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 Appeal No.106-L of 2017 and  
Criminal Petition No.981-L of 2017 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment 
dated 
13.11.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.2089 of 
2010 and Murder Reference No.511 of 2010). 
 
Manzoor Hussain alias Babo 
(In Crl.A.106-L/2017) 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
(In Crl.P.981-L/2017) 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State 
(In both cases)  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
(In Crl.A.106-L/2017) 
: Mr. Akhtar Hussain Bhatti, ASC 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
(In Crl.P.981-L/2017) 
: Mr. Salman Safdar, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 17.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Yar 
alias Bhatti, 20, was shot dead, in a marriage ceremony ‘Barat’, on 
10.4.2008 at 4.00 p.m. within remit of Police Station Cantt Okara. 
Manzoor Hussain, appellant was blamed for the crime. Bullet 
pierced the body 5 cm above right nipple, trapped in chest cavity, 
leaving behind blackened margins. Motive for the crime is 
acrimony raging over divorce of deceased’s sister by the appellant 
as well as litigation over agricultural land. The appellant stayed 
away from law, finally arrested on 6.6.2008; pursuant to a 
disclosure, he led to the recovery of a .30 caliber pistol on 
10.6.2008. The appellant was indicted on 22.8.2008; Saifullah and 
his father Allah Ditta were arrayed as conspirators. The appellant 
Crl.A.106-L of 2017 & Crl.P.981-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
blamed a stuck bullet going off accidentally during the aerial firing. 
Unimpressed by the plea, the learned trial Judge convicted the 
appellant under clause (b) of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and 
sentenced him to death with compensation vide judgment dated 
30.8.2010. Allah Ditta and his son Saifullah were however 
acquitted from the charge. A learned division bench of learned 
Lahore High Court maintained the conviction, however, altered 
penalty of death into imprisonment for life with benefit under 
Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This 
brings both the appellant as well the complainant to us, former for 
acquittal while later for restoration of death penalty; Criminal 
Appeal 106-L/2017 and Criminal Petition 981-L/2017, bound by a 
common thread are being decided through this single judgment. 
2. 
 
Event on the fateful day in the backdrop of bad blood  
is a common ground. Ceremonial firing is unfortunately a usual 
phenomenon. It is prosecution case that taking advantage of the 
event, the appellant, actuated by a motive deliberately targeted the 
bullet, whereas the accused while pleading innocence has 
simultaneously advanced the theory of a stray fire shot, stuck in 
the chamber, went off accidentally.  
 
Death by a .30 caliber bullet is not in dispute; in this 
background, hypothesis of an accidental shot, as canvassed at the 
bar, is far from being impressive. Mechanics of .30 caliber pistol, a 
semi automatic weapon, rests upon a percussion cap with a 
primer, when detonated by the hammer of firing pin ignites 
explosive propelling the bullet in high velocity to leave the muzzle; 
in the process next bullet from the magazine automatically enters 
the chamber by the energy released by the preceding fire shot.  A 
bullet would possibly stuck in the chamber if the hammer fails to 
ignite the explosive; a defective primer makes the cartridge dead if 
all other components are in good condition.  A second strike by the 
hammer is not possible without manual intervention and that too 
would seldom ignite the charge as the fixed length of firing pin 
would not go farther than the first strike.  Therefore, it is difficult 
to contemplate a situation where deceased would naively stand 
within the approximate distance of four feet to receive bullet above 
Crl.A.106-L of 2017 & Crl.P.981-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
the nipple, through an accidental shot. Bullet trajectory is yet 
another factor to contradict the story of accidental shot. If at all 
someone was attempting to retrieve the defective bullet he had no 
occasion to hold the gun in a straight position; from point of entry 
it traversed through right pleura and lung landing on left side of 
the chest beneath 4/5th intercostal back, is a course that suggests 
assailant and the deceased standing face to face. Appellant’s plea, 
inherently flawed cannot dislodge preponderance of evidence 
furnished by the eye witnesses, found by us in a comfortable 
unison on all the details, salient as well as collateral therewith.    
Suggested scenario, otherwise too unrealistic to be received 
without being imprudent, merits outright rejection. Criminal 
Appeal 106-L/2017 is dismissed. Imprisonment for life, a 
conscionable wage in circumstances also does not call for 
interference. As a natural corollary Criminal Petition No.981-
L/2017 is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
17th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
