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 No.263-L of 2015 and  
Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 16.01.2015 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 
1626/2010 with M.R. No.413/2010) 
 
 
 
Ibrar Hussain 
(in Cr.P. 263-L/2015) 
 
Riaz Hussain 
(in J.P. 407/2018) 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State  
(in both cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mrs. Nighat Saeed Mughal, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr.P. 263-L/2015) 
 
N.R. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in J.P.407/2018) 
 
 
For the State: 
Rana Abdul Majeed, 
 
Additional Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
      Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Ibrar Hussain son of Zawar 
Hussain and Riaz Hussain son of Ashiq Hussain, petitioners herein, were 
tried by the learned Sessions Judge Mianwali for committing Qatl-i-Amd of 
Abdul Aleem, 35/36, on 14.10.2008 at 7:45 p.m,  inside his home, located 
within the remit of Police Station Wan Bhachran, District Mianwali; they 
were returned a guilty verdict vide judgment dated 15.06.2010; convicted 
under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, both 
were sentenced to death, altered into imprisonment for life by the High 
Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2015, vires whereof are being 
Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 
 
  
 
2
separately assailed through Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail 
Petition No.407 of 2018; the latter barred by 1189 days; financial 
incapacity appears to have impeded Riaz Hussain’s approach to this Court 
in time, in view whereof delay of 1189 days in filing of the petition is 
condoned in the interest of justice, additionally justifiable on account of 
con-convict’s petition within the period of limitation; bound by a common 
thread, these are being decided through this single judgment.  
2. 
 
Incident was reported by deceased’s father Abdul Raheem, 
since dead, through statement Ex.PK, recorded by Muhammad Iqbal, 
Inspector (PW-12) at the police station situating 9-k.m. from the venue at 
10:15 p.m. According to the complainant, deceased, a Hakeem by 
profession, was running a shop for last 12/13 years where he used to stay, 
off and on, and the complainant occasionally visited him as well. On the 
fateful night at 7:45 p.m, the deceased along with the complainant,  
Gul Muhammad and Haji Khalid Masood (PW-11) was sitting in the 
courtyard when the petitioners, armed with .12 caliber shotguns entered 
the home. Ibrar Hussain raised Lalkara and targeted the deceased on the 
left side of his chest followed by Riaz Hussain with a shot that landed on 
the pelvis; Ibrar Hussain repeated a shot hitting his left shin; upon hue 
and cry, they took to the heels. Witnesses claimed to have seen the 
incident in the bulb light. It is alleged that the deceased also attended his 
patients, including the females, at the residence and he objected over the 
petitioners’ presence outside his dwelling that resulted into exchange of 
hot words, a rancor that prompted the petitioners to assault the deceased.  
 
Autopsy was conducted following day at 7:00 a.m. Five entry wounds 
with multiple apertures surrounded by blackened margins, riddled mainly 
frontal parts of deceased’s body. During inspection though blood, 
forensically opined as that of human origin, was secured, however, 
surprisingly no casing is shown or secured at the spot, nonetheless, the 
petitioners after their arrest on 6.3.2009, pursuant to disclosures, got 
recovered guns P-1 and P-3 on 11.03.2009.  
3. 
  
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that occurrence 
did not take place within the view of the witnesses nor at a point of time 
stated in the crime report; that the High Court disbelieved the motive and 
viewed recovery of guns as inconsequential and, thus, there was no 
occasion to maintain conviction on the statement of solitary chance 
witness; that autopsy was conducted with considerable delay and findings 
thereof were not in line with the details narrated in the First Information 
Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 
 
  
 
3
Report; the conviction on such deficient evidence was not sustainable, 
concluded the learned counsel. Learned Law Officer has faithfully defended 
the impugned judgment. 
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Death intervened the complainant and Gul Muhammad PWs to 
enter the witness box, leaving behind Khalid Masood (PW-11), the sole 
narrator of the crime; fate of the case is inexorably linked with his 
deposition. Though, somehow related with the deceased, the witness, a 
fertilizer dealer running a shop nearby his house, located at a distance of  
9 kilometer from the venue, his presence at the spot sans any purpose or 
justification on a Tuesday apparently after close of the day; argument that 
he was a chance witness cannot be summarily dismissed and in retrospect 
warrants a more cautious scrutiny of his statement. Similarly the position 
that occurrence took place much later in point of time than mentioned in 
the crime report merits serious consideration in view of observations 
recorded by the Medical Officer, who found that “Stomach was perforated 
and damaged and it was full of partially digested food” as it does not 
synchronize with the hypothesis of last intake to tally with the stated time 
of occurrence. Five entry wounds on different sides of chest, abdominal 
and pubic area, inner aspect of right thigh and back of right leg with 
multiple apertures also prima facie negate the story of three fire shots. 
Absence of any casing is yet another intriguing aspect of the case 
compounded by blackening that encircled the each wound. Source of light 
to establish identification of the assailants beyond doubt is yet another 
predicament confronting the prosecution. The prosecution has relied upon 
an electric bulb as the sole source of light to identify the petitioners, 
however, Khalid Masood (PW-11) admitted in his cross-examination that 
there was load shedding at the time of occurrence; he has tried to 
introduce a UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply), an apparatus that does not 
figure anywhere on the record. In a sizzling hot season, presence of 
witnesses in the courtyard without any apparent purpose makes their 
presence all the more doubtful. With prosecution’s multiple failures on 
motive, consequential recoveries, aggravated by a suspect source of light 
and delayed postmortem, solitary statement of a chance witness, may not 
be relied without potential risk of error as the circumstances cumulatively 
suggest a scenario other than what meets the eye. It would be unsafe to 
maintain the convictions, thus, Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and 
Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 are converted into appeals and allowed; 
Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 
 
  
 
4
impugned judgment dated 16.01.2015 is set aside; petitioners/appellants 
are acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not required 
to be detained in any other case.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Lahore, the 
16th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
