IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 07.12.2010 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals No. 672 & 
908 of 2005 Murder Reference No. 416 of 2005) 
 
 
Ali Raza alias Peter, etc. 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 145-L of 2017) 
Muhammad Iqbal alias Balu, etc.  
(in Cr. A. 146-L of 2017) 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the appellants: 
Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, ASC 
 
Ms. Khalida Parveen, ASC  
 
  
 
 
For the complainant: 
Mr. Iftikhar-Ul-Haq Khan Sherwani, 
ASC   
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Rafiq,  
 
Additional Prosecutor-General, 
  
Punjab   
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
18.09.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 145-L of 2017 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.  Ali Raza alias Peter, 
Muhammad Shafique, Rashid, Muhammad Iqbal alias Ballu, Jamil 
Jeela, 
Muhammad 
Amin, 
Muhammad 
Shafique 
alias 
Foji 
Muhammad Waris, Ateeb alias Nosha, Hassan Raza, Asghar Ali, 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
2
Jamshaid alias Sheeda, and Sarfaraz Ahmad, appellants herein, 
are in receipt of a guilty verdict, returned by the learned Special 
Judge, Anti Terrorism Court-1, Gujranwala; they were indicted 
alongside fifteen others, since acquitted, for lynching Muneeb 
Sajjad and Mughees Sajjad, real brothers, on 15.8.2010 within the 
precincts of Police Station Saddar Sialkot.  Of competing accounts, 
first in point of time is put forth by Shoukat Ali vide FIR No.437 of 
even date recorded at 7:05 a.m. wherein the deceased were 
portrayed as robbers who upon resistance, fatally shot  Zeeshan        
and Bilal, with Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Imran, 
surviving the assault. It is alleged that, attracted to the scene, the 
neighborhood subdued the robbers who could not endure outrage 
of the mob. Police secured two .30 caliber pistols with ten live 
bullets alongside snatched articles, vide inventory. Forensic 
reports confirmed homicidal death of Zeeshan and Bilal as well as 
injuries to Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Javed, caused by 
fire shots and multiple blunt weapon injuries leading to the death 
of Muneeb Sajjad and Mughees Sajjad; their deaths foreclosed the 
case registered against them by Shoukat Ali, leaving cross version 
advanced by Zarar Butt, PW-25 recorded on 18.8.2010, in the 
field; upon cognizance by this Court, a new FIR i.e. No.449, was 
recorded on 20.8.2010; it was alleged that both the deceased used 
to play cricket in a ground located in village Buttar and had a 
brawl with the locals few days back and it is in this backdrop that 
on the fateful day while both of them left home for a walk after 
fajjar prayer on a motorbike, a mob comprising, amongst others, 
the appellants tortured them to death and attempted to hush up 
the crime by projecting them as robbers within the view of police 
officials who by that time arrived had at the scene; the second FIR 
conspicuously omits the details regarding first two deceased and 
the injured. As the investigation progressed, video streaming of the 
incident captured by a TV Reporter, Shahzad Ahmad, PW-15 as 
well as by onlookers in their cell phone cameras were secured by 
the investigating officer that generated stills through a DVD (Digital 
Versatile Disc) to identify the assailants. Hafiz Ibrahim, PW-23 and 
Muhammad Jamil Butt, PW-24 furnished the ocular account.  
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
3
On the strength of aforementioned evidence, the learned Trial 
Judge, barring five amongst the array, convicted all the accused 
alongside police officials on account of their criminal failure to 
rescue the deceased from the mob. The High Court acquitted police 
officials from the charge, however, maintained appellants’ 
convictions and sentences consequent thereupon vide the 
impugned judgment, being assailed by leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
Arguments addressed for the appellants range from 
improbability of witnesses’ presence, inadmissibility of video clips 
and stills generated therefrom in evidence, with deceased’ 
antecedents and conduct, a primary factor behind public outrage. 
The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment, highlighting brutality inflicted upon the deceased; he 
has prayed for confirmation of death penalty.   
3. 
 
Appalling events of the fateful day comprised two 
episodes. According to Crime Report No.437, two unknown 
assailants, during the course of robbery targeted no less than four 
persons; of them, Bilal and Zeeshan, uncle and nephew on 
maternal side, succumbed to the injuries at different points of 
time, with bullets in the chest and neck respectively; Javed Iqbal 
and Muhammad Imran survived multiple fire shots, former joined 
the trial as a defense witness. It is under these circumstances that 
both the deceased of this case were overpowered by a mob 
including the appellants and mercilessly lynched; their bodies were 
shifted to the morgue with police papers that san their identity.  
Cross version of the incident was recorded on 18.8.2010 after three 
days of the occurrence, finally transformed into FIR No.449 on 
20.8.2010. Divergent positions, notwithstanding, first part of the 
occurrence is precursor in continuity to the second and thus both 
are inseverably linked with each other, and therefore can be validly 
taken into consideration in view of the space provided under 
Article 20 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Such exercise 
unmistakably confirms that in the first part of the occurrence, 
Bilal died at the spot with a gunshot on his right shoulder; his 
autopsy is conducted at 6:50 a.m. same day, vide report Ex. DQ; 
he is not alone as three others namely Zeeshan, Muhammad Imran 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
4
and Javed Iqbal received multiple fire shots and it is so established 
by medico legal certificates, Ex. DR, DS and DT of even date 
respectively; Zeeshan injured succumbed to the injuries on 
11.9.2010, a fact confirmed by autopsy report of even date, Ex. DP. 
Seizure of two .30 caliber pistols with live munitions is part of 
inventory prepared at the spot. What is established beyond doubt 
in the first crime report, is massive violence suffered by four 
individuals, though with a reticent reference to the robbers, two in 
number, without details/identities of those who lynched them 
shortly thereafter.  Prosecution’s complete silence on deaths and 
injuries as well as details collateral therewith occurring within 
same time and space, in the second First Information Report as 
well as during the trial, is most intriguing. Similarly, deceased’ 
armed detour for a morning walk, on a motorbike, with undigested 
food in their stomachs, to be confronted by a mob, is a story that 
may not find a buyer. In the absence of whole truth, “. . . . . the 
Court must not be deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from 
drawing the inferences that properly flow from the evidence and 
circumstances” Syed Ali Bepari versus Nibaran Mollah and 
others (PLD 1962 SC 502). Available evidence on the record does 
not allow any hypothesis to substitute anyone else, being 
responsible for the first incident other than the deceased of the 
present case, subsequently fallen prey to the wrath of a mob with 
the appellants being at the helm.  Defense objection on the 
admission of forensic evidence, establishing appellants’ identity as 
well as participation in the crime does not hold much water. 
Technological innovations have opened up new avenues of proof to 
drive home charges. Article 164 of the Order ibid invests the Court 
with wide powers to make use of evidence generated by modern 
devices and techniques; Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Order ibid  
as well as provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 
2002) have smoothened the procedure to receive such evidence, 
subject to restrictions/limitations provided therein. This Court has 
undertaken an exhaustive survey of jurisprudence on the subject 
in the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza and two others versus the 
Federation of Pakistan and others rendered on 23.8.2019 in 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
5
Constitution Petitions No.10, 11 and 12 of 2019 and 
authoritatively settled parameters to receive forensic evidence 
through modern devices. Evidence produced against the appellants 
qualifies the standards laid down in the supra case. Shahzad 
Ahmed, PW-15 is a Journalist; attracted to the spot, he captured 
the footages of crime scene, subsequently transmitted in a compact 
disc secured vide memo, Ex. PK. Dilawar Hussain, PW-20 is a 
professional photographer; he generated stills from the compact 
disc exhibited as P-9/1-35; these stills provide graphic details of 
the whole incident and establish identity of the appellants beyond 
doubt while they were belabouring the deceased. In the totality of 
circumstances, given appellants’ different backgrounds, in a 
limited time space, interpolation, substitution or editing of forensic 
material, seemingly immune from human interference, could not 
have been possibly manipulated and thus constitutes a piece of 
evidence too formidable to be shaken through a bald assertion 
alone, therefore we entertain no manner of doubt that the 
appellants are responsible for what befell upon the deceased and 
thus notwithstanding the enormity of their own conduct the 
appellants cannot be exonerated for their recourse to violence upon  
the deceased. Prosecution of offences, to the exclusion of all others, 
is a State prerogative and sentencing the offenders is a judicial 
province. Accused of most heinous or gruesome offence is entitled 
as of right, to a fair trial by a tribunal designated by law with a 
meaningful opportunity to vindicate and defend his position both 
before the prosecuting authority as well as the Court. Collective 
human wisdom, since times immemorial has not been able to 
evolve a better or more humane procedure to prosecute and 
convict offenders other than due process of law, with procedural 
safeguards under Constitutional guarantee of fair trial, to hand 
down sentences mandated thereunder on the preponderance of 
legal evidence, without compromising on the principle of inherent 
human dignity. Retributive torture, that too by mobs through 
street justice, would not only have most de-humanizing impact on 
our society but also triggers chaos and anarchy as is evident in the 
present case besides being violative of Constitutional mandate. 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
6
Vendetta cannot equate itself with justice. It is devoid of solemnity 
inherent in the process of law, leaving an offender as a victim, an 
object of sympathy at the end of the day, without judicial certainty 
about his guilt, therefore the appellants cannot be allowed to go 
scot free without a tag. However, convictions and sentences 
recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, in the 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
of 
the 
case, 
require 
a 
serious 
reconsideration. Peculiarity of the situation wherein the incident 
occurred, reasonably suggests that first part of the occurrence 
triggered 
the 
outrage, 
instantaneously 
swaying 
upon 
the 
appellants’ faculties, otherwise having no motive or axe to grind. It 
is this spontaneity whereunder the appellants resorted to violence 
seemingly without premeditation and choice weapons and thus 
consequences of their transgression, more aptly fall within the 
mischief of clause (c) of Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, 
a statutory substitute for erstwhile Section 304 of the Code ibid as 
held by this Court in the cases reported as Ali Muhammad versus 
Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274), Muhammad 
Mumtaz Khan versus The State (1999 SCMR 837), Azmat Ullah 
versus The State (2014 SCMR 1178), Zahid Rehman versus The 
State (PLD 2015 SC 77), Muhammad Asif versus Muhammad 
Akhtar and others  (2016 SCMR 2035) Abdul Nabi versus The 
State  (2017 SCMR 335) and Muhammad Qasim versus The 
State  (PLD 2018 SC 840). Consequently, appellants’ conviction 
under Section 302(b) of the Code ibid is converted into clause (c) 
thereof on both counts and they are sentenced to ten years R.I.; 
the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; remaining convictions 
and sentences consequent thereupon as well as direction for 
payment of compensation are set aside. The appeal stands 
disposed of in the above terms. 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 146-L of 2017 
 
 
 
This appeal is superfluous because the appellants in this 
case have already filed Criminal Appeal No. 145-L of 1017 before 
Criminal Appeals No. 145-L and 146-L of 2017 
7
this Court which is also fixed for hearing today. Dismissed 
accordingly. 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 145-L & 149-L of 
2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 145-L of 2017 
 
2. 
These miscellaneous applications are allowed in the terms 
prayed for therein.   
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 146-L of 2015 in 
Criminal Appeal No. 145-L of 2017 
 
 
As the main appeal has been dismissed by this Court, 
therefore, this miscellaneous application seeking interim relief has 
lost its relevance. Disposed of.  
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad/Video Link at Lahore 
18th September, 2019 
Approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/-