IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Jail Petition No.112 of 2017  
(Against judgment dated 30.1.2017 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 
2012 along with M.R. No.7 of 2012) 
 
 
Javed Ishfaq 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Safdar Hussain Tarrar, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
06.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for homicide, 
Javed Ashfaq, petitioner herein, claimed trial along with six others 
before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Wazirabad; they were 
arrayed in the backdrop of shifting of an electric transformer in the 
village that disrupted power supply to the annoyance of co-villagers, 
lined up into two groups that clashed at the site, 6:00 p.m. on 
2.7.2010; both suffered injuries, opined to have been caused with blunt 
weapons with the exception of Noor Muhammad, deceased, 70, fatally 
trapped by petitioner’s solitary shot in the abdomen with a 
corresponding exit. Receipt of injuries suffered by the accused failed to 
weigh with the police to set up a counter-version and the accused faced 
trial without recourse to a private complaint. The petitioner was alone 
to receive a guilty verdict with death sentence, altered into 
imprisonment for life by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 
30.1.2017. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that evidence 
disbelieved qua majority of the accused cannot haul up the petitioner 
without independent corroboration, according to him, hopelessly 
lacking; that the crime report is completely silent on the injuries 
suffered by no less than five accused, a suppression spelling out an 
incident incompatible with the details mentioned in the crime report; 
 Jail Petition No.112 of 2017   
2
that there exists a clear  conflict between ocular account and medical 
evidence as presence of blackening around the wound belies the inter 
se distance mentioned in the crime report as well as site plan; it is next 
argued that the deceased, in his late seventies, was done to death by 
his own clan to hush up the mischief.  
3. 
 
Heard. 
4. 
 
With no previous bad blood, shifting of an electric 
transformer, with power breakdown, rocked an otherwise peaceful 
neighbourhood in the sizzling heat of the season and in this backdrop 
initial receipt of injuries, established during the course of investigation 
to have been caused by clubs, etc. has to be viewed in the peculiar 
background of the incident. This appears to be a reason for absence of 
the injured from the witness box; worst casualty was the deceased, hit 
by petitioner’s shot as the clash graduated more violent and, thus, in 
the given circumstances acquittal of the co-accused by the trial Court 
in the absence of the injured from both sides has been an option wisely 
preferred by the learned trial Judge; acquittals do not extenuate 
petitioner’s culpability for additional reasons as well; the police declined 
to entertain the counter version and the accused by their own choice 
considered institution of private complaint as a futile exercise. A 
bipartisan suppression appears to be the predominant cause behind 
the acquittal of co-accused with roles trivially different, thus, by itself 
does not pave way for the petitioner to escape consequences of his 
individual criminal act, otherwise established beyond doubt. In the 
circumstances, plea of indivisibility of evidence is not available to the 
petitioner. It was held by this Court in the case of Syed Ali Bepari v. 
Nibaran Mollah and others  (PLD 1962 SC 502)“…..the Court must not be 
deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from drawing the inferences 
that properly flow from the evidence and circumstances”, a view re-
affirmed in the case of Ali Raza alias Peter and others Vs. The State and 
others (2019 SCMR 1982).  
 
Hypothesis of conflict between ocular account and medical 
evidence, inordinately agitated to highlight presence of burning around 
the entry aperture is without foundation as well. According to site plan 
(Ex.PU), the petitioner fired fatal shot from point ‘B’ standing in a 
window that hit the deceased at point ‘A’. According to Masood Ahmed 
Bhatti (PW-12), the inter se distance between two points is four feet 
and, thus, presence of blackening around the entry wound is not 
surprising; the relevant portion of the cross-examination is reproduced 
below: 
 Jail Petition No.112 of 2017   
3
“It is incorrect to suggest that according to 
the scaled map the distance between point 
‘A’ and point ‘B’ is 12 feet. Volunteered that 
it is four feet.” 
 
Burning/blackening, though a predominant factor to determine 
distance inter se the assailant and the victim, nonetheless, is not the 
conclusive indicator; it depends upon factors more than one i.e. quality 
of munition and process of combustion that may possibly vary the 
impact of combusted gun powder; a smudging shot may cause 
deceptive appearance as well, therefore, in the absence of other 
qualifying evidence, hypothesis of inter se distance cannot be 
constructed with empirical exactitude on the presence of burning alone 
(Parikh’s Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1989 
Edition, Pages 280/282). Even otherwise, site plan has never been 
considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor any benefit may be 
extracted therefrom unless the witnesses are duly confronted with the 
purported anomaly or discrepancy therein; no such attempt has been 
undertaken by the defence.  
 
Ocular account has been furnished by Zafar Ullah (PW-7) and 
Fazal Ahmed (PW-8); they are in tune with each other on all the salient 
features of the case as well as details collateral therewith; they have no 
axe to grind to point their fingers on the petitioner alone, in a situation 
that cropped up with no past strings. Defence version that 
apprehending death of the injured, the deceased, in his late seventies, 
related in first degree with the complainant, was executed by his own 
kith and kin to fabricate a counter version is a story that being most 
preposterous would hardly find a buyer. 
 
Despite strenuous efforts, learned counsel for the petitioner has 
not been able to point out any flaw, discrepancy, legal or factual, calling 
for interference with the conclusions concurrently drawn by the Courts 
below. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
6th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
