IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan  
 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 128, 129 and 130 of 2010 
(Against the judgment dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeals No. 
371, 375 and 383 of 2002 and Murder Reference No. 608 of 2002) 
 
 
Azhar Mehmood, etc.  
(in Cr. A. 128 of 2010) 
Azam Sher  
 
 
(in Cr. A. 129 of 2010) 
Asad Ali 
 
 
 
(in Cr. A. 130 of 2010) 
…Appellants 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State  
 
 
(in all cases) 
 
     …Respondents 
                
 
 
For the appellants: 
Mr. Tanveer Iqbal, ASC  
Mr. Niaz Ahmed Rathore, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(in Cr. A. 128 of 2010) 
Mr. Niaz Ahmed Rathore, ASC 
(in Cr. A. 129 and 130 of 2010) 
 
For the State: 
Ch. 
Zubair 
Ahmed 
Farooq, 
Additional 
Prosecutor-General, 
Punjab (in all cases) 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
02.11.2016  
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: A dacoity had allegedly been 
committed in the house of Muhammad Ramzan complainant at 
about 08.00 P.M. on 20.08.2001 in the area of Police Station 
Saddar Hassan Abdal, District Attock and during the said dacoity 
two persons namely Muhammad Ijaz and Muhammad Anwar had 
been done to death. The culprits committing the alleged offences 
had remained unknown and FIR No. 245 had been lodged in 
respect of that incident by Muhammad Ramzan complainant at the 
above mentioned Police Station at 09.55 P.M. during the same 
Criminal Appeals No. 128, 129 and 130 of 2010 
2 
night. 
The 
present 
appellants 
namely 
Azhar 
Mehmood, 
Muhammad Altaf, Azam Sher and Asad Ali had subsequently been 
implicated in this case and after a regular trial the trial court 
convicted the appellants for offences under sections 460, 396 and 
302(b), PPC read with section 34, PPC and sentenced them to 
various terms of imprisonment besides sentences of death on two 
counts of the charge under sections 396 and 302(b), PPC. Later on 
the High Court had upheld the sentence of death passed against 
Azhar Mehmood appellant whereas on the charge of murder the 
sentences of death passed against the remaining appellants were 
reduced to imprisonment for life each. The High Court had 
converted the appellants’ convictions for an offence under section 
396, PPC into those for an offence under section 398, PPC and had 
passed a reduced sentence against the appellants for the said 
offence. The convictions and sentences of the appellants for the 
offence under section 460, PPC read with section 34, PPC were, 
however, upheld and maintained by the High Court. Hence, the 
present appeals by leave of this Court granted on 05.04.2010.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise. 
 
3. 
It has straightaway been noticed by us that the occurrence 
in this case had taken place after dark and in the FIR no source of 
light at the spot had been mentioned by the complainant. Although 
in the site-plan of the place of occurrence availability of an electric 
bulb near the spot had been shown yet no such bulb had been 
secured by the investigating officer during the investigation of this 
case. The present appellants had not been nominated in the FIR 
wherein it had been mentioned that the offences in issue had been 
committed by six unknown culprits but later on it had been 
maintained by the prosecution that the present appellants had 
been overheard by a witness discussing amongst themselves the 
commission of offences by them relevant to the dacoity and 
murders taking place at the house of the complainant. It was in 
Criminal Appeals No. 128, 129 and 130 of 2010 
3 
that dubious background that the present appellants had been 
arrested on 24.09.2001 and later on they had statedly been 
identified by the eyewitnesses namely Muhammad Ramzan 
complainant (PW15) and Arif Ali (PW16) in the test identification 
parades conducted on 01.10.2001 and 08.05.2002. We have gone 
through the statements made by the supervising Magistrates, i.e. 
PW5 and PW10 as well as the proceedings of the test identification 
parades and have straightaway noticed that in the said parades 
the present appellants had not been identified with reference to 
any role played by them in the incident in issue. It has consistently 
been held by this Court that such a test identification parade is 
legally laconic and is of no evidentiary value and a reference in this 
respect may be made to the cases of Khadim Hussain v. The State 
(1985 SCMR 721), Ghulam Rasul and 3 others v. The State (1988 
SCMR 557), Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and 
others (1992 SCMR 2088), Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The 
State and another (1995 SCMR 127), Siraj-ul-Haq and another v. 
The State (2008 SCMR 302), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v.  The 
State (2008 SCMR 1221),  Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The 
State (2011 SCMR 537), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 
SCMR 563) and Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State (2012 SCMR 522). 
During the trial the above mentioned eyewitnesses had maintained 
that the appellants facing the trial were the actual culprits and the 
courts below had found such identification of the appellants during 
the trial to be of significance. We, however, note that both the 
above mentioned eyewitnesses, i.e. PW15 and PW16 had appeared 
before the trial court after 14 prosecution witnesses had already 
made their statements before the trial court and on all such 
occasions the present appellants were physically present in the 
dock and, thus, the above mentioned eyewitnesses had ample 
opportunities to see the present appellants in the courtroom on all 
such occasions. Even prior to that the appellants had been 
produced before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge 
and even at the time of obtaining remand from the concerned 
forum. This is why identification of a culprit before the trial court 
during the trial has repeatedly been held by this Court to be 
Criminal Appeals No. 128, 129 and 130 of 2010 
4 
unsafe and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of 
Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others (1992 
SCMR 2088), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State 
and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333), Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal 
(2011 SCMR 527), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 
SCMR 537) and Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State 
(2011 SCMR 683). As regards the alleged recovery of weapons from 
the appellants’ custody during the investigation suffice it to 
observe that the recovered firearms had not matched with the 
crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence and the 
alleged recoveries had been discarded by the High Court. The 
medical evidence produced by the prosecution could not point 
towards any particular culprit. The only remaining piece of 
evidence produced by the prosecution was in respect of an alleged 
abscondance 
of 
Muhammad 
Altaf 
appellant 
but 
in 
the 
circumstances of the case we have not found the alleged 
abscondance of the said appellant to be totally inconsistent with 
the hypothesis of his innocence.  
 
4. 
For what has been discussed above a conclusion is 
inescapable that the prosecution had failed to prove its case 
against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. These appeals 
are, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of Azhar 
Mehmood, Muhammad Altaf, Azam Sher and Asad Ali appellants 
are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by extending the 
benefit of doubt to them. They shall be released from the jail 
forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any 
other case.  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
02.11.2016 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif 
