IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL Al-ISAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE SAVED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAUVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 963-L OF 2016
(On appeal against the judgment dated 17.052016
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal
Appeal No, 156/2012 & Murder Reference No.
97/2012)
Ijaz Ahmed 
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State etc
Respondents
For the Petitioner: 
Mr, Muhammad Tahir Alam Qureshi, ASC
For the State: Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG
Date of Nearing: 
19.04.2022
JUDGMENT
SAYVED MAZAHAR ALt AKBAR NAQV1,k- Petitioner along with co-accused
was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge d Ferozwala pursuant to
a case registered vide FIR No. 284 dated 30.05.2009 under Sections
302/392/412 PPC at Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura
for committing robbery and murder of Touqir Ahmad, brother of the
complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.01.2012
while convicting both the accused under Section 392 PPC, sentenced them
to imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default
of payment of fine, both the accused were to undergo two months SI. The
learned Trial Court while acquitting the co-accused for the charge of
murder, convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced
him to death. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation
amounting to Rs100,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default
 whereof to further undergo SI for four months. In appeal, the learned High
CRIMINAL PETITION NO- 963-L OF 2016
Court while maintaining the conviction and sentences recorded against the
petitioner, altered the sentence of death into imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment
reads as under:-
"2. Shabbir Ahmacl complainant (PW.7) through written
application Ex.P.A got registered FIR alleging that he is resident of
Purani Bheni. On 30.05.2009 at about 07:00 PM Hafiz Arshad and
Jahangir Abbas were coming from Mohanwal Band towards their
village Purani Bheni while riding on motorcycle CD-70, when they
reached at Band, two armed persons were standing there, who
stopped Hafiz Arshad Ali and Jahangir Abbas on gun point, snatched
mobile phone and Rs.6000/-, made them to sit in the jungle and
went towards Purani Bheni while riding on the motorcycle of Hafiz
Arshad. Hafiz Arshad was having another mobile phone in his pocket
by which he informed his brother Akhtar All about the occurrence
and told him that he accused persons are coming towards village
while riding on a motorcycle which was snatched by them from him.
On this information Touqir Ahmad Pannun brother of complainant,
Amanat Ali son of Sher Muhammad, and Akhtar son of Akbar Ali,
complainant alongwith many people of the village came out, on
seeing them accused persons started running away while leaving
behind motorcycle. The complainant and the people of the locality
chased them. Both the accused started firing with their respective
weapons. They alongwith other people of locality encircled the
accused persons in Falsa garden of Abdul Wahid, and asked them to
surrender but both the accused made straight firing on Touqir
Abmad, brother of the complainant, the fire made by accused ljaz
Ahmad with his gun 12 bore double barrel hit Touqir Ahmad, brother
of the complainant to his abdomen, who succumbed to the injury at
the spot. They overpowered both the accused who also sustained
injuries during resistance. They snatched gun 12 bore double barrel
from accused ljaz Ahmad, while other accused, whose name
afterward was disclosed as Munawar son of Shah Muhammad, caste
Khokhar, resident of Faridwal, hide his gun 12 bore and snatched
amount in the garden. Accused ljaz Ahmad and Munawar, alongwith
gun 12 bore owned by accused ljaz Ahmad and snatched motorcycle
were handed over to police."
3. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. In order to prove its case the
prosecution produced as many as 14 witnesses. In his statement recorded
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted
all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not make his
 statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 in disproof of allegations
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 963-L OF 2016 
3
leveled against him. He firstly opted to produce defence evidence but
afterwards recorded a statement that he is not willing to produce any
evidence in defence.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are
glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses of the ocular account, which have escaped
notice of the courts below. Contends that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt,
therefore, there was no justification to convict the petitioner. Contends
that not even a single crime empty was recovered from the crime scene
and as such the recovery of weapon of offence is inconsequential.
Contends that the prosecution story with regard to the recovery of the
allegedly snatched amount from a 'Bagh' and the mobile is unbelievable
and as such no case falling within the ambit of 'robbery' has been made
out. Lastly contends that the impugned judgment is the result of
misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on the record and
the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5.
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has supported the
impugned judgment. He contended that the evidence led by the
prosecution in the shape of ocular version duly supported by medical
evidence and recovery of 12 bore gun along with snatched articles is
sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioner, therefore, he does
not deserve any leniency by this Court.
6.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and have perused the evidence available on record.
As per the prosecution story, the occurrence happened in
two episodes. In the first episode, the petitioner along with his co-accused
allegedly snatched motorcycle, cash and mobile phone from Arshad Au
(PW-8) and Jahangir Abbas (PW-9) and fled away. As Arshad Ali was having
another phone in his pocket) he informed his brother about the incident
nd thereafter in the second episode Akhtar All, brother of Arshad Ali,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO, 963-L OF 2016 
4
Shabbir Ahmad, complainant (PW-7), Touqir Ahmad and Amanat Ali along
with other villagers intercepted the petitioner while he was proceeding
from Mohanwal Band to village Purani Bheni. When the petitioner saw the
people, he left the motorcycle and tried to escape. When the petitioner
was chased by the complainant and other people and was ultimately
encircled by them, he fired from 12 bore gun, which hit Tauqir Ahmad at
his abdomen, who succumbed to the injury at the spot, With regard to
evidence relating to robbery, we have found that the complainant in his
cross-examination candidly stated that he has not seen the petitioner
snatching motorcycle and other articles from Hafiz Arshad and Jahangir. It
is the prosecution case that during chase, the petitioner concealed the
cash under certain trees of Falsa Garden, which was subsequently
recovered at his instance. However, this seems to be impassible because
when the people were chasing him, it was not possible for the petitioner
to dig a hole and conceal the amount therein. There is nothing in evidence
as to whether the mobile phone, allegedly snatched by the petitioner, was
recovered from him. No identification of said looted articles is established
from the record to meet the legal requirements, hence, it cannot be
considered sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the
crime to the extent of robbery. It is also on record that when the
petitioner was apprehended, he was not on or with motorcycle, therefore,
it can safely be said that recovery of motorcycle cannot be used against
him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution could not
produce reliable evidence to sustain conviction of the appellant under
Section 392 PPC.
7. Now coming to the second episode of the prosecution story,
Shabbir Ahmad, complainant (PW-7) got recorded his statement with
respect to the subsequent event, which led to murder of Tauqir at the
hands of the petitioner. This prosecution witness was subjected to lengthy
cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner
or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record. He remained
consistent on each and every material point, therefore, it can safely be
concluded that his evidence is reliable, straightforward and confidence
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 963-1.0; 2016 
5
inspiring, It is a settled principle of law that it is the quality of evidence
which is to be considered and not the quantity of evidence. The evidence
of one person, if found confidence inspiring, is sufficient to sustain
conviction. This Court in Niaz ud Din Vs. State (2011 SCMR 725) has
specifically held that "conviction even in a murder case can be based on
the testimony of a single witness, if court is satisfied that he is reliable; it is
the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters." So far as the
medical evidence is concerned, the same is in line with the prosecution
story. As far as the question that the complainant was brother of the
deceased, therefore, his testimony cannot be believed to sustain
conviction of the petitioner is concerned, it is by now a well established
principle of law that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with
the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such
witnesses unless previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to
falsely implicate the accused in the case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner could not point out any 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 especially when he
was apprehended at the spot after a chase of co-villagers. Substitution in
such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The complainant would not prefer
to spare the real culprit who murdered his brother and falsely involve the
petitioner without any rhyme and reason. As we have held the
commission of robbery doubtful due to lack of sufficient evidence,
therefore, we are constrained to hold that the motive part of the
prosecution is not proved. The recovery is also held to be inconsequential
as no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. So far as the
quantum of punishment is concerned, the learned High Court while taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioner only fired single shot
coupled with the fact that motive has not been proved and the recovery is
inconsequential has rightly taken a lenient view and converted the
sentence of death awarded to the petitioner into imprisonment for life. No
further leniency can be shown to the petitioner.
r W
CRIMINAL PE7TICN NO. 963-i OF 2016 
5
8. For what has been discussed above, while maintaining the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC along
with compensation amounting to Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the
deceased or in default whereof to further undergo SI for four months, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392 PPC is set
aside. This petition is converted into an appeal, partly allowed and the
impugned judgment is modified accordingly
reasons of our short order of even date.
Islamabad, the
19th of April, 2022
Approved For Reporting
I:liiu Idt.11 II
;ovethe detailed