IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No. 
372 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 69 of 2011) 
 
 
M
s t .  N a z i a  A n w
a r  
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
v e r s u s  
T h e  S t a t e ,  e t c .  
     …Respondents 
 
                
 
For the appellant: 
Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas, ASC 
Mrs. Rubina Mahmood Khan, ASC 
Mr. S. A. Mehmood Khan Saddozai, 
ASC 
Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For the State:  
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
13.02.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: Mst. Nazia Anwar appellant 
had allegedly caused multiple injuries to her friend namely Mst. 
Fahmeeda Bibi with the use of a dagger inside the house of the 
deceased as well as of her mother namely Mst. Sadiqa Bibi 
complainant in Line No. 2, Quaid-e-Azam Colony near Dhamial 
Camp, Rawalpindi in the area of Police Station Saddar Bairooni, 
District Rawalpindi at about 10.00 A.M. on 12.10.2010 in the 
backdrop of a motive according to which the appellant had 
borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the deceased and a heated 
exchange had taken place between them over demand of 
repayment of that loan. With the said allegations the appellant was 
booked in case FIR No. 640 registered at the above mentioned 
Police Station at about mid-day on the same day and after a 
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2016 
2 
regular trial the appellant was convicted by the trial court for an 
offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death and 
to pay compensation which conviction and sentence of the 
appellant were subsequently upheld and confirmed by the High 
Court. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 
21.04.2016.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.  
 
3. 
The occurrence in this case had taken place in broad 
daylight and inside the house of Mst. Sadiqa Bibi complainant. An 
FIR in respect of the alleged occurrence had been lodged with 
reasonable promptitude wherein the present appellant was named 
as the sole perpetrator of the alleged murder. Mst. Sadiqa Bibi 
complainant (PW2) was a natural witness of the occurrence being 
an inmate of the house wherein the occurrence had taken place 
and the time of occurrence was such that the complainant was 
likely to be present in her house at that time. The complainant had 
absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the 
murder of the complainant’s daughter who was also a friend of the 
appellant. The record of the case shows, and it is so recorded in 
the FIR itself, that the appellant had been apprehended at the spot 
inside the relevant house and was later on handed over to the local 
police. A blood-stained dagger had also been recovered from the 
place of occurrence. The medical evidence had provided full 
support to the ocular account furnished by Mst. Sadiqa Bibi, 
complainant (PW2). Both the courts below had undertaken an 
exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had 
then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellant 
having been established to the hilt and upon my independent 
evaluation of the evidence I have not been able to take a view of the 
matter different from that concurrently taken by the courts below. 
There can conceivably be many theories as to why the appellant 
was found inside the house of the complainant with a baby-boy 
aged about four months but all such theories lie within the realm 
of conjectures which have no place in the criminal law. There is 
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2016 
3 
also little room available for drawing an inference in that regard as 
some foundational facts necessary for drawing an inference are 
missing in that respect.    
 
4. 
I have particularly attended to the sentence of death passed 
against the appellant and have noticed in that context that the 
motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being 
established. According to the FIR as well as the statement of the 
complainant the motive was based upon borrowing of a sum of Rs. 
5,000/- by the appellant from the deceased and on the issue of 
repayment of that loan a heated exchange had taken place between 
the appellant and the deceased. Mst. Sadiqa Bibi complainant 
(PW2) was the only witness produced by the prosecution regarding 
the alleged motive but in her deposition made before the trial court 
the complainant had admitted that the appellant and the deceased 
were on very good and friendly terms, no date or time of borrowing 
of the relevant amount by the appellant from the deceased had 
been specified by the complainant, the complainant was not 
present when the money had been borrowed by the appellant from 
the deceased, no date, time or place of the altercation taking place 
between the appellant and the deceased over repayment of the 
borrowed amount had been specified by the complainant and 
admittedly the complainant was not present when the said 
altercation had taken place. In these circumstances it is quite 
obvious to me that the motive asserted by the prosecution had 
remained utterly unproved. The law is settled by now that if the 
prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such 
failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence 
of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and a 
reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Ahmad 
Nawaz v. The State (2011 SCMR 593), Iftikhar Mehmood and 
another v. Qaiser Iftikhar and others (2011 SCMR 1165), 
Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 267), 
Muhammad Imran @ Asif v. The State (2013 SCMR 782), Sabir 
Hussain alias Sabri v. The State (2013 SCMR 1554), Zeeshan Afzal 
alias Shani and another v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 
1602), Naveed alias Needu and others v. The State and others (2014 
SCMR 1464), Muhammad Nadeem Waqas and another v. The State 
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2016 
4 
(2014 SCMR 1658), Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Akhtar and 
others (2016 SCMR 2035) and Qaddan and others v. The State 
(2017 SCMR 148). After going through the entire record of the case 
from cover to cover and after attending to different aspects of this 
case I have found that although it is proved beyond doubt that the 
appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased yet the 
story of the prosecution has many inherent obscurities ingrained 
therein. It is intriguing as to why the appellant would bring her 
four months old baby-boy to the spot and put the baby-boy on the 
floor and then start belabouring the deceased with a dagger in 
order to kill her. I have, thus, entertained no manner of doubt that 
the real cause of occurrence was something different which had 
been completely suppressed by both the parties to the case and 
that real cause of occurrence had remained shrouded in mystery. 
Such circumstances of this case have put me to caution in the 
matter 
of 
the 
appellant’s 
sentence 
and 
in 
the 
peculiar 
circumstances of the case I have decided to withhold the sentence 
of death passed against the appellant.   
 
5. 
For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed 
to the extent of the appellant’s conviction for the offence under 
section 302(b), PPC but the same is partly allowed to the extent of 
her sentence of death which is reduced to imprisonment for life. 
The order passed by the trial court regarding payment of 
compensation by the appellant to the heirs of the deceased as well 
as the order regarding imprisonment in default of payment of 
compensation are, however, maintained. The benefit under section 
382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the appellant.  
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
I respectfully disagree with my 
learned brother Asif Saeed Khan 
Khosa, J. and have recorded my 
separate reasons.  
 
 
(Dost Muhammad Khan) 
Judge 
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2016 
5 
I agree with my learned brother Asif 
Saeed Khan Khosa, J. 
 
 
(Syed Mansoor Ali Shah) 
Judge 
 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 
 
 
 
By a majority of two against one (Dost Muhammad Khan, J. 
dissenting)  this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant’s 
conviction for the offence under section 302(b), PPC but the same 
is partly allowed to the extent of her sentence of death which is 
reduced to imprisonment for life. The order passed by the trial 
court regarding payment of compensation by the appellant to the 
heirs of the deceased as well as the order regarding imprisonment 
in default of payment of compensation are, however, maintained. 
The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the 
appellant. This appeal is disposed of in these terms. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
 
(Dost Muhammad Khan) 
Judge 
 
 
 
(Syed Mansoor Ali Shah) 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
13.02.2018 
Not approved for reporting.  
Arif