IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75-L OF 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal 
No. 
399-J/2012/BWP 
and 
Murder 
Reference 
No. 
63/2012/BWP) 
 
Amanullah 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Sheikh Sakhawat Ali, ASC 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
15.11.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant Amanullah along with 
two co-accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 
Sadiqabad, pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 136/2011 dated 
31.05.2011 under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Bhong, Sadiqabad 
for committing murder of Din Muhammad, brother of the complainant. 
The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.11.2012 while 
acquitting the 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/- to the legal heirs of the 
deceased or in default whereof to further suffer six months SI. In appeal 
the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant 
under Section 302(b) PPC, altered the sentence of death into 
Criminal Appeal No. 75-L/2021 
-: 2 :-
imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation and the sentence in 
default whereof was maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also 
extended to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, 
the appellant filed Jail Petition No. 453/2016 before this Court wherein 
leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 and the 
present appeal has arisen thereafter.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Muhammad Hamid 
(PW-5) in his ‘Fard Biyan’ (Ex.PG), on the basis of which the formal FIR was 
chalked out, are that he (complainant) was resident of Chak No. 184/P 
(district Rahimyar Khan) and was a blacksmith (Lohar) by profession. On 
31.05.2011 at about 6.30 PM, he alongwith his brother Muhammad Din 
(deceased), Shabbir Ahmad son of Sikandar, resident of Chak No. 239/P 
and Asghar Ali son of Noor Muhammad, resident of Sanjarpur came at the 
residence of his maternal uncle (Mamoon) Abdul Sattar situated at Basit 
Solangi Mouza Noor Pur on motorcycles. In the meanwhile, Aman Ullah 
(appellant) while armed with 12 bore double barrel gun, Ikhtiar Ahmad (co-
accused since acquitted) armed with pistol, Abdul Aziz (co-accused since 
acquitted) and Noor Hassan (co-accused since PO) both armed with firearm 
weapons came there. The appellant’s co-accused namely Abdul Aziz, Ikhtiar 
Ahmad and Noor Hassan raised lalkara to Amanullah (appellant) that Din 
Muhammad should not go alive whereupon Amanullah (appellant) made a 
straight fire shot upon Din Muhammad hitting on his head and thereafter, 
he made second fire shot which landed on his left hand and left buttock, as 
a result whereof, he succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot. The 
complainant alongwith his companions tried to apprehend the accused 
persons but they gave threats of dire consequences. On hearing the hue 
and cry, many people gathered at the place of occurrence whereupon the 
accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence while brandishing 
their weapons.  
 
The motive behind the occurrence was that about three years ago the 
complainant (PW-5) was married with Mst. Irshad Bibi, daughter of 
Amanullah (appellant) and in Watta Satta marriage, sister of the 
complainant namely Allah Diwayee was married with Ihsan Ullah, son of 
Aman Ullah (appellant). Due to matrimonial dispute, the complainant (PW-
5) had divorced his wife about two years ago whereupon Ihsan Ullah had 
also ousted his wife (complainant’s sister) from his house who was 
pregnant at that time. Later on, she delivered a female child namely Mst. 
Raheeman Bibi, who was snatched by Ihsan Ullah on the day of her birth 
whereupon the complainant’s sister filed a habeas corpus petition in the 
Sessions Courts Rahimyar Khan and as Din Muhammad (deceased) used to 
pursue the said case, therefore, Amanullah appellant alongwith his co-
accused, on account of having grudge over the matrimonial dispute and 
filing of habeas corpus petition, committed the murder of Din Muhammad 
deceased, in furtherance of their common intention. 
Criminal Appeal No. 75-L/2021 
-: 3 :-
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 eleven witnesses. In his statement recorded 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all the allegations leveled against him. The appellant also got recorded his 
statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and also produced Badar 
Ali as DW-2.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant while opening his 
arguments has stated that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest 
improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which escaped the 
notice of the learned courts below. While reiterating the contentions 
raised before this Court when leave was granted, learned counsel squarely 
relied upon the grounds of leave wherein the main contention of the 
learned counsel was that the prosecution witnesses were not residents of 
the place where the occurrence had taken place and they have not given 
any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot at the relevant 
time. Contends that the prosecution witnesses are interested and related, 
therefore, their evidence has lost its sanctity and the conviction cannot be 
based upon it. Contends that the postmortem of the deceased was 
conducted with a delay of 10 hours for which no valid reason has been 
given. Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive as 
alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. Lastly contends 
that the recovery of weapon of offence has also been discarded by the 
learned High Court, therefore, the appellant may be acquitted of the 
charge.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this appeal on the 
ground that the eye-witnesses had no enmity with the appellant 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 
Criminal Appeal No. 75-L/2021 
-: 4 :-
with the ocular account, therefore, the appellant 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 brother of the complainant lost his life, took place 
on 31.05.2011 at 6.30 PM. The matter was reported to the Police instantly 
and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 8.40 PM i.e. just after two 
hours of the occurrence. Keeping in view the inter se distance between 
the place of occurrence and the Police Station i.e. 13.5 kilometer, the 
contention of the learned counsel that the FIR was delayed has no force. 
The occurrence took place in the broad daylight whereas the parties were 
known to each other, therefore, there is no chance of misidentification.  
The ocular account in this case has been furnished by Muhammad Hamid, 
complainant (PW-5) and Shabbir Ahmad (PW-6). Although both these 
witnesses were not residents of the locality where the occurrence took 
place but they have reasonably explained their presence at the place of 
occurrence at the relevant time by stating that they had come to the 
house of their maternal uncle Abdul Sattar in connection with the matter 
of their land situated in Basti Solangi, Mouza Noor Pur. It is not denied by 
the defence anywhere that the said witnesses had no land in the vicinity. 
The presence of the said witnesses in the house of their maternal uncle 
cannot be termed as unnatural. 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 
brought on record. Both 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. The medical evidence available 
on the record further corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, 
Criminal Appeal No. 75-L/2021 
-: 5 :-
time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased is 
concerned. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant 
that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted after a delay of 10 
hours is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly observed that no 
question regarding the reason for the said delay was put to Dr. Gohar 
Abbas (PW-1). Further, in a developing country like ours, it cannot be 
expected that the medical staff along with other facilities is readily 
available during the odd hours of the night that too in a remote area of 
southern Punjab, hence, this contention has no legal force, which is 
repelled. Nonetheless, the injuries ascribed to the appellant on the body 
of the deceased were found available by the Doctor, who conducted 
postmortem examination. Even otherwise, it is settled law that where 
ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is 
given preference over medical evidence. As far as the question that the 
complainant was brother of the deceased, therefore, his testimony cannot 
be believed to sustain conviction of the appellant is concerned, this Court 
has time and again held that mere relationship of the prosecution 
witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony 
of such witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out 
any plausible reason as to why the complainant has falsely involved the 
appellant in the present case and let off the real culprit, who has 
committed murder of his real brother. Substitution in such like cases is 
otherwise a rare phenomenon. 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. Even if there are some minor discrepancies, 
which do not hamper the salient features of the prosecution case, the 
same should be ignored. Even otherwise, the accused cannot claim benefit 
of such minor discrepancies. So far as the motive part of the prosecution 
story is concerned, the learned High Court has discarded the same by 
holding that the motive as alleged does not appeal to a prudent mind 
because if the complainant had divorced the daughter of the appellant, 
Criminal Appeal No. 75-L/2021 
-: 6 :-
then the appellant must have committed his murder and not of his 
brother. However, in our view there is a very strong motive, which is not 
only orally proved but the pendency of the habeas corpus petition by the 
sister of the complainant and deceased in the Sessions Court, which was 
being pursued by the deceased, leaves no room to disbelieve the motive 
part of the prosecution story. As such, we are constrained to observe that 
the learned High Court has discarded the motive on flimsy grounds, which 
cannot be accredited by any stretch of imagination. So far as recovery is 
concerned, admittedly the crime empties and the weapon of offence were 
sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory together, which makes it 
doubtful as it has been held by superior courts frequently, as such, the 
recovery was rightly disbelieved by the learned High Court. In these 
circumstances, there is sufficient evidence available to sustain the 
conviction of the appellant. So far as the quantum of punishment is 
concerned, keeping in view the fact that recovery was disbelieved, the 
learned High Court has already taken a lenient view and converted the 
sentence of death into imprisonment for life to meet the ends of justice, 
hence, it leaves no room for us for further deliberation on this score.  
 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this appeal, which is dismissed. The above are the detailed reasons of 
our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
15th of November, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram