IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2020  
(Against the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by the Lahore High 
Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.613 of 2011 along with CSR No.16-T 
of 2011)  
 
 
Muhammad Farhan alias Irfan 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
  
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Ms. Aisha Tasnim, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.10.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
       Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Haji Muhammad Nadir, 
50/55, and his son Muhammad Mohsin, 24/25, were gunned down 
while resisting robbery at 4/5:00 p.m. on 29.12.2009 in their shop 
located within the precincts of Police Station City Jarranwala; 
Muhammad Babar (PW-13) and Muhammad Usman (given up) survived 
the assault. The appellant was one of the four assailants, nominated in 
the crime report; of them, Malik Irfan and Arshad alias Pehlwan were 
killed in a police encounter whereas Asif Manzoor is still away from law. 
The appellant alone contested indictment on multiple charges before the 
learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court-I, Faisalabad; vide judgment dated 
6.4.2011, he was convicted and sentenced as under:- 
i.  
U/s 302(b)/34 PPC for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Haji 
Muhammad Nadar (deceased) to suffer death 
penalty with payment of compensation to the tune of 
Rs.500,000/- or six months SI in the event of default 
ii.  
U/s 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for committing 
Qatl-i-Amd of Haji Muhammad Nadar (deceased) to 
suffer death penalty with payment of compensation 
to the tune of Rs.500,000/- or six months SI in the 
event of default 
Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2020 
 
2
iii.  
U/s 302(b)/34 PPC for committing Qatl-i-Amd of 
Muhammad Mohsin (deceased) to suffer death 
penalty with payment of compensation to the tune of 
Rs.500,000/- or six months SI in the event of default 
iv.  
U/s 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for committing 
Qatl-i-Amd of Haji Muhammad Nadar (deceased) to 
suffer death penalty with payment of compensation 
to the tune of Rs.500,000/- or six months SI in the 
event of default 
v.  
U/s 324/34 PPC to suffer 10-years RI with payment 
of fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/- or six months SI in 
the event of default 
vi.  
U/s 392 PPC to suffer 10-years RI with payment of 
fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/- or six months SI in 
the event of default 
vii.  
U/s 411 PPC to suffer 3-years RI with payment of 
fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/- or six months SI in 
the event of default.” 
  
The High Court upheld the convictions, however, altered penalty of 
death into imprisonment for life on each count, vide judgment dated 
24.02.2016, vires whereof, are being assailed through leave of the 
Court.  
2. 
 
The deceased privately dealt in prize bonds business; on 
the fateful day, four masked gunmen intruded into the shop and robbed 
prize bonds of various denominations, valuing rupees two million; PWs 
resisted them when they resorted to firing in consequence whereof two 
from amongst the witnesses were fatally shot while Muhammad Babar 
and Muhammad Usman received injuries; one of the assailants, 
namely, Irfan was also hit by an accidental shot; during the scuffle 
masks worn by the assailants fell from their faces; they were identified 
as Muhammad Farhan alias Irfan, Asif Manzoor, Malik Irfan  and 
Arshad alias Pehlwan. With their injured companion, the accused took 
to the heels. The appellant was in custody in Noshehro Feroz prison 
when on a tip off he was formally arrested in the present case on 
23.7.2010. As the investigation progressed, the appellant pursuant to 
disclosures led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol (P-6) and prize 
bonds valuing Rs.35,000/-. Prosecution produced as many as 19 
witnesses to drive home the charge; of them, ocular account has been 
Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2020 
 
3
furnished by Rana Dilawar Hussain (PW-12), Muhammad Babar  
(PW-13) and Muhammad Waleed (PW-14). The appellant confronted 
prosecution evidence with denial while blaming Malik Irfan and Arshad 
alias Pehlwan as the possible culprits already done away during a police 
encounter.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that question of 
identity of the assailants is looming large on the scene inasmuch as 
according to the complainant himself, the robbers had concealed their 
faces with masks and as they indiscriminately fired upon the deceased 
and the PWs, there was hardly an occasion that the masks would drop 
from their faces in the absence of only physical resistance by 
Muhammad Mohsin PW vis-à-vis Malik Irfan co-accused since 
eliminated by the police; that Muhammad Babr (PW-13) and 
Muhammad Usman (give up) though shown in the crime report to have 
survived the fire shots, nonetheless, were not medically examined and, 
thus, their presence at the crime scene is far from being plausible; that 
no casing was secured from the spot and, thus, recovery of pistol (P-6) 
without forensic comparison does not advance prosecution case. The 
learned counsel has referred to improvements made by the witnesses in 
their statements with regard to the locale of injuries to argue that 
departure of the witnesses from their initially stated positions seriously 
undermine their credibility. The bottom line is that the actual culprits 
were done away by the police in the traditional way and that the 
appellant had been framed as an additional scapegoat, being hounded 
by the witnesses to oblige the local police. The learned Law Officer has 
faithfully defended the impugned judgment; according to him, the 
appellant has already been dealt with a leniency that he did not deserve 
given the enormity of crime and colossal loss of lives of a father and his 
son in consequence thereof.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
The witnesses are closely related; the complainant lost his 
brother and a nephew related in no less degree with Muhammad Babar 
(PW-13) and Muhammad Waleed (PW-14) being father and brother, 
callously done to death in the midst of city during broad daylight, 
leaving no space to admit any hypothesis of substitution by the 
witnesses. Death of Malik Irfan and Arshad alias Pehlwan, nominated in 
the crime report alongside the appellant on the day one, while resisting 
a police encounter goes a long way to implicate the appellant as being a 
comrade in the crime. Prosecution’s failure to bring on record medico 
Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2020 
 
4
legal certificates of the injured though a deplorable inaptitude in 
prosecution of the case, nonetheless, does not adversely impact upon 
the totality of circumstances that clearly suggests examination of 
Muhammad Babar (PW-13) by the Investigating Officer while he was 
admitted in the Allied Hospital Faisalabad. Alleged improvements in the 
statements of witnesses, highlighted by the learned counsel to discredit 
their credibility, being inconsequential narrative variations, mostly 
explanatory in nature, without altering the integrity of prosecution’s 
case, merit condonation. Nomination of the accused in the crime report 
without any loss of time, soon after the incident, lends credence to the 
story of droppage of masks, a circumstance by itself to strengthen 
complainant’s truthfulness in faithfully relating events of the fateful 
day. View taken by the Courts below being well within the remit of law 
calls for no interference. However, appellant’s conviction under section 
7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, is not sustainable in view of the 
law declared by this Court in the case of Ghulam Hussain & others Vs. 
The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), therefore, his conviction to that extent is 
set aside. Remainder of the convictions and sentences consequent 
thereupon including amounts of compensation and fine are kept intact. 
Appeal partly allowed.   
 
 
 
      
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
27th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-