IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
20.12.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore in Murder Reference No. 201/2013 and 
Criminal Appeal No. 789/2013) 
 
Abdul Wahid 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Qadri, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Irfan Zia, DPG  
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Nemo 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
06.06.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant Abdul Wahid was tried 
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore pursuant to a case 
registered vide FIR No. 78/2010 dated 14.03.2010 under Section 302 PPC at 
Police Station Muslim Town, District Lahore for committing murder of 
Muhammad Yousaf, son of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its 
judgment dated 04.06.2013 convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) 
PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation 
amounting to Rs.200,000/- to the legal heirs the deceased. In case of non-
payment of the compensation, the amount was ordered to be realized as 
arrears of land revenue. In case of non-payment or non-realization as 
aforesaid, the appellant was directed to further undergo six months SI. In 
appeal the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the 
appellant, altered the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The 
Criminal Appeal No. 446/2020 
-: 2 :-
amount of compensation and the sentence in default whereof was 
maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment reads 
as under:- 
“2. 
Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR (EX.PG) registered on the 
statement (Ex.PA) of Ghulam Mustafa, complainant (PW.1) is that he was 
resident of Mauza Khairpur Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib. Muhammad 
Yousaf son of complainant was driver of wagon No.1327/K plied on 
Peshawar Route No.131. On the night of occurrence i.e. 13.03.2010 the 
complainant came to Lahore to see his son and was going to Chung Multan 
Road Hanjarwal while riding on the wagon of his son. Usman grandson 
(pota) of complainant aged about 12 years was conductor of the wagon. 
Wahid (appellant) who was employee of Bigman Security Services (Pvt.) Ltd. 
boarded on the wagon as he oftenly used to travel in the wagon. Grandson 
of the complainant demanded fare from the appellant, whereupon a quarrel 
took place as he (appellant) refused to pay the same. When the wagon 
stopped in front of Postal Colony Wahdat Road at about 10.45 p.m. 
Muhammad Yousaf leaving the driving seat came behind and told the 
appellant not to quarrel with the child and pay the fare of Rs.10/-, upon 
which Wahid Shah (appellant) Security Guard flared up and fired with his 
pump action gun which landed on the chest of Muhammad Yousaf who 
became unconscious, smeared with blood. Wahid Shah (appellant) Security 
Guard decamped from the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Khalid 
Hussain and Muhammad Ashraf Qadri along with other passengers. 
Meanwhile 1122 vehicle arrived and took Muhammad Yousaf to Jinnah 
Hospital.” 
 
 
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 ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under 
Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant pleaded his innocence and refuted all the 
allegations leveled against him. However, he did not appear as his own 
witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. in disproof of the 
allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any evidence in his 
defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contends 
that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses, which have escaped the notice of the 
learned courts below. Contends that the medical evidence contradicts the 
ocular account. Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove 
Criminal Appeal No. 446/2020 
-: 3 :-
motive as alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. 
Contends that the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain 
conviction of the appellant are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, 
the impugned judgment may be set at naught. In the alternative, learned 
counsel contended that the occurrence took place at the spur of the 
moment, therefore, the conviction of the appellant may be converted into 
Section 302(c) PPC and his sentence may be reduced.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the 
complainant in person submitted that to sustain conviction of an accused, 
un-rebutted ocular evidence alone is sufficient. Contends that the ocular 
account is supported by the medical evidence, therefore, the appellant does 
not deserve any leniency by 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.  
7. 
 
The unfortunate incident took place on 13.03.2010 at 10:45 pm 
whereas the crime report was lodged after one hour and fifty five minutes. 
Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was firstly taken to hospital, which 
was situated at a distance of more than five kilometers from the place of 
occurrence where he succumbed to the injuries and the matter was reported 
from the hospital, it would be considered a promptly lodged FIR. Promptness 
of FIR prima facie shows truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excludes 
possibility of deliberation and consultation. There was hardly any time with 
the complainant or other witnesses to fabricate a false story. The appellant is 
a single accused. He used to travel in the wagon of deceased for going to his 
work place and back, therefore, he was known to Muhammad Usman (PW-
2), being conductor of the wagon and son of the deceased, as such, there is 
no chance of misidentification. The ocular account in this case has been 
furnished by Ghulam Mustafa, complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Usman 
(PW-2). Although Ghulam Mustafa, complainant (PW-1) was resident of 
Nankana sahib but he has reasonably explained his presence at the place of 
occurrence at the relevant time. He had come to meet his son on that day 
Criminal Appeal No. 446/2020 
-: 4 :-
and was going in his wagon. It is not strange for a father to visit his son nor 
can any restriction be imposed in this regard. Muhammad Usman (PW-2) was 
son of the deceased and was conductor of the said wagon, therefore, his 
presence was also not unnatural. These prosecution witnesses were 
subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing 
favourable to the appellant or adverse to the prosecution could be produced 
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 point inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according to the 
circumstances happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded 
that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, 
straightforward and confidence inspiring. They had no enmity or ill-will 
against the appellant to falsely involve him in the case. It is now well settled 
that if the presence of the related witnesses at the time of occurrence is 
natural and their evidence is straightforward and confidence inspiring then 
the same can be safely relied upon to sustain conviction of an accused. 
Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any reason as to why 
the complainant has falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let 
off the real culprit, who has murdered his real son. Substitution in such like 
cases is a rare phenomenon. He also could not point out any major 
contradiction or discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses, which could 
shatter the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The medical evidence 
available on the record corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, 
time, locale and impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased is 
concerned. Even otherwise, it is settled law that where ocular evidence is 
found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference 
over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction 
of an accused. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1996 
SCMR 908), Naeem Akhtar Vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396), Faisal Mehmood 
Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1025) and Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The State (2011 
SCMR 460). It is settled principle of law that the value and status of medical 
evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is 
Criminal Appeal No. 446/2020 
-: 5 :-
not sufficient to sustain conviction. So far as motive part of the prosecution 
story is concerned, the learned High Court has given a finding which 
ultimately does not imprint any impression regarding the final fate of 
adjudication of the instant lis. As the empty of cartridge and the weapon of 
offence i.e. 12 bore pump action gun were sent together to the Forensic 
Science Agency, therefore, the recovery is inconsequential. The appellant in 
his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. had taken a defence plea that the 
companion of the deceased snatched his gun and the same went off 
mistakenly. However, the learned High Court has rightly observed that the 
appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness in disproof of the 
allegations leveled against him in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor did he 
produce any evidence in his defence, therefore, rightly discarded the same. 
When the appellant took a specific plea and he was a best witness for the 
same then his non-appearance is to be taken as withholding of the best 
evidence. Even otherwise, a bare perusal of the record suggests that the 
learned Courts below while convicting the appellant did not solely rely on the 
statement of the appellant recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and the same 
was based on the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution in the 
shape of unimpeachable ocular account, which was supported by the medical 
evidence and other corroborative evidence to establish guilt of the appellant.  
8. 
 
In the alternative, learned counsel contended that the 
occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, without any premeditation 
on the part of the appellant, therefore, the said aspect may be considered as 
a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of the appellant. However, 
we are not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel because of 
the reason that being a security guard does not mean that the appellant is 
permitted to carry on official weapon given to him by the Security Agency. 
The Punjab Private Security Companies (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 
2002 and the Rules framed thereunder, specifically provide a scheme to 
regulate the private security companies and security guards. A bare perusal 
of Ordinance and the Rules framed thereunder would show that no guard 
shall be allowed to carry the weapon licensed in company’s name and same 
shall have to be handed over when he finishes his duty. It would be in fitness 
Criminal Appeal No. 446/2020 
-: 6 :-
of things to reproduce Section 8(11) of the Punjab Private Security 
Companies (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2003, which reads as under:- 
“A register shall be maintained at the place of duty indicating the handing 
over and taking over of the weapon when a new guard starts duty at the 
same place. This register shall be the property of the Security Company to 
be issued by the officer not less than the rank of Security Manager of the 
Company. The register shall be stamped and authenticated by the Company 
and the pages shall be numbered.”  
 
9. 
 
Had the appellant followed the law, he would not have carried 
gun with him and the unfortunate incident wherein one innocent young lad 
lost his life could have been avoided. The learned courts below have already 
taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life to 
the appellant, 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 appellant 
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.  
10. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in 
this appeal, which is dismissed. The above are the detailed reasons of our 
short order of even date.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
6th of June, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram