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. 883 OF 2017 AND 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1793-L OF 2017  
(On appeal against the judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1273 & 
1125/2013, Criminal Revision No. 675/2013 and Murder Reference 
No. 209/2013) 
 
Aman Ullah  
 
 
 
 
 
(In JP 883/2017) 
Riaz Hussain   
 
 
 
 
 
(In Cr.P. 1793-L/2017) 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State etc  
 
 
 
 
 
(In both cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Rana Ghulam Sarwar, ASC 
(In JP 883/2017) 
 
Mr. Shahid Tabbassum, ASC 
(In Cr.P. 1793-L/2017. Through video link from Lahore) 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
07.02.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Aman Ullah along 
with co-accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar 
pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 658 dated 11.11.2010 under 
Sections 302/324/34 PPC at Police Station Saddar, Bhakkar for committing 
murder of Niaz Hussain and for causing injuries to Mst. Farzana Bibi, 
brother and sister-in-law of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide 
its judgment dated 03.07.2013 while acquitting the co-accused, convicted 
the petitioner 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 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 2 :-
months SI. He was also convicted under Section 324 PPC and was 
sentenced to ten years RI with a direction to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- or in 
default thereof to further undergo six months SI. He was further convicted 
under Section 337-D PPC and was sentenced to ten years RI and to pay 
Arsh equivalent to one third of Diyat according to value fixed for the year 
of occurrence i.e. 2010-2011. Till payment of the same, the petitioner was 
ordered to be kept in jail. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also 
extended in favour of the petitioner. 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. The other 
conviction and sentences were maintained. The amount 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. 
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unveiled by Riaz 
Hussain complainant (PW.3) in FIR (Exh.PB/1) is to the effect that on 
11.11.2010 at about 10:30 a.m. he along with his brother Niaz Hussain 
and his Bhabi Mst. Farzana Bibi was present in his house situated in Basti 
Lugran Wali; that Aman Ullah (petitioner) armed with pistol .30 bore 
along with an unknown person armed with rifle came there on 
motorcycle and parked the motorcycle outside his brother's house; that 
unknown accused kept standing as guard near motorcycle while Aman 
Ullah (petitioner) entered in the Haveli and raised lalkara for not sparing 
complainant's brother and fired successive shots from his pistol hitting at 
the chest and belly of Niaz Hussain; that when Mst. Farzana Bibi stepped 
forward to rescue Niaz Hussain, Aman Ullah (petitioner) made a fire shot 
from his pistol which landed on her abdomen; that on hearing their hue 
and cry as well as reports of firing, PW Kallu Khan (given up) and Ansar 
Abbas (PW.19) attracted to the scene and witnessed the occurrence. 
They tried to apprehend Aman Ullah etc, whereupon they aimed their 
weapons at them and warned not to come near and made good their 
escape from the spot. Niaz Hussain and Farzana Bibi, who were seriously 
injured, were taken to HQ Hospital, Bhakkar, where Niaz Hussain 
succumbed to the injuries. The motive behind the occurrence statedly 
was the love marriage of Niaz Hussain (deceased) and Mst. Farzana Bibi.” 
 
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 twenty witnesses. In his statement recorded 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 3 :-
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all 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 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 assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant 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, rather his sentence of imprisonment for life may 
be enhanced to death.  
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.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 4 :-
 
 
A bare perusal of the record shows that the unfortunate 
incident, wherein the brother of the complainant lost his life and his sister-
in-law sustained injuries, took place on 11.11.2010 at 10:30 am. The 
deceased and injured PW were firstly taken to DHQ Hospital Bhakkar 
where the matter was reported to the Police. The FIR was lodged on the 
same day at 1:45 am. The distance between the place of occurrence and 
the Police Station was 32 kilometers whereas as per the record the place 
of occurrence was one hour away from the DHQ Hospital. Thus, it can 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 Riaz Hussain, complainant (PW-
3), Mst. Farzana Bibi, injured (PW-4) and Ansar Abbas (PW-19). Mst. 
Farzana Bibi was inmate of the house where the occurrence took place 
whereas complainant Riaz Hussain was residing in the adjacent house. 
Similarly, Ansar Abbas (PW-19) was resident of the same locality. 
Therefore, the presence of these PWs at the place of occurrence was 
natural. 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. Farzana had sustained injuries during the 
occurrence, which have fully been supported by the medical evidence 
given by Dr. Saira Batool, who appeared as PW-7. The testimony of this 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 5 :-
injured PW as well as the stamp of injuries on her person clearly proves 
her presence at the place of occurrence. 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. Casual 
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 as witnesses are not supposed to give 
photo picture of ocular account. Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account 
with medical evidence being not material imprinting any dent in 
prosecution version would have no adverse affect on prosecution case. As 
far as the question that the prosecution witnesses are interested and 
related, therefore, their evidence has lost its sanctity is concerned, it is 
now settled 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 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 his 
real brother. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. During 
the course of proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there are 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 6 :-
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. The 
weapon of offence i.e. pistol .30 bore, recovered at the instance of the 
petitioner and the crime empties collected from the place of occurrence 
were separately sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report is 
positive. The motive behind the occurrence was statedly the love marriage 
of Niaz Hussain, deceased, with Mst. Farzana Bibi. However, the learned 
High Court has rightly discarded the same by holding that the love 
marriage had taken place about two years back and the grievance of the 
family of Mst. Farzana Bibi had been redressed as pursuant to a 
compromise the daughter of the deceased Mst. Zarqa was given in the 
nikah of one Abdul Rehman, son of co-accused Ghulam Sarwar. Hence, the 
motive part of the prosecution case does not inspire confidence so as to 
term it is as a cause of the murder.  Keeping in view the fact that motive 
was disbelieved, the learned High Court has rightly 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 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. Before parting with the judgment, we 
may observe that the petitioner was convicted under three provisions of 
law i.e. Sections 302(b), 324 and 337-D PPC. The impugned judgment is 
silent as to whether these sentences are to run concurrently or 
consecutively. Probably, the learned High Court inadvertently omitted to 
order running of the sentences of imprisonment concurrently. There is no 
denial to this fact that all the offences for which the petitioner was 
convicted had been committed in one and the same transaction, 
therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct that all the sentences of 
imprisonment shall run concurrently.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1397-L OF 2017 AND 
JAIL PETITION NO. 743 OF 2018 
-: 7 :-
 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in these petitions, which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
7th of February, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram