IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeals No.67-L & 68-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28.11.2013 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal 
Appeals No.148 & 202 of 2010 and CSR No.3-T of 
2010). 
 
Safdar Baloch alias Ali 
(In Crl.A.67-L/2017) 
Aziz Khan 
(In Crl.A.68-L/2017) 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc. 
(In both cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Naseer-ud-Din Khan Nayyar, ASC 
(In Crl.A.67-L/2017) 
Miss Najma Parveen, ASC 
(In Crl.A.68-L/2017) 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 09.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Criminal Appeal 
No.67-L/2017 by Safdar Baloch alias Ali and Criminal Appeal 
No.68-L/2017 by Aziz Khan, through leave of the Court, arisen out 
of incident dated 15.12.2005 are bound by a common thread; 
these are being decided through this single judgment.  
2.  
 
Prosecution case is structured upon statement of 
Iftikhar Khan, PW-1; on the eventful day at about 7.30 a.m. he was 
about to leave home to drop his son namely Shahrayar Khan at the 
school when the appellants along with Nazir Ahmed, co-accused, 
differently armed, confronted him. Safdar Baloch alias Ali and 
Nazir Ahmad shot him with .12 caliber guns on his left leg; as he 
felled on the ground Aziz Khan, appellant took Shahryar, aged 7/8, 
Criminal Appeal Nos.67-L & 68-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
and whisked away in a car while demanding a sum of 
Rs.500,000/- as ransom.  The complainant was rushed to Jinnah 
Hospital, Lahore; examined at 8.35 a.m., he was noted with two 
entry wounds on left leg with corresponding exits. Incident was 
reported to the police at 11:40 a.m. In hot pursuit of the culprits, 
Sardar Ali, ASI, intercepted car bearing No.LZV-9611 on a police 
picket; the person on wheel decamped from the scene by scaling 
over an adjoining wall, while Nazir Ahmad co-accused was 
subdued alongside the child. The appellants stayed away from law; 
they were arrested on 8.7.2008 and 18.3.2009 respectively; Nazir 
Ahmad, co-accused had already faced trial with failures of his 
appeals throughout. It is in this backdrop that the appellants were 
convicted under Section 365-A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, 
Section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 324 read with 
Section 34 of the Code ibid; they are sentenced to death alongside 
collateral sentences for murderous assault. Their appeals met with 
no better fate with capital sentence reference, returned in 
affirmative.  
3. 
 
First 
glance 
cannot 
escape 
preponderance 
of 
prosecution’s evidence; Iftikhar Khan, PW undoubtedly endured 
the assault; he was medially examined, noted to have injuries 
extensive in nature and consistent with the weapons allegedly used 
in the crime. First Information Report was recorded with a 
remarkable promptitude with accused prominently named therein; 
vehicle mentioned in the crime report was intercepted same day at 
police picket alongside Nazir Ahmed, co-accused with the child; 
later appeared as a witness to point out his finger upon the 
appellants. However, certain intriguing aspects of the case warrant 
an independent and careful scrutiny of evidence. The fate of the 
present appellants is not linked with the outcome of trial of Nazir 
Ahmad, co-accused, for a variety of reasons. The foremost question 
is as to how the complainant nominated the accused merely after 
having their momentary glimpses in a marriage ceremony few days 
before the occurrence. They were not with the child when the 
vehicle was intercepted, nor can it be held with certainty that the 
one who took to heels was one of them and this leaves Nazir 
Ahmad, co-accused alone in the field. Statement of the child, 
Criminal Appeal Nos.67-L & 68-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
statedly of 7/8 years of age at the relevant time, certainly requires 
a very cautious scrutiny; he is reticent on important details of the 
episode, 
relating 
to 
the 
present 
appellants; 
being 
of 
an 
impressionable age, having experienced the nightmare his 
susceptibility to tuition cannot be ruled out. Argument that crime 
report was recorded after arrest of Nazir Ahmed, co-accused and 
the appellants were named therein on the basis of information 
other than purportedly laid by the complainant is not entirely 
beside the mark. While the occurrence cannot possibly be denied, 
nonetheless, nomination of the appellants on complainant’s 
knowledge is a circumstance fraught with doubts. A crowded 
ceremony 
would 
provide 
little 
space/opportunity 
to 
the 
complainant to remember the faces and names of the participants 
and thus once the source of information about appellants’ 
participation in the crime is found suspect it would be unsafe to 
rely upon the testimony of a vulnerable witness alone, particularly 
when the appellants were not arrested alongside the co-accused. 
Criminal liability is to be essentially settled on evidentiary certainty 
and not on moral satisfaction or factualities incompatible with 
evidence based upon truth. Prosecution’s case against the 
appellants cannot be viewed as beyond reasonable doubt and thus  
conviction cannot be maintained without potential risk of error. 
Resultantly, criminal appeals are allowed, impugned judgment is 
set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required 
in any other case. 
   
     
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
09th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
