IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Lahore High 
Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2011 along with M.R. No.268 
of 2011)  
 
 
Tariq Mehmood 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
  
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Butt, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.11.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
       Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for homicide as 
well as murderous assault, along with five others, subsequently 
acquitted, Tariq Mehmood, appellant is alone with a guilty verdict, 
returned by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Khoshab vide 
judgment dated 31.05.2011, upheld by the High Court vide judgment 
dated 05.11.2015 albeit with alteration of death penalty into 
imprisonment for life, being impugned through leave of the Court.  
2. 
 
Muhammad Shahbaz, 23, hereinafter referred to as the 
deceased, was fatally shot at 10:00 p.m. on 20.7.2009 within the 
precincts of Police Station Khoshab whereas Muhammad Ramzan  
(PW-9), attacked with an hatchet, survived the assault in the backdrop 
of a dispute over turn of irrigation water; incident was reported by 
deceased’s brother Muhammad Riaz (PW-8); besides the appellant, he 
blamed the Sanwal, Muhammad Ahsan son of Muhammad Ramzan, 
Muhammad Ahsan son of Sanwal, Shahadat Hussain alias Mithu and 
Nazar Hussain, variously armed for mounting the assault on the 
deceased and the PWs, present at complainant’s shop. Sanwal Khan 
accused opened the attack with an exhortation followed by a shot by 
the appellant on the left side of deceased’s chest; Nazar Baloch dealt 
hatchet blow to Muhammad Ramzan (PW-9) on the left side of his head 
Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2020 
 
2
followed by a club blow by Muhammad Ahsan on his left elbow. 
Complainant escaped a fire shot by Shahadat Hussain; Muhammad 
Ramzan (PW-9) also survived unscathed by a fire shot targeted by 
Sanwal Khan accused; Muhammad Ahsan accused lastly hit the 
complainant on his flank; commotion attracted Muhammad Mumtaz 
(PW-10) to the spot. Muhammad Ramzan (PW-9) with two incised 
wounds on left side of head and outer back of left elbow joint was 
medically examined under a police docket at 10:40 p.m; autopsy 
followed 11:30 p.m. with a solitary fire shot on the left side of chest, 
blamed as cause of death. As the investigation progressed, subsequent 
to their arrest, the appellant led to the recovery of .30 caliber pistol (P-7) 
whereas acquitted co-accused got recovered weapons assigned to them 
in the crime report. Forensic reports san support to the prosecution.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that evidence 
disbelieved both by the trial Court as well as the High Court qua 
majority of the accused, each assigned a distant and specific role, 
cannot 
sustain 
conviction 
without 
independent 
corroboration, 
conspicuously lacking inasmuch as neither the alleged motive nor 
recovery of pistol (P-7) advanced prosecution case vis-à-vis the 
appellant; that occurrence being a night affair with an electric bulb 
being the sole source of light question of identity of the assailants, 
surprising the witnesses at a small outlet is looming large on the scene; 
that evidence of Muhammad Ramzan (PW-9), disbelieved by the High 
Court qua his own assailant would hardly qualify for a credit as a 
witness on a capital charge; that complainant’s presence at the crime 
scene, otherwise far from being plausible, is additionally confounded by 
his failure to undertake medical examination despite allegation of 
assault resulting into injuries on his person. It would be unsafe to 
maintain the conviction, concluded the learned counsel. The learned 
Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Though 
certainly 
not 
a 
constituent 
of 
the 
crime, 
nonetheless, prosecution’s failure on motive, given the number and 
diverse background of the assailants, cannot be viewed as entirely 
without implications for the prosecution inasmuch as the even dated 
situation, cited as a motive in the backdrop, projects the venue as 
somewhat intriguing and as such spells out, in retrospect, a scenario 
incompatible with the script, outlined in the crime report. Miraculous 
escape by the two eye witnesses, each targeted with handguns directly 
Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2020 
 
3
by the assailants from a close blank is a story that may not find a 
buyer; absence of casings at the spot and investigating officer’s failure 
to effect recovery of the weapons are additional blows to witnesses’ 
credibility, concomitantly undermining status of the entire case, 
inasmuch as in the face of wholesale rejection of evidence, found 
inherently flawed. Fractional reliance to maintain appellant’s solitary 
conviction on the statements of witnesses disbelieved qua their own 
assailants is an option fraught with potential risk of error and as such 
inconsistent with the principle of safe administration of criminal justice. 
Appeal is allowed; impugned judgment is set aside; the appellant is 
acquitted of the charge and has been ordered to be released forthwith if 
not required to be detained in any other case vide short order of even 
date.  
 
 
 
      
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd November, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
