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 Petition Nos.1292-L and 1196-L of 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 08.10.2015 passed by 
the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal 
Nos.2-J-ATA/2013, 
2127/2010 
with 
C.S.R.  
No.51-T/2010 ) 
 
 
Muhammad Yasin 
(in Cr.P.1292-L/2015) 
Muhammad Jameel 
(in  Cr. P. 1196-L/2015) 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State through P.G. Punjab 
(in Cr. P. 1292-L/2015) 
Muhammad Yasin & another  
(in Cr. P. 1196-L/2015) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Naveed Ahmed Kh, ASC 
 
(in Cr. P.1292-L/2015) 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Kurram Khan, 
 
Additional Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
For the Complainant: 
Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P. 1196-L/2015) 
 
Date of hearing: 
14.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
      Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Ashraf son of 
Nazeer Ahmed, 50, was shot dead at 9:30 p.m. on 4.6.2008 within the 
remit of Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad; incident 
was reported by his nephew Muhammad Jameel (PW-10), 10:20 p.m. at 
the spot; prime target of the assault Rashid struggled with multiple  
injuries, breathed his last on 14.6.2008; from amongst the witnesses 
Muhammad Zaman and Qaisar survived the assault; they were medically 
noted with firearm injuries, however, opted to stay away from the witness-
box. 
Criminal Petition Nos.1292-L and 1196-L of 2015 
  
 
2
 
According to the complainant, on the fateful night, he was at his 
grocery store along with Muhammad Ashraf son of Nazeer Ahmed, 
Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Ashraf son 
of Muhammad Rafique when Muhammad Yasin, Younas alias Kala, 
Shahid alias Mithu, Muhammad Azam, Imtiaz Butt and Ilyas accompanied 
by an unknown companion confronted Rashid deceased who alongside 
Zulfiqar Ali, on a motorbike had just arrived at the scene. Muhammad 
Yasin along with the co-accused subdued Rashid deceased and after 
hitting him with an iron rod forced him to board on a rickshaw; 
Muhammad Ashraf deceased, Qaisar Manzoor and Muhammad Zaman 
attempted to intervene when all the accused with their pistols resorted to 
firing; a fire shot by Muhammad Yasin, petitioner, trapped Muhammad 
Ashraf deceased on his left chest, a fire shot by Azam (P.O.) hit Rashid on 
his face followed by a fire shot by Ilyas landing on the backside of his 
shoulder. Unknown assailant targeted Muhammad Zaman on his left 
deltoid while Shahid alias Mithu fired on the left flank of Qaisar Manzoor 
whereafter all the accused resorted to indiscriminate firing and took to the 
heels within the view of terror stricken neighbourhood. It is alleged that 
the assailants dealt in narcotics and they suspected Rashid deceased to 
have intermediated information to the police.   
 
Spot inspection includes seizure of blood as well as 22 casings; 
Muhammad Zaman and Qaisar Manzoor PWs were medically examined 
under a police docket at 10:20 p.m. followed by Rashid deceased at 10:40 
p.m. however, autopsy on Ashraf deceased was conducted following day at 
9:30 a.m. The accused, barring Azam and Shafqat, P.Os, unanimously 
claimed trial on 04.01.2010 that culminated into their acquittal except the 
petitioner vide judgment dated 21.07.2010; convicted on two counts of 
homicide as well as terrorism, he was sentenced to death on each, altered 
in appeal into imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 
8.10.2015. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no 
occasion for the learned trial Court to return a guilty verdict qua the 
petitioner after it had disbelieved entire bulk of prosecution evidence qua 
majority of the accused that included Ilyas co-accused as well who was 
assigned a direct fire shot to Rashid deceased; an error repeated by the 
High Court in appeal; that prosecution’s failure to bring forth Muhammad 
Zaman and Qaisar Manzoor, the injured witnesses of the episode, tremors 
the very foundation of the case; seizure of 22 casings notwithstanding, 
Criminal Petition Nos.1292-L and 1196-L of 2015 
  
 
3
nonetheless, in the absence of recovery of weapons except for an iron rod, 
has been cited to argue that occurrence did not take place in the manner 
as alleged in the crime report. Learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment; the latter while referring to the magnitude of violence inflicted 
upon the deceased, including Rashid who laid his life for siding with the 
law, prayed for reversal of the alteration of sentence, contending death 
being a conscionable wage in circumstances.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Medical examination of Rashid deceased as well as given up 
witnesses unambiguously suggest that occurrence took place on or around 
the time mentioned in the crime report; venue being at a distance of  
1 ½ k.m. from the police station, arrival of the police and conclusion of 
complaint at 10:20 p.m. apparently reflect a remarkable promptitude, 
however, autopsy of Muhammad Ashraf deceased, held as late as at 9:30 
a.m. following day, despite arrival of the injured and the dead body during 
the preceding night at 10:20 p.m. is quite intriguing. It is further mind 
boggling that examination of the injured in the hospital and recording of 
complaint at the spot are steps taking place at the same time i.e. 10:20 
p.m. Coincidence even though without obliquity, nonetheless, when taken 
in the totality of circumstances admits a possibility that crime report was 
not recorded at a point of time purported therein. Delayed autopsy in a 
tertiary hospital i.e. Allied Hospital Faisalabad reinforces the above 
hypothesis that in retrospect cast its shadow on the ostensible 
promptitude behind the crime report and, thus, the argument that the 
foundation of the case was laid after deliberations and consultations 
cannot be dismissed out of hand.  
 
Desertion of Muhammad Zaman and Qaisar Manzoor (given up PWs), 
statedly won over by the accused, though reflects a possible societal 
phenomena unfortunately not uncommon, nonetheless, being the best 
witnesses in circumstances, their absence from the scene certainly calls 
for  extra caution.  
 
The witnesses unanimously blamed Ilyas acquitted co-accused to 
have targeted Rashid deceased with a straight fire shot landing on the 
back of his left shoulder; while first Medical Officer i.e. Dr. Muhammad 
Yousaf (PW-1) who examined the deceased in injured condition remained 
somewhat reticent on the nature of injury, the autopsy conducted by  
Dr. Bashir Ahmed (PW-2) clearly established the injury attributed to Ilyas 
Criminal Petition Nos.1292-L and 1196-L of 2015 
  
 
4
acquitted co-accused as an aftermath of entry wound, being exit of injury 
on the right cheek. Prosecution’s failure qua Ilyas accused both before the 
trial Court as well as in the High Court entails inescapable repercussions 
as the set of witnesses disbelieved qua Ilyas would essentially require 
independent corroboration vis-à-vis the remainder. With a non-specific 
and vaguely formulated motive, concurrently held out of consideration, in 
the absence of consequential recoveries, the witnesses, disbelieved with 
regard to an identically placed co-accused cannot join themselves to 
corroborate each other against the convicts; acquittal of Shahid alias 
Mithu, Imtiaz Butt, Muhammad Younas alias Kala and Saeed, though 
assigned roles that san harm to the deceased, nonetheless, further 
compound the prosecution predicament inasmuch as they were alleged to 
have resorted to indiscriminate firing; their departure cast away the entire 
case. On the whole prosecution case is found fraught with doubts, 
embedded in and deducible from the stated positions and, thus, it would 
be unsafe to maintain the convictions on the left over fragments. Criminal 
Petition No.1292-L of 2015 is converted into appeal and allowed; 
petitioner/appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released 
forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.  
As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.1196-L of 2015 stands 
dismissed.  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Lahore, the 
14th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
