IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020  
(Against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Criminal Appeal No. 1584/2015 & Criminal 
Revision No. 907/2015) 
 
Sabtain Haider 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mrs. Bushra Qamar, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR  
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G. Punjab 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Rai Zamir ul Hassan, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
21.09.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was tried by the 
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin in a private 
complaint under Sections 302/34 PPC for committing murder of Altaf 
Saqib and Mst. Safeeran Bibi. The same was instituted being dissatisfied 
with the investigation conducted by the Police in case FIR No. 242 dated 
12.06.2010 registered under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Gojra, 
District Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 
dated 23.06.2015 convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC on 
two counts and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on each count. He 
was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.100,000/- to the 
legal heirs of the deceased or in default whereof to further suffer six 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 2 :-
months SI. In appeal the learned High Court set aside the conviction and 
sentence of the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC for the murder of 
Mst. Safeeran Bibi. However, his conviction and sentence under Section 
302(b) PPC for committing murder of Altaf Saqib was maintained. Benefit 
of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. Being aggrieved by the 
impugned judgment, the petitioner/convict has filed the instant jail 
petition.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“2. 
Succinctly stated the facts of the prosecution case as unveiled 
by complainant Naveed Iqbal (PW-1) in FIR (Exh.PA/2) are to the effect 
that he is resident of Mauza Khai and is running Iqra Model School as 
well as a grocery shop; that on the night falling in between 
11/12.06.2010 his younger brother Altaf Saqib and Abbas Ali son of 
Abdul Sattar went to Iqra Model School for playing badminton but did 
not return till late night; that at about 3.30 am (night) he along with 
Bashir Ahmad son of Muhammad Siddique reached the said school; 
that in the meantime Sabtain Haider (appellant) and Zulqarnain Haider 
(since PO), whose house was adjacent to the house of the complainant 
while armed with pistol .30 bore entered the school premises while 
scaling over the wall; that Sabtain Haider (appellant) asked to switch 
on the light, upon which Abbas Ali said as to what was the matter; that 
Zulqarnain (since PO) made a pistol shot which missed; that Altaf Saqib 
while getting up from the cot ran towards the outside and the second 
fire made by Sabtain Haider hit him at the right side of his back which 
went through and through, due to which he fell down in the haveli 
adjacent to the school and died at the spot; that thereafter the 
accused killed their own sister, namely, Safeera Bibi due to suspicion of 
illicit liaison with Altaf Saqib.”  
 
3. 
 
The conviction of the petitioner was recorded in a private 
complaint. The complainant produced cursory evidence whereafter the 
formal charge was framed against the petitioner on 26.03.2011 under 
Sections 302/34 PPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In 
order to prove its case the prosecution produced as many as thirteen 
witnesses and one CW. In his statement recorded under Section 342 
Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded that deceased Altaf Saqib had developed 
illicit relations with his sister Mst. Safeeran Bibi and when he saw them in 
a compromising position, he lost his control and on account of ghairat and 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 3 :-
sudden and grave provocation, he committed the murders. However, he 
did not make his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in 
disproof of allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any 
evidence in his defence. 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner/convict contended that 
there are glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses, which have escaped the notice of the 
learned courts below. Contends that the eye-witnesses failed to prove 
their presence at the spot especially in the mid of the night. Contends that 
the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account, benefit of which 
must go to the petitioner. Contends that the occurrence took place in dark 
hours of the night but no source of light was proved by the prosecution. In 
the alternative, learned counsel contended that the case in hand is indeed 
a case of grave and sudden provocation as the petitioner had seen the 
deceased in highly objectionable position, which attracts the provisions of 
Section 302(c) PPC. Contends that from the day one, it is the stance of the 
petitioner that he committed the murders under the impulses of ghairat 
and grave and sudden provocation but the learned High Court did not 
even consider it.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
learned counsel for the complainant have defended the impugned 
judgment. It has been contended that to sustain conviction of the 
petitioner, un-rebutted ocular evidence alone is sufficient. Contends that 
the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence, therefore, the 
petitioner does not deserve any leniency by this Court. It was lastly 
contended that in terms of the first proviso to section 302(c) PPC the case 
in hand does not attract the provisions of Section 302(c) PPC.  
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.  
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 4 :-
 
 
The instant case is a case of double murder committed under 
the impulses of ghairat and on grave and sudden provocation. The FIR in 
respect of the same had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein 
the petitioner was specifically nominated. Although, the learned Trial 
Court had convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC on two 
counts but the learned High Court has exonerated the petitioner for the 
charge of murder of his sister Mst. Safeeran Bibi, which finding has not 
been challenged before us. The ocular account in this case has been 
furnished by Naveed Iqbal (PW-1) and Bashir Ahmad (PW-2). These 
prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the 
defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner/convict or adverse to the 
prosecution could be brought on record. Both these PWs remained 
consistent on each and every material point and successfully advanced the 
prosecution case so far as it relates to the homicidal death of Altaf Saqib, 
deceased is concerned, the said eye-witnesses have given a reasonable 
explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant 
time and have made consistent statements before the trial court which 
statements have inspired confidence. 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/convict 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 unless previous enmity or ill will is 
established on the record to falsely implicate the accused in the case. The 
medical evidence available on the record corroborates the ocular account 
so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injury on the person of 
the deceased is concerned. The motive set up by the prosecution was 
based upon a suspicion of illicit relations between the two deceased, 
which has been admitted by the petitioner through his statement 
recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. So far as the recovery of weapon of 
offence is concerned, the same is inconsequential simply for the reason 
that neither the crime empty nor the weapon was sent to the Forensic 
Science Laboratory. So far as the argument that no source of light was 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 5 :-
proved by the prosecution is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly 
noted that point No. 8 in the scaled site plan stands for place of electric 
bulb which was on at the eventful time. In this view of the matter, it can 
safely be concluded that the prosecution has proved its case against the 
petitioner.  
7. 
 
The only point which requires intervention of this Court is 
the quantum of sentence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances 
surfaced during the course of arguments by both the learned counsel, 
there is no denial to this fact that the deceased Saqib Altaf was murdered 
when the petitioner had seen him with his sister in an objectionable 
position. The said question was also put to the eye-witnesses but they 
could not deny the same. This fact has also been mentioned in the crime 
report.  The stance of the petitioner has been supported by the statement 
of Dr. Hussana (PW-9), who conducted postmortem examination of the 
deceased Mst. Safeeran Bibi. The lady doctor candidly stated that “hymen 
is totally absent” and she was of the view that “zina may be committed 
but not discharged”. Admittedly, the place where the deceased Saqib was 
done to death was a school where no activity was going on when the 
occurrence took place. The wall of the school from the northern side was 
common wall between the school and the house of the petitioner and the 
stairs were situated adjacent to the above said wall. During cross-
examination, the Investigating Officer, who appeared as (PW-13) admitted 
that it was the first version of accused Sabtain that he took the life of the 
deceased under grave and sudden provocation as he had seen them in a 
compromising position. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence 
that the defence is not under obligation to prove its version and the 
burden on it is not as heavy as on the prosecution rather the defence is 
only to show the glimpse that its version is true. The record clearly reveals 
that there was no conventional enmity between the parties and the only 
reason as to why the petitioner could have committed the murders was 
nothing but his having seen the two deceased together in an amorous 
pursuit. In such like cases, the analogy can be drawn from the statutory 
law prevalent in United Kingdom called Homicide Act, 1957 wherein if a 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 6 :-
crime is committed due to mental or psychological compulsion, it 
squarely falls within the ambit of diminished liability. It is a legal 
doctrine that absolves an accused person of part of the liability for his 
criminal act if he suffers from such state of mind as to substantially impair 
his responsibility in committing or being a party to an alleged criminal act. 
In the present case as the murders were committed under the impulses of 
ghairat and grave and sudden provocation, the doctrine of diminished 
liability would be squarely attracted providing mitigation to the 
punishment awarded to the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are of 
the firm view that the case in hand is indeed a case of grave and sudden 
provocation which attracts the provisions of Section 302(c) PPC.  So far as 
the argument of learned Law Officer that in terms of the first proviso to 
Section 302(c) PPC, the provision of Section 302(c) PPC is not attracted is 
concerned, this aspect of the matter has been elaborately dealt with by 
this Court in the case reported as Muhammad Qasim Vs. The State (PLD 
2018 SC 840) wherein this court held as under:- 
“The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the 
State has, however, pointed out that in terms of the first proviso to 
section 302(c), P.P.C. the case in hand was a case of murders 
committed in the name or on the pretext of honour and, thus, it 
was to be treated as a case attracting the provisions of sections 
302(a) or 302(b), P.P.C. and not those of section 302(c), P.P.C. We 
have attended to this aspect of the matter with care and have 
found that the words "in the name or on the pretext of honour" 
used in the first proviso to section 302(c), P.P.C. are not without any 
significance or meaning. The said words indicate that a murder 
committed "in the name or on the pretext of honour" has to be a 
calculated 
murder 
committed 
with 
premeditation 
in 
the 
background of honour whereas the words used in the context of 
grave and sudden provocation in Exception 1 to the erstwhile 
Section 300, P.P.C. were "deprived of the power of self-control". 
Such words used in Exception I to the erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. 
catered for a situation which was not premeditated and had 
developed suddenly leading to grave provocation depriving a 
person of the power of self-control. Such different phraseology 
used by the legislature in these distinct provisions clearly indicates 
catering for different situations and, therefore, the words "in the 
name or on the pretext of honour" ought not to be mixed or 
confused with grave and sudden provocation leading to depriving of 
the Power of self-control. This distinction between honour and 
grave and sudden provocation was clearly recognized by this Court 
in the case of Muhammad Ameer v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 283) 
and the same is manifestly attracted to the facts of the present case 
JAIL PETITION NO. 34 OF 2020 
-: 7 :-
as well. It has already been found by us above that the case in hand 
was a case of grave and sudden provocation and honour only 
provided a backdrop to the same.” 
(Underlined to lay emphasis) 
8. 
 
Even otherwise, it is human psychology that if someone 
comes across the situation like it, as is disclosed in the present case, the 
situation would be dealt with by individual depending upon his 
temperament, caste, race, creed, tribe, social status and the area from 
where the individual hails. This aspect also imprints a lasting impact 
regarding the response keeping in view the previous antecedents not only 
of the individual but the family/tribe he belongs. In the instant case, all 
these factors must have contributed towards the act of the petitioner, 
hence, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the case of the petitioner 
squarely falls within the ambit of Section 302(c) PPC. As a consequence of 
the above discussion, we convict the petitioner under Section 302(c) PPC 
and sentence him to imprisonment for the period which he has already 
undergone. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal, partly 
allowed and the impugned judgment is modified as stated above. The 
petitioner shall be released from jail forthwith unless detained/required in 
any other case.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
21st of September, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram