IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 &  
Jail Petition No.474/2017 
(Against judgment dated 30.05.2013 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 
478-P/2012 and Murder Reference No. 19-P/2012) 
 
 
Izzat Ullah 
(in Cr.P. No.83-P/2013) 
Mst. Robina 
(in J.P. No.474/2017) 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State  
…Respondent 
 
 
For the petitioner: 
Mr. Altaf Samad, ASC 
 
(in Cr. Petition No.83-P/2013)  
 
Mrs. Farhana Naz Marwat, ASC 
 
 (in Jail Petition No.474-P/2017) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi,  
 
Addl. A.G., KPK 
   
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.09.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.  Jail Petition No.474 
of 2017 by Mst. Robina and Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal 
No.83-P/2013 by her co-convict Izzat Ullah, bound by a common 
thread, are being decided through this single judgment; they were 
intercepted on 27.3.2010 at 10:00 a.m. within the precincts of 
Police Station Muhammad Riaz Shaheed District Kohat at a check-
post while travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No.AJD-911 
Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 &  
Jail Petition No.474/2017 
2
Sindh. Izzat Ullah petitioner was on the wheel, Mst. Robina being 
next to him; on a suspect response, when questioned, the vehicle 
was extensively searched and the police contingent succeeded to 
discover a secret cavity in the fuel tank wherefrom 20 packs each 
with 1050 grams heroin were recovered. Soon after the arrest, Mst. 
Robina was produced before Mr. Tilla Muhammad, Judicial 
Magistrate (PW-1) who recorded her confessional statement 
(Ex.PW-1/2). Izzat Ullah petitioner opted to make his breast clean 
on the following day through statement (Ex.PW-1/5). As the 
investigation progressed, co-accused Majnoon son of Rustam was 
also taken on board for having dispatched the consignment. One 
Fida, an alleged privy to the transaction, is still away from the law. 
Upon indictment, the accused claimed trial whereupon prosecution 
produced as many as eight witnesses, besides the forensic report 
to drive home the charge; they confronted prosecution evidence 
with unanimous denials with a reticence as to why they were roped 
in the case.  The learned trial Judge extended benefit of the doubt 
to Majnoon co-accused, however, vide judgment dated 9.10.2012 
proceeded to convict Izzat Ullah and Robina Bibi under section 9(c) 
of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; the former was 
sentenced to death while latter to imprisonment for life; their 
convictions were maintained by the High Court, however, death 
penalty awarded to Izzat Ullah was altered into imprisonment for 
life and it is so done on the request of his counsel on account of 
his being merely a carrier without deriving much benefit from the 
crime.  
2. 
 
Validity 
of 
confessional 
statements 
as 
well 
as 
prosecution’s failure to establish safe custody and transmission 
are the main planks stressed on behalf of the convicts besides non-
availability of public witnesses to attest the recovery.  
3. 
 
Confessional statements before Tilla Muhammad, 
Judicial Magistrate (PW-1), though retracted subsequently present 
formidable piece of evidence, inexorably pointed upon the convicts’ 
culpability. Mst. Robina made disclosure within a small span of 
time soon after her arrest, during her first appearance before the 
Magistrate; Izzat Ullah followed the suit; both of them after having 
Criminal Petition No. 83-P/2013 &  
Jail Petition No.474/2017 
3
been administered warnings and cautions, though disapprovingly 
on a printed format, nonetheless, made statements otherwise 
found by us as voluntary, natural and truthful with relevant 
details compatible with the salient features of the case; brief 
interregnum rules out hypothesis of manipulation. Other pieces of 
evidence have been found by us as independently sufficient to 
drive home the charge; forensic report confirms the lethal nature of 
the substance, recovered in a quantity that cannot be possibly 
foisted in routine; seizure of the vehicle clinches the case. 
Argument of safe custody does not hold much water as Abdul 
Faraz 28/C (PW-10) took the sample to the Forensic Science 
Laboratory along with Rahdari Ex.PW8/3 was not cross-examined 
despite opportunity. Forensic Report (Ex.PZ) corroborates the 
position taken by the said PW. Absence of public witnesses is 
beside the mark; public recusal is an unfortunate norm. 
Prosecution witnesses are in a comfortable unison; being 
functionaries of the Republic, they are second to none in status 
and their evidence can be relied upon unreservedly, if found trust 
worthy, as in the case in hand. Both the courts below have 
undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the prosecution case and 
concurred in their conclusions regarding petitioners’ guilt and we 
have not been able to take a different view than concurrently taken 
by them. Petitions fail. Dismissed.    
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
27th September, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-