IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
JAIL PETITION NO.385/2017 
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore dated 12.04.2017 passed in 
Murder 
Reference 
No.117/2015, 
Criminal 
Appeal No.1630/2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 
1631/2013) 
 
Muhammad Afzal  
…Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State  
…Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC (at State expenses) 
For the State 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG, Punjab 
Date of Hearing: 
08.10.2020 
… 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Criminal petition for leave 
to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 has been assailed by the petitioner calling in question 
impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by Lahore High Court. 
2. 
 
As per allegation contained in the crime report bearing FIR 
No.292/2011, dated 30.07.2011, under section 302, 324 PPC registered 
with police station Kalurkot District Bhakkar, it is alleged that petitioner 
alongwith Mushtaq and Imam Bakhash while armed with gun .12 bore 
trespassed into the land belonging to the complainant. Mushtaq raised 
“Lalkara” as a consequent, Muhammad Afzal made a fire with his gun .12 
bore which landed on the left side of the chest of Iltaf Hussain; the second 
fire made by Muhammad Afzal had hit on the right side of neck. Iltaf 
Hussain fell on the ground; Imam Bakhash made a fire with his gun which 
landed on the left shoulder of Iltaf Hussain whereas Mushtaq made a fire 
which landed on the index finger of left hand. The occurrence was seen by 
the prosecution witnesses. As a consequent of the injuries, Iltaf Hussain 
JAIL PETITION NO. 385 OF 2017 
-: 2 :-
succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence 
was dispute over land.  
3. 
 
The complainant being aggrieved of the investigation 
conducted by the local police wherein they have declared Mushtaq 
innocent while placing his name in column No.2 of the report u/s 173 
Cr.P.C., filed a private complaint. The accused persons were summoned 
in response to the proceedings of the said complaint. The learned trial 
court amalgamated State as well as private complaint and the same was 
disposed of with consolidated judgment dated 05.11.2013. The learned 
trial court convicted Muhammad Afzal u/s 302(b) PPC and sentenced to 
death and to pay the compensation of Rs.500,000/- under section 544-A 
Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased recoverable as arrears of land 
revenue. The learned trial court also convicted Imam Bakhash under 
section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay 
compensation of Rs.500,000/- under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal 
heirs of deceased recoverable as arrears of land revenue whereas the 
learned trial court acquitted Mushtaq by giving him benefit of doubt. 
4. 
 
Being aggrieved by the judgment, reference was sent u/s 
374 Cr.P.C. whereas the convicts filed their appeals before the learned 
Lahore High Court and the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court 
vide judgment dated 12.04.2017, acquitted Imam Bakhash while 
extending benefit of doubt whereas the death sentence inflicted upon 
petitioner Muhammad Afzal was converted into imprisonment for life, 
hence, the instant petition before us for leave to appeal. 
5. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioner that both the learned courts below have not taken into 
consideration the evidence available on the record and the same has not 
been appreciated according to the dictates of law. Further contends that 
JAIL PETITION NO. 385 OF 2017 
-: 3 :-
the complainant being aggrieved by the investigation filed private 
complaint just after four months of the occurrence on the ground that 
Mushtaq one of the accused was declared innocent. Contends that in the 
private complaint, a different version qua the motive has been given which 
itself create doubt in the genuineness of the prosecution version. 
Contends that one of the accused Mushtaq was acquitted by the learned 
trial court whereas Imam Bakhash was given benefit of doubt by the High 
Court. Contends that as the bulk of prosecution case has already been 
found false, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the extension of 
benefit of doubt in the interest of safe administration of justice. 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at 
length and gone through the record. 
 
 
It is an admitted fact that the occurrence has taken place at 
3.30 p.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police at 4.45 p.m. on 
the same day whereas the inter-se distance between the place of 
occurrence and police station is 28/29 kilometers. Perusal of the crime 
report clearly reflects that there is definite overt-act ascribed to the 
petitioner who fired twice with his gun on the vital part of the body of 
deceased Iltaf Hussain. The ocular account in this case is furnished by 
complainant Tariq Mehmood (PW-10) and Riaz Hussain (PW-11). The 
statements of both the prosecution witnesses qua the time, date, mode 
and manner of occurrence are identical. Although they were cross 
examined at length but nothing detrimental to the salient features of the 
prosecution case was detected from cross examination conducted by 
defence counsel. Otherwise it is an admitted fact that the occurrence has 
taken place in the open field whereas the parties are known to each other 
since long. The occurrence has taken place in the broad daylight and 
there is no chance of any misidentification. All these factors when 
JAIL PETITION NO. 385 OF 2017 
-: 4 :-
evaluated conjointly it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has 
succeeded to establish case without any reasonable doubt. The 
contention of the learned counsel qua recovery as well as the motive, we 
have also taken into consideration these aspects of the case. As far as the 
motive is concerned, while filing private complaint, the motive which 
mentioned in the crime report was explained, so the same cannot be said 
in any manner that altogether another version was introduced by the 
prosecution. None recovery of crime weapon and absence of report of 
Forensic Science Agency, the benefit of the same has already been 
extended to the petitioner and sentence of death was converted into 
imprisonment for life being alternative sentence. As far as the acquittal of 
Imam Bakhash is concerned, we are afraid that the learned Division 
Bench of Lahore High Court has not assigned any legal justification to 
extent the benefit of doubt.  Mere mentioning of rule of caution is not 
sufficient to discard the prosecution version rather the learned court is 
supposed to extend the dictum of rule of caution which should be 
supported by substantial material which is lacking in this case. We are 
showing restrain because there is no petition filed by the complainant in 
this regard. The accumulative affect of the facts and circumstances when 
discussed in this case is that prosecution has established case against the 
petitioner to the hilt, hence, leaving no room for interference. As a 
consequence, this petition is dismissed.Leave to appeal is declined.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad 
08.10.2020 
Approved for reporting 
*Athar* 
