IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 794 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 06.10.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Murder 
Reference No. 340/2014 & Criminal Appeal No. 508-
J/2014) 
 
 
Muhammad Sadiq 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State  
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Butt, ASC 
 
For the State: 
 
Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sandhu, Addl. P.G 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
09.11.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was 
proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 630 
dated 13.11.2012 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station 
Bhowana, District Chinito for committing murder of Muhammad 
Tahir son of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its 
judgment dated 13.09.2014 convicted the petitioner under Section 
302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay 
an amount of Rs.500,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the 
deceased as provided under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. or in default 
whereof to further undergo six months SI. However, the learned 
High Court vide impugned judgment while maintaining the 
conviction of the petitioner altered the sentence of death into 
imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation and the sentence 
in default whereof was maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. 
was also extended to the petitioner.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned 
judgment reads as under:- 
Jail Petition No. 794/2017 
2
“2. 
Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR (Ex.PB/1) 
registered on the statement (Ex.PB) of Mst. Zubaida Bibi, 
complainant (PW-6) is that she (complainant) was resident of 
Mohammadi Sharif and had kept her cattle at the dhari of 
Mian Farooq Ahmad Mayana. In evening time, Muhammad 
Tahir son of the complainant used to bring back the goats to 
the house daily but on the fateful day when he did not 
return, the complainant alongwith Muhammad Nasir and 
Ahmad Nawaz started search and when they reached near 
the Dhari, Muhammad Sadiq (appellant) within their view, 
inflicted hatchet blows on the person of Muhammad Tahir 
which landed on his chin and head who fell down on the 
ground. On the hue and cry of complainant party numerous 
people gathered there who also witnessed the occurrence. 
When the complainant’s side tried to overpower Muhammad 
Sadiq (appellant) he threatened that if anybody came near 
he would not be left alive and fled away from the place of 
occurrence while brandishing his hatchet. The complainant 
and other PWs attended Muhammad Tahir but he had 
succumbed to the injuries. Motive behind the occurrence as 
that few days prior to the occurrence an altercation took 
place between Muhammad Tahir (deceased) and Muhammad 
Sadiq (appellant) and they abused each other and due to the 
said grudge the appellant has committed the murder of 
deceased.”  
 
 
 
 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report hallan under 
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The 
prosecution in order to prove its case produced eight witnesses. In 
his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C the petitioner 
pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against 
him. He did not opt to appear under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. to lead 
defence evidence.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there 
are glaring contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses, 
which were ignored by the learned courts below. Contends that the 
complainant was mother of the deceased, therefore, her testimony 
cannot be believed to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. 
Contends that when the learned High Court disbelieved the motive 
part of the prosecution story and held recovery of weapon of offence 
to be inconsequential, there was no occasion for it to maintain the 
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. Lastly 
contends that the learned High Court while passing the impugned 
judgment has not appreciated the evidence in its true prospective, 
therefore, a great miscarriage of justice has been done.  
5. 
 
 On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended 
the impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner has 
Jail Petition No. 794/2017 
3
committed murder of an innocent person and the evidence available 
on record is sufficient to prove the case against him, therefore, he 
does not deserve any leniency by this Court. 
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on record with their 
able assistance.  
 
 
The ocular account in this case has been furnished by 
Mst. Zubaida Bibi, complainant (PW-6) and Ahmad Nawaz (PW-7). 
These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-
examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner 
or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record. Both 
these PWs remained consistent on each and every material point 
inasmuch made deposition exactly according to the circumstances 
happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the 
ocular 
account 
furnished 
by 
the 
prosecution 
is 
reliable, 
straightforward and confidence inspiring. The medical evidence 
available on the record fully corroborates the ocular account so far 
as the nature, locale, time and impact of the injuries on the person of 
the deceased is concerned. So far as the question that the 
complainant was mother of the deceased, therefore, her testimony 
cannot be believed to sustain conviction of the petitioner is 
concerned, it is by now a well established principle of law that mere 
relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot 
be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses unless 
previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to falsely 
implicate the accused in the case. In the present case, the petitioner 
committed the murder of his real son whereas his wife, who 
happened to be mother of the deceased, implicated him in the case. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any reason as 
to why the wife of the petitioner i.e. the complainant has falsely 
involved him in the present case and let off the real culprit. 
Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The 
complainant would not prefer to spare the real culprit who murdered 
his son and falsely involve the petitioner, who happened to be her 
husband, without any rhyme and reason. Even otherwise, if we 
keep aside the testimony of Mst. Zubaida Bibi (PW-6) even then the 
petitioner can be convicted on the solitary statement of Ahmed 
Jail Petition No. 794/2017 
4
Nawaz (PW-7) as it is an established principle of law that testimony 
of a solitary eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction of an 
accused if the same rings true and inspires confidence and it is the 
quality of the testimony of a witness that has to be weighed and not 
the quantity of witnesses. The witnesses were residents of the same 
locality where the occurrence took place and they have duly 
explained their presence at the scene of occurrence. The learned 
High Court has disbelieved the motive part of the prosecution story 
whereas the recovery of weapon of offence was also held 
inconsequential only on the ground that it was recovered after lapse 
of 19 days and was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner after 24 
days and because it was possible that the blood would have 
disintegrated it does not advance the prosecution case. However, we 
are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned High 
Court so far as the weapon of offence is concerned is based upon 
hypothetical approach. Normally the blood stains disintegrate after 
one month through a biological process but this process is not 
absolute rather it depends upon so many other factors such as 
nature of article stained with blood, severity of weather, level of 
humidity, place where it is found, blood group, race and physique of 
the body etc. In the instant case the hatchet was recovered at the 
instance of the petitioner after 19 days and the same was sent for 
chemical examination after 24 days. The Investigating Officer had 
also collected blood stained earth and sent the same along with the 
hatchet to the office of Chemical Examiner. As per the reports of 
Punjab Forensic Science Agency human blood was found on both 
these articles. The recovery was affected by the petitioner from the 
corn fields in the same vicinity where the occurrence took place in 
the presence of PWs, who remained consistent in their depositions. 
Even otherwise, when we have found the testimonies of the 
witnesses of the ocular account to be trustworthy, straightforward 
and confidence inspiring, which are duly supported by the medical 
evidence, mere the fact that motive has not been proved and 
recovery of weapon of offence has been held to be inconsequential, 
would not be of any benefit to the petitioner. The learned High Court 
has already taken a lenient view while converting the penalty of 
Jail Petition No. 794/2017 
5
death into imprisonment for life. No further leniency can be shown to 
the petitioner.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
9th of November, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
