IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.103-P/2011 
(Against the judgment dated 21.9.2011 of the Peshawar High Court  
Peshawar passed in Cr.A. No.621/2010) 
 
Nazir Jan 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Sail Khan and another 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Astaghfirullah, ASC (with permission) 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
28.6.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Sial Khan, respondent, 
is in the array of the accused, in a case of homicide wherein Noora Jan 
deceased 55/56 was shot dead at 7:00 p.m. on 9.9.1989 within the 
precincts of Police Station Doaba; the deceased received two fire shots 
on his chest, attributed to the respondent alongside Pirat Khan, since 
convicted; the latter came up with a botched cross-version, registered 
vide separate First Information Report of even date. The learned trial 
Judge held Pirat Khan responsible for both shots to the deceased and 
proceeded to acquit three co-accused including the respondent vide 
judgment dated 28.09.1992, set aside by the Peshawar High Court vide 
judgment dated 20.12.1993 whereby the case was remanded for 
decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the both sides. 
Pirat Khan’s conviction was maintained, however, he was sentenced to 
imprisonment for life; the co-accused barring the respondent were again 
acquitted from the charge and in view of respondent’s absence, he was 
declared proclaimed offender vide judgment dated 26.06.1994; upon his 
arrest, he was tried and ultimately acquitted by the trial Court vide 
judgment dated 19.06.2010, upheld by the High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 21.09.2011, vires whereof, are being assailed primarily 
on the ground that his case being at par with the convicted co-accused 
Criminal Petition No.103-P/2011 
 
2
Pirat Khan, there was no occasion for the courts below to draw any 
distinction so as to let him off the hook.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
The respondent was first acquitted by the trial Court way 
back on 28.09.1992; notwithstanding the fact that the State did not opt 
to challenge his acquittal, the High Court remanded the entire case 
while taking the respondent as well as the convicted co-accused on 
board in the absence of any appeal pending before it. Statute provided 
appeal against acquittal to the complainant or an aggrieved person by 
amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 through the Act XX of 
1994 Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Act, 1994, 
notified on 14th November, 1994 and, thus, there was no statutory basis 
for respondent’s subsequent prosecution, though resulting into his 
acquittal. The error has duly been noticed by the High Court in the 
impugned judgment. Even otherwise, trial court’s analysis whereunder 
the respondent was acquitted from the charge presents a possible view 
that does not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
 
 
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Peshawar, the 
28th June, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
Criminal Petition No.103-P/2011 
 
3
 
