IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Jail Petition No.210 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 19.12.2017 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in Crl. Appeal 
No.67-A of 2014)  
 
 
 
Abdul Khaliq 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Qazi Adil Aziz, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
04.09.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Amraiz, 25, along with 
the witnesses was on way to attend a marriage ceremony on 13.3.2011 
at 1:00 p.m. when the petitioner accompanied by his brother Javed 
repeatedly shot him in the chest; he initially survived the assault and 
himself laid information with the police in the hospital, however, 
succumbed to the injuries shortly thereafter. No motive is cited in the 
crime report, however, subsequently disclosed as a previous brawl 
between deceased’s cousin and the assailants. The deceased was 
examined in injured condition at 2:15 p.m; the medical officer noted 
two 
entry 
wounds 
surrounded 
by 
blackened 
margins 
with 
corresponding exits on the chest, confirmed in the autopsy report as 
cause of death; the petitioner was arrested on the following day with a 
.30 caliber pistol (P-3), forensically found wedded with the casings, 
eight in number, secured from the spot. Both the accused were 
indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Haripur; the trial 
culminated into petitioner’s conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 
Jail Petition No.210 of 2018  
2
of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was sentenced to death vide 
judgment dated 14.06.2014, however, the co-accused was acquitted 
from the charge. The High Court upheld petitioner’s conviction albeit 
with alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life vide 
judgment dated 19.12.2017, vires whereof are being assailed through a 
jail petition, taken up by Qazi Adil Aziz, ASC. It is argued that evidence 
disbelieved qua the co-accused cannot be relied upon for petitioner’s 
conviction in the absence of independent corroboration, hopelessly 
lacking in view of exclusion of motive from consideration by the High 
Court; it is next argued that none was present at the scene and the 
petitioner was arrayed as an accused after deliberations and 
consultations on the basis of a misplaced and ill-conceived suspicion. 
The learned counsel has also assailed dying declaration, relied upon by 
the courts below, as according to him, the deceased in view of nature of 
his injuries was physically not in a position to make any statement. It 
is next argued that statement of Sher Afzal (DW-1) being truthful and 
confidence inspiring merited preference over the prosecution evidence, 
a unanimous error committed by the courts below. It would be unsafe 
to rely upon the solitary statement of an eye witness supported by an 
inherently flawed dying declaration, concluded the learned counsel. 
The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment. 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Shortly after the incident, the deceased was rushed to 
D.H.Q. Hospital Haripur; Dr. Dildar Khan (PW-3) attended him and 
according 
to 
his 
deposition, 
he 
endorsed/attested 
statement  
(Ex.PW-4/1), subsequently treated as dying declaration; subjected to 
extensive cross-examination at an 
inordinate length, he was 
unambiguously categorical about deceased’s capacity to communicate 
at the time when he examined him in injured condition; he further 
confirmed that the statement was recorded in his presence; he has 
vehemently denied connivance with the police; his evidence has been 
found by us straightforward and confidence inspiring throughout 
without any taint. Mere presence of relatives who brought the deceased 
in injured condition to the hospital would not by itself impair the 
evidentiary value of statement made by the declarant face to face with 
God. In his last agonizing moments, he confined his case to the 
petitioner instead of attributing second shot to the co-accused, a 
Jail Petition No.210 of 2018  
3
circumstance that by itself goes a long way to vindicate his position. 
Dying declaration is further corroborated by the weapon recovered 
from the accused at the time of his arrest, found wedded with the 
casings secured from the spot and consistent with the injuries that 
cost the deceased his life. Statement of Phul Nawaz (PW-7), a resident 
of the same locality, is in line with the details of events given in the 
dying declaration; mere relationship of a witness with the deceased 
does not undermine the value of his testimony, if otherwise found with 
a ring of truth. Prosecution’s failure on motive and acquittal of co-
accused, with the role vastly distinguishable, do not tremor its case 
vis-à-vis the petitioner, firmly structured on pieces of evidence more 
than one. Recovery of pistol (P-3) and forensic report (Ex.PW-8/1) 
provide ample independent corroboration to sustain charge against the 
petitioner. Even otherwise, given the inconsequential role to the  
co-accused, his acquittal, seemingly out of abundant caution, does not 
adversely impact prosecution case qua the petitioner. Evidence of Sher 
Afzal (DW-1) is entirely beside the mark; he has not uttered a single 
word regarding the occurrence or to contradict prosecution case 
against the petitioner and instead attempted to merely blur date of his 
arrest; his partisan alliance with the petitioner cannot override positive 
evidence, found by us sufficient to constitute “proof beyond doubt”. 
View taken by the High Court, being well within the remit of law, calls 
for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.   
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
4th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-