of the Section ibid.  
2.  
  
Learned counsel for the appellant has primarily assailed 
modification in conviction and sentences consequent thereupon on the 
ground that there was no occasion for the learned High Court, to modify 
conviction and sentences, rightly settled by the learned trial Court. It is 
further argued that the respondents with available weapons took the life 
of an innocent person ‘massom-ud-dum’, without provocation and thus 
were liable to be visited with the penalty commensurate with the crime 
believed to have been committed at their hands by both the Courts 
below.  The learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment. 
 
3. 
   
It is prosecution’s own case that occurrence took place in a 
sudden encounter with no previous bad blood; weapons used in the 
occurrence though formidable in circumstances were nonetheless not 
choice selection to mount an assault. Accused side also suffered injuries, 
conspicuously omitted in the crime report. Spot inspection sans presence 
of tree branches or excavated stones. Scenario spells out a situation that 
no one anticipated; once started it aggravated, resulting into injuries to 
the both, with a heavier toll on the complainant’s side. In circumstances 
respondents’ liability more aptly fall within the mischief of clause (c) of 
Criminal Appeal No.6-P/2010 
3
Section ibid. The view taken by the learned High Court is inconsonance 
with the law declared in the case titled Ali Muhammad versus Ali 
Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274), reaffirmed in the case titled …… 
versus The State. It is by now well settled that situations earlier covered by erstwhile 
provisions of Section 304 of the Code ibid are not catered by clause (c) of aforesaid 
section of law. Impugned view being well within the remit of law calls for no 
interference. Appeal is dismissed. 
      
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
29th of April, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE