IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
JAIL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2019 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
11.03.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 
394/2018) 
 
Muhammad Ijaz 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syeda B.H. Shah, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
08.05.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Muhammad Ijaz was 
tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi pursuant to a 
case registered vide FIR No. 66 dated 19.04.2012 under Section 302 PPC at 
Police Station Chountra, Rawalpindi for committing murder of Mst. 
Naveeda Bibi, daughter of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its 
judgment dated 26.03.2018 convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) 
PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 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 months SI. Benefit of 
Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the petitioner. In 
appeal the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence 
recorded by the learned Trial Court.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
JAIL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2019 
-: 2 :-
“3. 
Precisely stated the case of prosecution, as unveiled by Ghulam 
Akbar (PW-14) is to the effect that on 19.04.2012 he along with his wife, 
namely, Ghulam Shafian went to fields in order to harvest wheat crops; 
that at about 12:00 noon his daughter, namely, Naveeda Bibi, who was 
married with accused Muhammad Ejaz about 14/15 years back and at 
present was residing with him due to the strained relation with her 
husband, after giving meals to them went back to the house; that at 
about 02:15 pm after harvesting wheat crops, the complainant, his wife, 
Muhammad Qurban and Abdul Latif along with their cattle reached in the 
street nearby his house; that he heard reports of fire shots from his 
house, upon which complainant along with persons mentioned above 
rushed towards his house and saw Muhammad Ejaz while decamping and 
brandishing his pistol therefrom; that Naveeda Bibi was found screaming 
in the room while smeared with blood and shortly thereafter died.” 
 
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 seventeen 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 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 it was an un-witnessed occurrence and the petitioner has 
been falsely involved in this case against the actual facts and 
circumstances. Contends that the whole case of the prosecution is based 
upon the statements of two witnesses, who furnished the evidence of waj 
takar and the same is partisan and it does not inspire confidence. 
Contends that the prosecution witnesses are at variance on salient 
features of the prosecution version, as such, the same cannot be made 
basis to sustain conviction of the petitioner. Contends that the motive in 
this case is shrouded in mystery and the report of the Forensic Science 
Laboratory with regard to weapon of offence is negative, which makes the 
prosecution case doubtful. Lastly 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.  
JAIL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2019 
-: 3 :-
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed 
this petition on the ground that the witnesses had no enmity with the 
petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case and the medical evidence is 
also in line with the ocular account, therefore, the petitioner does not 
deserve any leniency from this Court.  
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.  
 
 
A bare perusal of the record shows that the unfortunate 
incident, wherein the daughter of the complainant was done to death, 
took place on 19.04.2012 at 02:30 pm whereas the matter was reported to 
the Police on the same day at 06:05 pm. The distance between the place 
of occurrence and the Police Station was 18 kilometers. Thus, it can safely 
be said that FIR was lodged with promptitude. Ghulam Akbar, complainant 
(PW-14) and Abdul Latif (PW-15) had heard the gunshot and witnessed the 
petitioner fleeing away from the place of occurrence after commission of 
offence while he was having a pistol in his hands. Evidence of these 
witnesses is in the nature of waj takar, the probative strength of which 
rests in the doctrine of res gestae in view of Article 19 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984. The said doctrine of res gestae is based upon the 
assumption that statements of witnesses that constitute part of the res 
gestae are attributed a certain degree of reliability because they are 
contemporaneous making them admissible by virtue of their nature and 
strength of their connection with a particular event and their ability to 
explain it comprehensively. These prosecution witnesses were residents of 
the same locality, therefore, their presence 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 
JAIL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2019 
-: 4 :-
point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the circumstances 
surfaced in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that their 
statements are reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring. There is 
no denial to this fact that these PWs were related with the deceased but 
the law in this regard is well settled. A related witness cannot be termed 
as an interested witness under all circumstances. A related witness can 
also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the presence 
of the family members then they assume the position of natural witnesses. 
In case, their evidence is reliable, cogent and clear, the prosecution case 
cannot be doubted. However, a related witness would become an 
interested witness when his evidence is tainted with malice and it shows 
that he is desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting 
evidence but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show us 
anything in this regard. The Court is required that the evidence of an eye-
witness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized. 
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 
daughter. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The 
medical evidence available on the record further corroborates the 
prosecution case so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the 
injuries on the person of the deceased is concerned. During the course of 
proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there are material 
discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses 
but on our specific query she could not point out any major contradiction, 
which could shatter the case of the prosecution. Where discrepancies are 
of minor character and do not go to the root of the prosecution story and 
do not shake the salient features of the prosecution version, they need not 
be given much importance. As the report of the Punjab Forensic Science 
Laboratory is negative, therefore, the recovery of weapon of offence is 
inconsequential. So far as motive part of the prosecution story is 
concerned, the learned Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the motive by 
holding that is a vaguely formulated motive because no material evidence  
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 206 OF 2019 
-: 5 :-
could be placed on record to prove the motive. There is no denial to this 
fact that the petitioner remained absconder for a long period of more than 
five years, which is also a corroboratory piece of evidence against him. The 
learned courts below have already taken a lenient view while awarding the 
sentence of imprisonment for life to the petitioner, which in our view 
leaves no room 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.  
 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
8th of May, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram