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 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017  
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
06.06.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 106-J/2014 and 
Murder Reference No. 79/2014) 
 
Aqil 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
16.02.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Aqil along with three 
co-accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot 
pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 356 dated 05.10.2011 under 
Sections 302/364-A/337-A(I)/337-L(ii)/109 PPC at Police Station Langrana, 
Chiniot for committing murder of Mst. Mukhtar Bibi and Mst. Allah Maufi, 
mother and sister of the complainant and for causing injuries to the 
complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.02.2014 
while acquitting the co-accused, convicted the petitioner under Section 
302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death on two counts. He was also 
directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- on each count to 
the legal heirs of both the deceased. In default he was to suffer six months 
SI on each count. In appeal the learned High Court while maintaining the 
conviction of the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC, altered the 
sentence of death into imprisonment for life on two counts. The amount 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 2 :-
of compensation and the sentence in default whereof was also 
maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of 
the petitioner. 
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“2. 
Prosecution case in brief un-folded in the F.I.R. (Ex.PA) by Mst. 
Farhat Bibi complainant (PW-2) is that she is resident of Chak No.211/J.B 
and was married to Azhar whereas her maternal uncle/appellant Aqil was 
married to Tasleem Bibi, sister of her husband as a result of exchange. 
However, because of strained family relations, complainant was divorced 
by her husband Azhar and due to this reason, wife of Aqil also went to 
her parents’ house. On 05.10.2011 at about 07:30 a.m. complainant 
alongwith her mother Mukhtar Bibi and two sisters Allah Muafi and Allah 
Shafi was going towards Chak Sarghana for picking cotton and when they 
reached near the land owned by Allah Yar Joota within the jurisdiction of 
Chak No.211/J.B, appellant Aqil alongwith his co-accused Ulfat and Umer 
Hayat came at the spot on a motorbike driven by accused Ulfat, who 
asked the appellant that the complainant’s family had collapsed his 
matrimonial life, therefore, they should not be spared, upon that 
appellant Aqil made four consecutive fires with his pistol hitting near 
right chest, belly, right shoulder and at the right flank of Mukhtar Bibi, 
who fell down, then, the appellant again made four consecutive fires 
hitting at the left arm, near left chest, left flank and right hand of Allah 
Muafi, who also fell down. When the complainant raised hue and cry, co-
accused of the appellant Umer Hayat gave fist blows hitting at the lower 
part of left eye and he also snatched her minor daughter Samreen Bibi 
aged about 6 years. On hearing hue and cry, PWs Goga and Riaz reached 
at the spot and witnessed the occurrence and on seeing them, appellant 
alongwith his co-accused Ulfat and Umer Hayat while making aerial firing 
fled away from the spot on the motorbike and also took away daughter 
of the complainant Samreen Bibi. Complainant alongwith the PWs tried 
to rescue Mukhtar Bibi and Allah Muafi but they both succumbed to the 
injuries.  
 
Motive behind the occurrence as per FIR. (Ex.PA) is that appellant Aqil 
was married in exchange of the complainant Mst. Farhat Bibi and when 
she was divorced by her husband, the wife of appellant also left his house 
and went to her parent’s house, due to that grudge, appellant alongwith 
his co-accused Ulfat and Umar Hayat in furtherance of their common 
intention has committed murder of Mukhtar Bibi and Allah Muafi on the 
abetment of accused Atta and also snatched daughter of the complainant 
for the purpose of committing her murder.” 
 
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 ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under 
Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted all 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 3 :-
the allegations leveled against him. However, he neither appeared as his 
own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of 
the allegations leveled against him nor produced any evidence in his 
defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
contended that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses, which have not been taken into 
consideration by the courts below. Contends that the PWs are interested 
and related to each other and their evidence has lost its sanctity. Contends 
that the prosecution case is based upon 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. 
Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive and 
recoveries as alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. 
Contends that on the same set of evidence, three co-accused of the 
petitioner have been acquitted but the petitioner has been convicted, 
which is against the canons of justice. Lastly contends that the reasons 
given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are 
speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may 
be set at naught.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed 
this petition on the ground that the eye-witnesses had no enmity with the 
petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. It has been contended that 
the eye-witnesses have reasonably explained their presence at the spot at 
the relevant time, which is quite natural and probable and the medical 
evidence is also in line with the ocular account, therefore, the petitioner 
does not deserve any leniency from 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.  
 
 
A bare perusal of the record shows that the unfortunate 
incident, wherein the mother and sister of the complainant lost their lives, 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 4 :-
took place on 05.10.2011 at 07:30 am whereas the FIR was registered on 
08:55 am i.e. just after one hour and 25 minutes of the occurrence. The 
distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 25 
kilometers. Thus, it can safely be said that FIR was lodged with 
promptitude. Promptness of FIR 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 daylight and the parties 
were known to each other, therefore, there is no chance of 
misidentification. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by 
Mst. Farhat Bibi, complainant (PW-2) and Mst. Allah Shafi (PW-3). These 
PWs were residents of the same locality where the occurrence took place 
and they along with the deceased were going towards fields to pick 
cotton. These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-
examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner or 
adverse to the prosecution could be brought 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 according to the circumstances 
surfaced in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular 
account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and 
confidence inspiring. Mst. Farhat Bibi had sustained injuries during the 
occurrence, which have fully been supported by the medical evidence 
given by Dr. Shagufta Zahoor, who appeared as PW-5. The testimony of 
this injured PW as well as the stamp of injuries on her person clearly 
proves her presence at the place of occurrence. In the circumstances of 
the case, both these witnesses were the only and most natural witnesses. 
There is no denial to this fact that these PWs were related with the 
deceased but merely for this reason they cannot be called "interested" 
witnesses. The term "related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness 
may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit in 
seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 5 :-
the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said 
to be "interested"." In the present case, the eye witnesses, one of whom 
was an injured eye-witness have spoken consistently and cogently in 
describing the manner of commission of the crime in detail. The testimony 
of an injured eyewitness carries more evidentiary value. The Court is not 
persuaded that their evidence is to be discarded merely because they 
happen to be related witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner could 
not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant has falsely 
involved the petitioner in the present case and let off the real culprit, who 
has committed murder of her mother and sister. Substitution in such like 
cases is a rare phenomenon. The medical evidence available on the record 
further corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale 
and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased and injured 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 the 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. 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. We may point out that ‘discrepancy’ has to be 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 6 :-
distinguished from ‘contradiction’. Contradiction in the statement of the 
witness is fatal for the prosecution case whereas minor discrepancy or 
variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful. It is 
normal course of the human conduct that while narrating a particular 
incident there may occur minor discrepancies. Parrot-like statements are 
always discredited by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the 
discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounts to 
contradiction, regard is required to be made to the circumstances of the 
case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment 
in which such witnesses were making the statement. There are always 
normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful a witness may be. 
Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, memory due 
to lapse of time and mental disposition such as shock and horror at the 
time of occurrence. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal 
and not expected of a normal person. The recovery of weapon of offence 
was inconsequential as admittedly no crime empty was recovered from 
the place of occurrence. The complainant had alleged a specific motive 
that the petitioner Aqil was married with her husband’s sister in exchange 
of the complainant Mst. Farhat Bibi. When she was divorced by her 
husband, the wife of the petitioner also left his house and went to her 
parent’s house and due to this grudge, the petitioner committed murder 
of complainant’s mother and sister. However, the learned High Court has 
rightly disbelieved the motive by holding that the incident of divorce took 
place two years prior to the occurrence, therefore, what happened 
immediately before the occurrence, which provoked the petitioner to take 
lives of two innocent persons, remained shrouded in mystery. Hence, the 
motive part of the prosecution case does not inspire confidence so as to 
term it is as a cause of the murder.  So far as the acquittal of the three co-
accused of the petitioner is concerned, the case of the petitioner is 
distinguishable to that of the acquitted co-accused simply for the reason 
that none of them had caused any injury to any of the deceased. Keeping 
in view the fact that motive has been disbelieved and the recovery is 
inconsequential, the learned High Court has rightly taken a lenient view 
and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life to meet 
JAIL PETITION NO. 553 OF 2017 
-: 7 :-
the ends of justice, hence, it leaves no room for us to further deliberate on 
this point. The learned High Court has correctly appreciated the material 
aspects of the case and the conclusions drawn are in line with the 
guidelines enunciated by this Court on the subject. Learned counsel for the 
petitioner has not been able to point out any legal or factual error in the 
impugned judgment, which could be made basis to take a different view 
from that of the learned High Court.  
 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
16th of February, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram