IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Jail Petition Nos.24, 69, 215, 486 of 2016 & 682 of 2017 
(Against judgment dated 10.12.2015 of the High Court of Sindh, 
Karachi passed in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal Nos.5,6 
& 36 of 2005 with Confirmation Case No.1 of 2005) 
 
 
Muhammad Siddique 
(J.P. No.24/2016) 
Ali Muhammad 
(J.P. No.69/2016) 
Syed Bilal Ali 
(J.P. No.215/2016) 
Fateh Muhammad 
(J.P. No.486/2016) 
Arshad Parvez & another 
(J.P. No.682/2017) 
 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
(in all cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, ASC 
 
(in J.P. No.215/2016) 
 
Dr. Raana Khan, ASC 
 
(in J.P. Nos.24,69,486/2016 & JP 
No.682/2017) 
  
  
For the State 
Mr. Hussain Bux Baloch,  
 
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh. 
  
 
 
Date of hearing: 
2.1.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
   Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Kamran-ud-Din 
(PW-3) was on way after dropping his sister at a school on 
24.5.2004; at about 7:30 a.m. he was whisked away, within the 
remit of Police Station Shah Faisal Colony Karachi, in a white car by 
six assailants; information was laid by Ashiq Hussain (PW-2) with 
Jail Petition Nos.24, 69, 215, 486 of 2016 & 682 of 2017 
2
abductee’s father Ikram-ud-Din (PW-1) who reported the incident to 
the police same day. An anonymous caller demanded Rs.2 millions 
as ransom for abductee’s release; after protracted negotiations, the 
amount was settled as Rs.500,000, finally paid on 16.6.2004 by 
Zain-ul-Abideen (PW-10) at the designated place; the abductee was 
released soon thereafter. As the investigation progressed, on a tip off, 
Jamil Akhtar, Inspector/SHO (PW-11), arrested Syed Abdul Kaleem, 
Fateh Muhammad and Arshad Parvez on 2.9.2004 followed by Syed 
Bilal Ali, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Hassan and Ali Ahmed 
on 3.9.2004. Pursuant to a disclosure, Muhammad Siddique, 
petitioner got recovered a part of ransom in the tune of Rs.100,000 
on 8.9.2004. Vehicle P-2, conveying the abductee into captivity, was 
also secured by the Investigating Officer. Muhammad Siddique, 
Arshad Parvez, Bilal Ali, Abdul Kaleem and Fateh Muhammad were 
rightly picked by the witnesses in the test identification parade held 
under magisterial supervision on 9.9.2004; Muhammad Hassan and 
Ali Ahmed were identified on 11.10.2004; it is in this backdrop that 
they were nominated as the six culprits who took away the abductee 
whereas Syed Abdul Kaleem was blamed to have provided premises 
to confine him. Upon indictment, the accused claimed trial, resulting 
into their conviction with penalty of death for each, accompanied by 
fine and forfeiture of properties. The High Court of Sindh vide 
judgment dated 10.12.2015 maintained the convictions, however, 
altered penalty of death into imprisonment for life, vires whereof are 
being impugned by Fateh Muhammad, Arshad Parvez, Syed Bilal Ali, 
Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Hassan and Ali Ahmed through 
captioned petitions; bound by a common thread, these are being 
decided through this single judgment. 
2.  
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in a unison with 
vehemence, contend that there was no occasion for the courts below 
to return and uphold a guilty verdict, in a case, according to them, 
inherently flawed inasmuch as initially four persons were alleged to 
have committed the crime whereas the number was graduated to 
seven during the trial; it is next argued that test identification 
parade, conducted in violation of judicial guidelines, without 
assigning specific roles, reliance thereon was beside the mark. 
Recoveries being fractional as well as inconsequential were liable to 
be excluded from consideration, concluded the learned counsel. The 
Jail Petition Nos.24, 69, 215, 486 of 2016 & 682 of 2017 
3
learned Law Officer, contrarily, defended the impugned judgment; he 
argued that prosecution produced the best evidence available under 
circumstances to successfully drive home the charge by excluding 
every hypothesis of innocence; he submits that the petitioners have 
already been dealt with leniently, therefore, scales being in balance, 
interference is not called for.  
3.   
Heard. Record perused. 
4.  
Prosecution case is primarily structured upon three 
statements furnished by Ikram-ud-Din (PW-1), Ashiq Hussain (PW-2) 
and Kamran-ud-Din (PW-3). PW-1 being complainant is not an eye 
witness of the occurrence; he was informed by Ashiq Hussain (PW-2)  
that his son was taken away by the assailants mentioned as four in 
number in the crime report; in the witness-box, however, he blamed 
six accused as  privies to the crime. Surprisingly despite the lengthy 
cross-examination, he is not confronted with his departure from the 
crime report; as he is not an eye witness, therefore, an apparent 
discrepancy does not adversely impact the prosecution, particularly 
in the face of defence’s failure to impeach the witness in terms of 
procedure contemplated under Article 140 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat 
Order, 1984 mandatorily requiring the attention of a witness to the 
impugned portion of his statement. On the contrary, while 
responding to a question, during cross-examination, the witness 
stated as under:- 
 
“PW Ashiq Hussain had informed me that he 
had seen that 6 culprits came there in a car, 
out of whom, 4 persons who were sitting in the 
car taken away my son and remaining two had 
taken away his motorcycle.” 
 
Even attention of Muhammad Nadeem ASI (PW-5), who recorded the 
complaint, was not solicited to explain the actual number of assailants, 
narrated by the complainant; Ashiq Hussain (PW-2) and the abductee 
(PW-3) are consistent on the number of assailants; nothing contrary is 
suggested to them in their statements, otherwise found by us as 
confidence inspiring; the argument cannot be viewed more than a far 
cry.  
5. 
 
Castigating severely the evidence of test identification 
parade, the learned counsel relied upon the guidelines laid down in the 
Jail Petition Nos.24, 69, 215, 486 of 2016 & 682 of 2017 
4
case of Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 488) to urge 
exclusion thereof. The supra case, indeed a fine piece of juridical 
literature, nonetheless, does not extend much help to the convicts; it 
mainly addressed laconic approach adopted by a Magistrate in holding 
the test identification parade in the said case while highlighting general 
principles of law on the subject.  
 
Test identification parade is a method of proof contemplated by 
Article 22 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, reproduced below for 
the convenience of reference:- 
“Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact 
in issue or relevant fact, or which support or 
rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue 
or relevant fact, or which establish the identity 
of anything or person whose identity is 
relevant, or fix the time or place at which any 
fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or 
which show the relation of parties by whom 
any such fact was transacted, are relevant in 
so far as they are necessary for that purpose.” 
 
The above framework provides enough space to admit evidence in 
prosecution of offenders previously unacquainted with the victims or 
the witnesses; appraisal of such evidence is subject to same principles 
as are universally applicable to any piece of evidence, under 
consideration in a criminal trial; there are no additional barricades as is 
evident from the plain reading of the Article ibid; without prejudice to 
the safeguards available to an accused at each stage of trial, essentially 
fair as guaranteed under the Constitution, nonetheless, it does not cast 
an artificially heavier onus on the prosecution to meet standards of 
proof beyond human capacity. Each criminal case is to be decided 
having regard to its own peculiar facts and circumstances. A test to be 
essentially applied in one case may absolutely be irrelevant in another, 
as the crimes are seldom committed in identical situations; there may 
be cases wherein prosecution must assign distinct roles played during 
the occurrence by the culprits for determination of their guilt as well as 
consequences thereof, however, there are cases in which totality of 
transaction may not warrant separability for such determination, like 
the one in hand. Cases involving abductions, dacoities and sudden 
assaults, more often than not, constitute episodes wherein different 
Jail Petition Nos.24, 69, 215, 486 of 2016 & 682 of 2017 
5
roles played by the culprits merge into integral totality of the crime, 
thus, it would be too harsh as well as unrealistic to demand exact 
reenactment of roles by the witnesses. Capacities even intellectually 
most sharp dwindle drastically in calamitous situations, therefore, the 
administration of criminal justice, in such peculiar situations, has to be 
dynamically balanced upon fair trial without prejudice to the accused 
as well as due weightage to the prosecution evidence without being 
swayed by illusory notions, subjectively structured upon hypothetical 
beliefs.   
6. 
 
Having found the witnesses, with no axe to grind, in a 
comfortable unison on all the salient features of the prosecution case as 
well as events collateral therewith, we do not feel persuaded by the 
arguments, couched on hyper technical premise. Petitions fail. 
Dismissed.   
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Karachi, the  
2nd January, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
Azmat/-