IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
  
 
Jail Petition No.501 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 5.6.2018 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Crl. 
Appeal No.90 of 2016) 
 
Muhammad Javed 
 
.…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
  
….Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Syeda B.H. Shah, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Ahmad Raza Gillani,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab. 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.08.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Elahi, 50, 
was murderously assaulted by Muhammad Javed, petitioner, on 23.7.2012 
at 6:00 p.m. within the precincts of Police Station Attock Saddar in the 
backdrop of a default in payment of Rs.8500/- that he owed to the 
deceased, a grocery vendor in the neighbourhood. The casualty was 
attended by Naseer Ahmad, SI (PW-15) at 7:20 p.m. in the Civil Hospital 
Attock. After a brief struggle, the injured succumbed to the injury. 
According to Muhammad Iqbal (PW-13), the first informant, upon receipt 
of information that the deceased was being thrashed by the petitioner and 
his mother Raeesa Jan, he arrived at the spot to witness the deceased 
under assault when from amongst the assailants, the petitioner targeted 
the deceased with a straight fire shot on his back; Abdul Khaliq and 
Muhammad Shoaib PWs, amongst others, reached the spot for rescue 
when the accused took to the heels. Alongside the petitioner, his parents 
as well as one of his brothers Rafaqat were arrayed as accused, however, 
let off during the investigation and he was alone to contest the indictment 
that resulted into his conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with imprisonment for life, pre-trial period 
Jail Petition No.501 of 2018 
  
  
 
2
inclusive vide trial Court’s judgment dated 19.2.2016, upheld by a learned 
Judge-in-Chamber vide impugned judgment dated 5.6.2018, vires whereof, 
are being assailed herein.  
2. 
 
It is argued that occurrence did not take place in the manner 
as alleged in the crime report and that the prosecution suppressed the real 
facts leading to the incident wherein the petitioner besides his mother and 
sister sustained multiple extensive injuries, spelling out a scenario 
diametrically incompatible with the events alleged in the crime report 
Ex.PH; that petitioner’s even dated statement with the police, prima facie, 
supported by the witnesses was withheld and thus the evidence presented 
before the Court was not the whole truth. In the absence of complete tale, 
it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction, concluded the learned 
counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
The deceased, in injured condition, was medically examined at 
7:15 p.m. under a police docket carried by Aamir Mehmood 1112/C(PW-6); 
he was noted with an entry wound on the right buttock; he was fully 
conscious, well-oriented with stable vitals; it is somewhat surprising that 
despite capacity, he did not opt for a statement. Position taken by the 
Investigating Officer that “As per opinion of the doctor, the injured was not in a 
condition to give statement” stands contradicted by the observations recorded 
by Dr. Faheem Khan, (PW-1) in MLR (Ex.PA). Deceased’s traumatic 
condition notwithstanding, nonetheless, his inexplicable silence before the 
Investigating Officer standing next to him, despite capacity, has 
repercussions on the statement of Muhammad Iqbal (PW-13) who upon 
receipt of information regarding an ongoing brawl, reached the scene, 
located at some distance from his residence, exactly at a point of time 
when the deceased received solitary fire shot, a rare coincident. More 
intriguing is his ignorance about injuries suffered by the petitioner, his 
sister Yasmeen Bibi and mother Raeesa Jan; they were medically 
examined under police dockets and noted with a good number of injuries 
comprising bruises, abrasions and lacerated wounds, durations whereof, 
coincide with the time of occurrence; comparative triviality of the injuries 
notwithstanding, the injured family presented a picture incompatible with 
the events narrated in the crime report. Admission by the Investigating 
Officer Naseer Ahmad, SI (PW-15) is no less startling: 
 “I proceeded to the place of occurrence. When I 
reached the place of occurrence, accused Muhammad 
Jail Petition No.501 of 2018 
  
  
 
3
Javed and his mother were found confined in the 
house of the complainant and his sister not confined 
there alongwith them as suggested. When I examined 
bodies of accused Javed, his mother Raeesa Jan and 
sister Mst. Yasmeen Bibi, all the three were found 
injured. I do not remember as to whether their clothes 
were blood stained or not. There was bleeding from 
bodies of all the three said persons. I prepared injury 
statement of accused Javed, his mother Mst. Raeesa 
Jan and sister Mst. Yasmeen Bibi. Before preparing 
injury statement of the said three injured persons, I 
recorded statement of accused Javed, Ex.P-T. I read 
over statement of accused Javed Ex.PT to him, who put 
his signatures on the same as token of its correctness. 
It is correct that first version of accused Javed which 
came on the record was the said statement Ex.PT. 
Statement of accused Javed Ex.PT was made part of 
police file by me.”.  
 
In the face of unanimous suppression of injuries by the prosecution 
witnesses, despite possible exclusion of petitioner’s plea from consideration, 
the prosecution case lacks “proof beyond doubt” as it does not reconcile with 
the parallel story recorded by the Investigating Officer himself duly 
supported by the statements of medical officers who attended the trial as 
court witnesses. Statement made by Abdul Khaliq (PW-12) also depicts a 
different scenario, as according to him, Javed and his mother were confined 
inside the house of the deceased wherefrom they were rescued by the police 
and it is so mentioned in his examination-in-chief itself; positions taken by 
the prosecution witnesses are mutually destructive as we cannot possibly 
believe the complainant without first excluding the statements of Abdul 
Khaliq (PW-12) and Naseer Ahmad (PW-15) and vice versa. 
 
In view of the above discrepant positions, implicit reliance upon the 
statements of the witnesses cannot be placed without potential risk of error 
as the entire episode is shrouded into a mystery, further compounded by 
an entry wound without exit on the back of the deceased, fringing near the 
position taken by the petitioner on the day one in support whereof on the 
conclusion of prosecution evidence, he entered the witness-box and on 
solemn affirmation, braved the cross-examiner with the following stance: 
 
“At that juncture, other ladies of their family also 
reached there and they all took me, my mother and 
sister outside our house in the street where Shoaib 
son of the deceased fired a shot on me which hit his 
father Muhammad Elahi deceased on his back.” 
 
On an overall analysis, prosecution case is found fraught with doubts, 
deducible from the stated positions, benefit whereof, cannot be withheld, 
particularly after its failure qua the co-accused. Petition is converted into 
Jail Petition No.501 of 2018 
  
  
 
4
appeal and allowed; impugned judgment is set aside and by extending 
benefit of doubt, the petitioner/appellant is acquitted of the charge; he 
shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
 
 
 
