IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.158-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 09.04.2015 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Criminal Appeal No.81-J of 2013 and C.S.R. 
No.5-T of 2013). 
 
 
Muhammad Azad alias Javaid alias Jodi 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc.  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
 
: 
 
Ms. Nighat Saeed Mughal, ASC 
 
 
 
Complainant(s) 
: In person (Hidayat Ali) 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Ch. Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor 
General, Punjab  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 22.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Azad 
alias Javaid alias Jodi s/o Niamat Ali was tried by an Anti Terrorism 
Court for committing qatal-e-Amd of Ali Sher, 7/8; the child was 
kidnapped for ransom; upon conclusion of trial, he was convicted on 
four counts and sentenced to death on each vide judgment dated 
6.3.2013; his appeal failed in the High Court with Capital Sentence 
Reference, returned in the affirmative vide judgment dated 9.4.2015 
vires whereof are being impugned through leave of the Court.  
2. 
 
On the fateful day, the child left home with his sister 
Nabeela to fetch eateries; the girl returned, however he vanished and 
could not be located despite research; at 6:15 p.m. same day, his 
father, Hadayat Ali, PW received a call on his cell phone bearing 
No.0341-4975035, it originated from 0347-4106895; the caller 
Criminal Appeal No.158-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
demanded ransom of Rs.200,000/- by 9/10 a.m. following day at a 
designated place; the complainant along with other PWs arranged the 
amount and thumb marked some of the bills;   they came across the 
appellant wearing helmet on a motorbike, identified by the witnesses 
as the appellant, one of the relatives; as per his command, they 
dropped the amount in a nearby cane field; the witnesses promptly 
obliged, however, the child did not return. It is in this backdrop that 
the incident was reported on 29.9.2012 at 12.20 p.m. Muhammad 
Aslam, Inspector, PW-15 arrested the appellant alongside two cell 
phone handsets; pursuant to disclosure, the appellant led the 
investigating officer to the child, lying dead inside sugarcane crop; 
asphyxia was cited as cause of death. During custody, the appellant 
led to the recovery of last worn items as well as a sum of 
Rs.100,000/- including bills with thumb impressions.  
3. 
 
Statements of Hadayat Ali and his brother Walayat Ali 
constitute prosecution’s mainstay. In a rural neighborhood, they are 
distantly related with the appellant and despite an apparent 
camouflage they were able to identify him beyond doubt, when he 
came across them in the wake of child’s disappearance and it was 
soon thereafter that they informed the police as the child did not 
return as promised by the appellant; events, though few, however 
taking place in quick succession, inexorably, revolve around the 
appellant’s culpability; most important being disclosure within the 
contemplation of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 
pursuant whereto he led to the discovery the corpse on the basis of 
his exclusive knowledge; given the briefest timeframe, to the exclusion 
of any other hypothesis, it can be safely inferred, without being 
conjectural, that he alone knew what befell upon the child and where 
he was dumped. Cell phone data, generated through automated 
system, operating beyond human interference confirmed conversation 
between the appellant and the complainant. There was hardly any 
time or occasion for the family to concoct or cook up a story on 
suspicions or consultations. Investigative conclusions point towards 
the appellant as well. Complainant and his brother, with no axe to 
grind, cross  examined at length, left the witness box unscathed; 
recoveries have been proved by the witnesses, equally steadfast. There 
is no earthly reason to suspect appellant’s identity or entertain theory 
Criminal Appeal No.158-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
of substitution. Appellant’s guilt is proved to the hilt on the basis of 
chain of circumstances though few in number, nonetheless, well 
synchronized with one another, intrinsically confidence inspiring; he 
has rightly been convicted; given the brutality, inflicted upon the 
hapless child, last agnate of the family before his death, wage settled 
by the learned trial Court and upheld by the High Court has not been 
found by us as unconscionable. Criminal Appeal 158-L/2017 fails. 
Appeal dismissed.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
22nd of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE