IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.541 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Lahore in Cr.A. No.356-J/2013 with M.R. No.376/2013) 
 
 
Rafaqat Ali 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
14.02.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Mirza Mubashar 
Baig, 23, was assaulted at 12:00 hours on 17.11.2006 within the 
remit of Police Station Islam Pura Lahore; rushed to the hospital in 
injured condition, despite multiple attempts by the Investigating 
Officer, he was opined as incapable to make a statement and finally 
succumbed 
to 
the 
injuries 
on 
23.11.2006. 
Initial 
medical 
examination as well as autopsy report confirmed two fire shot 
wounds, accompanied by corresponding exits. 
 Crime report lodged by deceased’s brother Muhammad 
Shakeel (PW-7) blamed one Lakha, subsequently identified as the 
appellant, accompanied by three unknown as suspects for the 
assault, in the backdrop of a previous altercation. As the 
investigation progressed, the Investigating Officer took on board one 
Faisal, lying in injured condition in the hospital as an accused on 
25.11.2006; remainder of the accused were identified as Shahbaz 
Criminal Appeal No.541 of 2020                                  2 
 
and Latif alias Mitha, subsequently let off/acquitted without 
challenge. The appellant was alone to receive a guilty verdict under 
clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was 
sentenced to death with a direction to pay compensation vide 
judgment dated 28.9.2013, altered by the High Court into 
imprisonment for life, vide impugned judgment dated 20.2.2017, 
vires whereof, are being assailed by leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
 Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
prosecution case set up during the trial  is diametrically different 
than the one laid with the police; that evidence disbelieved qua the 
identically placed acquitted co-accused has been relied upon by the 
courts below in contravention of law declared by this Court 
inasmuch 
as 
neither 
a 
vaguely 
formulated 
motive 
nor 
inconsequential 
recovery 
of 
weapon 
provided 
the 
requisite 
independent support; that injuries sustained by Faisal co-accused 
were suppressed by the prosecution, a circumstance that in 
retrospect spelt out a scenario, still a mystery. According to her, best 
evidence was withheld and it would be unsafe to rely upon the 
testimony of the witnesses one of whom is even not named in the 
crime report. The learned Law Officer faithfully defended the 
impugned judgment. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Complainant 
prosecuted 
his 
case 
through 
supplementary statements, subsequently recorded on two different 
occasions. Though the First Information Report is not to be taken as 
prosecution’s last word, nonetheless, a supplementary statement, 
essentially being a statement under section 161 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be read in continuation thereof 
and, thus, a heavy responsibility is cast upon the prosecution to 
satisfactorily explain its initial failure to nominate an accused in the 
crime report and the circumstances improving upon its knowledge 
so as to justify inclusion of the accused previously amiss. Similarly, 
prosecution’s preference for Muhammad Imran whose name did not 
figure in the crime report as a witness in preference to Behram 
Khan, abandoned during the trial, is a circumstance that clamours 
for explanation. Suppression of multiple firearm punctured wound 
endured by Muhammad Faisal co-accused, examined on the day of 
occurrence i.e. 17.11.2006, under a police docket, is yet another 
Criminal Appeal No.541 of 2020                                  3 
 
aspect, no less intriguing. Acquittal of identically placed co-accused 
without 
challenge 
is 
another 
predicament 
confronting 
the 
prosecution in addition to massive improvements in the statement of 
the complainant, duly confronted in the witness-box. Argument that 
occurrence having not taken place in the manner as alleged in the 
crime report and reality still in the shroud, it would be unsafe to 
maintain appellant’s conviction on a speculative moral ground is an 
argument, found by us, as difficult to dismiss. There are doubts, 
more than one, each deducible from prosecution’s own evidence, 
benefit whereof, cannot be withheld. Appeal is allowed; impugned 
judgment dated 20.02.2017 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted 
from the charge and shall be released forthwith if not required to be 
detained.   
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
14th February, 2022 
Azmat/- 
