IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa  
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.310/2006 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2.6.2004 passed  
by 
Peshawar 
High 
Court 
Bench 
Abbottabad in Cr.A.58/2002). 
 
 
 
Haider Zaman  
 
 
 
 
    …Appellant  
 
VERSUS 
 
The State  
Sadiq Shah 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondents  
 
 
For the appellant: 
 
Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, ASC  
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For private respondents: 
Mr. M. Manzoor Ahmed, ASC  
 
 
For State:  
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Siddique Baloch, ASC 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
12.3.2014 
 
 
 
 
 
  
JUDGMENT  
 
 
Dost Muhammad Khan, Judge,.-      This appeal with 
the leave of the Court dated 10.05.2006, has been filed against the 
order of acquittal dated 2.06.2004 of respondent No.2 namely 
Sadiq Shah, charged for a crime under section 302/324/34 PPC, 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench.  
2. 
  
Briefly stated, Haider Zaman, while reporting the crime 
at 12:50 hrs. on 23.01.1997 alleged as follows:- 
“That on fateful day at about 10:00 hrs while present 
in his house, he was informed that firing was going on 
Crl.Appeal No.310/06 
2
in the ‘Bazar’, hence he left for the crime spot where 
he saw (i) Shafique (ii) Azhar and  (iii) Sher 
Muhammad lying dead, while (i) Waheed (ii) Waseem 
and (iii) Zareen were bound in injured condition. He 
has further alleged that on inquiries made, he was told 
that (i) Nazir Shah (ii) Sadiq Shah and (iii) Akram 
Shah had killed the deceased while injured the three 
victims. Motive for the crime shown was that a day 
prior to the fateful day, Akram Shah and Azhar 
quarreled with each other. And that, the parties were 
not on a good terms. He added that the crime was 
witnessed by (i) Saleem (ii) Muhammad Sadiq and (iii) 
Khurshid Anwar. While adding to the charge he also 
implicated the Khan family of “Beer” for giving hidden 
support to the accused.”  
 
3. 
  
This report was taken close to the crime sport. The 
Investigating Officer inspected the spot and secured blood from 
crime spot of all the victims and the deceased besides 3 empties of 
7.62 bore and a cartridge of 30 bore from the place where presence 
of Akram Shah was shown, 4 empties of 7.62 bore and one de-
shaped spent bullets from the place of Sadiq Shah, 4 crime empties 
of 7.62 bore and one de-shaped bullet from the place of Nazir Shah. 
He also recovered a magazine of Kalashnikov loaded with 12 bullets 
from the rooftop of the top floor of the house of the accused along 
with 7 empties of 7.62 bore and one crime empty of 12 bore from 
the second place of the rooftop.  
4. 
  
Present respondent namely Sadiq Shah surrendered 
before the local police while rest of the nominated accused are still 
absconding as was stated at the bar. On completion of the 
investigation charge-sheet was filed in the trial Court, in which one 
Jehangir and Ishtiaq were also implicated for abetment, who too 
faced the trial along with the respondent before the learned 
Crl.Appeal No.310/06 
3
Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court at Haripur. The prosecution 
produced 23 witnesses. After completion of the trial, Jehangir and 
Ishtiaq were acquitted of the charge, however, respondent Sadiq 
Shah was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on four 
counts and to pay Rs.100000/- to the legal heirs of each of the 
deceased. He was further sentenced u/s 337-B PPC for 7 years R.I. 
on two counts and to pay Rs.30000/- as Daman to victim Waseem 
PW.    
5. 
  
On appeal filed by respondent No.2, the learned 
Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench set 
aside his conviction and sentence and acquitted him of all the 
charges.  
6. 
  
We have heard the learned ASCs appearing for the 
parties as well as the learned counsel for the State.  
7. 
  
Undeniably the appellant Haider Zaman was not an eye-
witness because he reached the spot when the transaction was 
over. It is intriguing to note that besides having all facilities of 
transportation and help of friends and relatives residing close to the 
spot, he did not accompany the injured to the hospital, although 
Waheed was his real nephew, but he chose to become the maker of 
FIR and on the other hand eye-witnesses, who claimed to have 
witnessed the crime being available on the spot did not report to 
the police besides the three injured.  
8. 
  
The testimony of the two witnesses namely PW 
Muhammad Sadiq being the uncle of one of the deceased and PW 
Waheed would show that they were not present on the crime spot 
but the former was inside his shop, 150 yards away from the crime 
Crl.Appeal No.310/06 
4
spot. It is true that the presence of injured PWs on the spot is 
established having been injured in the transaction, however, a 
careful study and appraisal of their testimony would show that they 
are not on one and the same page with Haider Zaman complainant. 
Muhammad Sadiq was examined by the police too late under 
section 161 Cr.PC. although he was available to the police. The 
question arises as to whether the injured PWs have deposed the 
true facts or have exaggerated the account and have given twist to 
the story by toeing their version to that of Haider Zaman 
complainant.  
9. 
  
In each hospital, through a notification of the Provincial 
Government, Crime Reporting Centre headed by an ASI has been 
established since long but none from the injured reported the 
matter to the Center when they reached at the hospital. To cover 
this vacuum and omission, they stated that on reaching the hospital 
they became unconscious but they were contradicted by the Medical 
Officer, Dr. Muhammad Irshad, who examined them. The Medical 
Officer has stated that both the injured were fully conscious and 
they themselves provided their respective names, parentages and 
addresses to him.  
10. 
  
The way and the manner, the injured PWs narrated the 
story step by step, attributing individual role to each one of the 
accused and modulated step by step the occurring of the tragedy, 
appear a tutored one.  
11. 
  
Besides, PW Abdul Malik, SHO, who recorded Murasila 
report Ex.P/A stated that when he reached the spot, both the 
deceased and the injured victims were lying on the spot but in the 
Crl.Appeal No.310/06 
5
FIR he has clearly stated that he informed the police station to 
depute a police officer to prepare the injury sheets and inquest 
reports of the injured and the deceased.  
12. 
  
We do not deem it appropriate to discuss the merits of 
the case so minutely lest it prejudice the case of the Prosecution as 
a whole because the three co-accused are still absconding. 
However, suffice it to say that the transaction appears to be a 
sudden fight and the role of the respondent in the transaction is of 
causing injury to one of the injured. He was arrested on 19.02.1997 
and after his conviction by the Trial Court on 04.04.2002 till the 
date when he was acquitted by the High Court through the 
impugned judgment dated 02.06.2004 he had undergone more 
than 07 years imprisonment, both as under-trial prisoner and as a 
convict. And if remissions granted from time to time by the 
Superintendent Jail, I.G Prisons, Provincial Government and the 
Federal Government are added, it would be more than 10 years.  
More so, the immediate cause for the incident has been shrouded in 
mystery or at least has been suppressed by the Prosecution, 
rendering blood of the accused to reach at a boiling point by acting 
in a ruthless manner as reflected from the facts of the case, 
however, that very cause which in all probabilities might be serious 
enough has been muffled by the Prosecution.   
13. 
  
It is bedrock principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a 
case of this nature being the result of sudden flare up, the principle 
of vicarious liability is not attracted so strictly like in the cases 
where crime is committed in a pre-planned and well calculated 
manner.  
Crl.Appeal No.310/06 
6
14. 
  
This being the case, in our view, respondent No.2 has 
suffered a reasonable sentence for his individual and independent 
act, he has committed, thus at this stage re-sentencing him after 
he had earned acquittal from the High Court would not be in 
consonance with the well settled principle of justice and that too 
when this Court has always exercised restraints not to interfere in 
the judgment of the High Court unless it is shown to be perverse, 
fanciful and is structured as a result of gross misreading and non 
reading of material evidence causing miscarriage of justice. Thus, 
we do not find merits in this appeal, accordingly, the same is 
dismissed.  
15. 
  
  Needless to observe that some remarks made above 
with regard to the merits of the case shall in no manner prejudice 
the prosecution case qua the absconding accused and their 
cases/case when they surrender and are tried, shall be dealt with 
strictly on merits and on the strength of evidence to be recorded 
during their trial.  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Islamabad, the   
12th March, 2014 
‘Nisar’ 
‘Not approved for reporting’