IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Murder Reference No. 414/2014 and 
Criminal Appeal No. 2278/2014) 
 
Maqsood Alam 
 
 
 
 
(In Cr.P. 1710-L/2017) 
Mukhtar Ahmed, complainant 
 
 
(In Cr.P. 1329/2017) 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State etc  
 
 
 
 
(In Cr.P. 1710-L/2017) 
Maqsood Alam etc  
 
 
 
(In Cr.P. 1329/2017) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC 
(In Cr.P. 1710-L/2017) 
 
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Bajwa, ASC 
Sh. Mahmood Ahmad, AOR 
(In Cr.P 1329/2017) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
12.10.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1710-L OF 2017 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Maqsood Alam along 
with four co-accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 
Khushab, in a private complaint lodged under Sections 302/109/34 PPC. 
The private complaint was instituted being dissatisfied with the 
investigation conducted by the Police in case registered vide FIR No. 102 
dated 01.12.2011 under Sections 302/109/34 PPC at Police Station 
Noshehra District Khushab for committing murder of Muhammad Munir 
and Muhammad Anwaar, maternal uncle and brother of the complainant. 
The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.12.2014 while 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 2 :-
acquitting the co-accused of the petitioner, convicted the petitioner under 
Section 302(b) and sentenced him to death on two counts. He was also 
directed to pay Rs.100,000/- on two counts as compensation to the legal 
heirs of each deceased or in default whereof to further undergo SI for six 
months. In appeal the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction 
of the petitioner Maqsood Alam, altered the sentence of death into 
imprisonment for life on two counts. The amount of compensation and 
the sentence in default thereof was also maintained. Benefit of Section 
382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the 
learned High Court reads as under:- 
“2. 
Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR (Ex.PJ) registered on the 
statement of Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant (PW.7) is that he was 
employed in Atomic Energy, Chowk Grot Jauharabad. Muhammad Munir 
maternal uncle (mamoon) of complainant was Deputy Manager in PASCO 
Department at Sargodha. On 01.12.2011 at around 2.20 p.m. the 
complainant along with his maternal uncle Muhammad Munir came to 
their native village Mauza Dhadhar for offering fateha khawani of their 
forefathers. Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Anwaar brother of 
complainant went to graveyard of Mauza Dhadhar for offering fateha 
khawani. Subsequently, the complainant, his cousin (khalazad) Elahi 
Bakhsh and Sarwar Noor proceeded towards graveyard. When maternal 
uncle and brother of complainant were offering fateha khawani, all of a 
sudden, Maqsood Alam (appellant) armed with rifle and an unknown co-
accused armed with pistol 30 bore arrived at graveyard and raised lalkara 
that they would not spare them (maternal uncle and brother of 
complainant). Then Maqsood Alam (appellant) fired at maternal uncle of 
complainant which landed on right side of his chest. Second fire made by 
Maqsood Alam also hit him on upper outer left side of chest. Maqsood 
Alam fired third shot which landed on back side of right elbow of 
complainant's maternal uncle. Fourth fire made by the appellant hit 
maternal uncle of complainant underneath his right buttock, who fell 
down. Unknown co-accused fired with pistol at Muhammad Anwaar 
brother of complainant hitting him on left outer side of chest below 
armpit. Then Maqsood Alam (appellant) made another fire shot which 
landed on abdomen of maternal uncle of complainant. Both the injured 
fell on the ground. On seeing the complainant party, Maqsood Alam and 
unknown co-accused decamped from the spot. The complainant party 
reached the spot but Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Anwaar 
succumbed to the injuries.  
Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR was that 
disputes regarding rishta were going on between the complainant party 
and Maqsood Alam (appellant) etc. It was further alleged that the 
occurrence was committed by Maqsood Alam etc. on the abetment of 
Mehboob Elahi, Bashir Alam and Amir Karim, which occurrence was 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 3 :-
witnessed by the complainant, his khalazad Elahi Bakhsh and Sarwar 
Noor. Dead bodies of both the deceased were taken to Civil Hospital, 
Noshehra on separate private vehicles. The unknown co-accused of the 
appellant was nominated as Fawad Alam by the complainant through 
supplementary statement on 17.12.2011.” 
 
3. 
 
The conviction of the petitioner was recorded in a private 
complaint. The complainant produced cursory statements whereafter the 
formal charge was framed against the petitioner. In order to prove its case 
the prosecution produced eight PWs and six CWs. 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 make his 
statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of allegations 
leveled against him. However, he produced some documentary evidence 
in his defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued 
that the witnesses of the ocular account were chance and related 
witnesses 
and 
there 
are 
glaring 
contradictions 
and 
dishonest 
improvements in their statements, which escaped the notice of the 
learned courts below. Contends that the prosecution story is negated by 
the medical evidence, therefore, the same has lost its sanctity and the 
conviction cannot be based upon it. Contends that the recoveries and the 
motive have been disbelieved by the learned courts below, which causes a 
doubt in the prosecution case. Contends that on the same set of evidence, 
the co-accused of the petitioner namely Fawad Alam, who was ascribed 
the similar role has been acquitted but the petitioner has been convicted 
without any further corroboration. Lastly contends that the reasons given 
by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are 
speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may 
be set at naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this petition on the 
ground that prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner to 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 4 :-
falsely implicate him in this case. It has been contended that to sustain 
conviction of the petitioner, the prosecution has placed on record 
trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, the petitioner does not 
deserve any leniency from this Court, rather his sentence may be 
enhanced. 
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their 
able assistance.  
7. 
 
A bare perusal of the record reflects that the unfortunate 
incident wherein two persons lost their lives took place on 01.12.2011 at 
about 02:20 pm in the graveyard of Mauza Dhadhar, District Khushab. 
Initially, the petitioner Maqsood Alam and one unknown person were 
nominated to have committed the crime. The petitioner Maqsood Alam 
was ascribed the role of causing injuries with rifle to Muhammad Munir, 
maternal uncle of the complainant, while the unknown accused was 
ascribed the role of causing firearm injuries with pistol at the body of 
Muhammad Anwaar, brother of the complainant. The complainant 
Mukhtar Ahmed (PW-7) and Elahi Bakhsh (PW-8) were said to have 
witnessed the whole occurrence. The complainant firstly disclosed the 
name of the co-accused as Fawad Alam on 17.12.2011 through his 
supplementary statement. However, the said Fawad Alam was acquitted 
by the learned Trial Court mainly on the ground that it was broad day 
occurrence whereas the PWs and the accused persons were residents of 
the same village Dhadhar. There is nothing on the record that Fawad Alam 
was not resident of the same village rather he had studied in High School 
at Noshehra, which clearly reflects that he had been living in the same 
village till attaining the age of puberty. There is no denial to this fact that 
the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other and even the 
relationship with the accused is not denied, which has been admitted by 
them. The PWs were acquainted with the accused being the co-villagers. In 
view of the fact that the parties were known to each other, non-
mentioning the name of the co-accused Fawad Alam in the crime report 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 5 :-
shifted the burden on the shoulder of the prosecution to assign justiciable 
reasons for non-identification of Fawad Alam at the time of occurrence viz 
a viz the non-mentioning of his name in the crime report, especially when 
it is an admitted fact that it is not the case of prosecution that the accused 
committed the crime with muffled faces. According to Ghulam Bahoo (PW-
5) and Ahmad Nawaz (PW-6), two days prior to the occurrence i.e. on 
29.11.2011, they were present in the graveyard in connection with the 
funeral ceremony of one Ahmad Khan wherein they overheard petitioner 
Maqsood Alam showing his inclination regarding the instant occurrence. 
The learned Trial Court while acquitting co-accused Fawad Alam rightly 
observed that when the PWs had overheard the malicious intent of 
petitioner Maqsood Alam with the allegiance of Fawad Alam on 
29.11.2011 then it was obligatory for them to disclose the same with 
particulars of Fawad Alam to the complainant as well as while making 
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Although the complainant 
challenged the acquittal of said Fawad Alam before the learned High Court 
by filing a petition against acquittal but later on withdrew the same, which 
means that the findings of the learned Trial Court regarding the acquittal 
attained finality and the prosecution case to the extent of murder of 
Muhammad Anwaar has been disbelieved. In these circumstances, more 
caution was needed to decide the case of the petitioner Maqsood Alam. 
We have noted that the complainant was employee of Pakistan Atomic 
Energy Commission, Jauharabad, which was at a distance of 100 
kilometers from the place of occurrence. During the course of proceedings 
before the Trial Court, an attested copy of attendance register (Ex.DM) 
was placed on record, which shows that on the day of occurrence the 
complainant was present in his office. We have also noted that according 
to the witnesses, the accused fired at the deceased from a distance of 3/4 
karams but the medical record shows that there was blackening and 
charring around the wounds, which suggests that the injuries were caused 
from a close range, which further negates the ocular account. There were 
only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who admittedly, have been 
disbelieved to the extent of co-accused of the petitioner. We have noted 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 6 :-
that the recovery from the petitioner Maqsood Alam is inconsequential 
because admittedly no crime empty was collected from the place of 
occurrence. Motive has also rightly been disbelieved by the learned High 
Court by holding that it is a vaguely formulated motive and no evidence in 
support of the same has been placed on record. When the ocular account 
of the two eye-witnesses had been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court 
against the acquitted co-accused, who was alleged to have played a similar 
role in the occurrence, then the same evidence could not be relied upon to 
convict the petitioner on capital punishment unless there was an 
independent corroboration and some strong incriminating evidence to the 
extent of his involvement in commission of the offence but as discussed 
above the same is lacking in the instant case. In the case of Niaz Vs. The 
State (PLD 1960 SC 387) B.Z. Kaikaus, J. speaking for the Court held as 
under:- 
“if the Court finds that the number mentioned by interested 
persons may have been exaggerated their word cannot be made 
the basis of conviction and the Court will have to look for some 
additional circumstance which corroborates their testimony. This 
circumstance need not be such that it can of its own probative force 
bring home the charge to the accused. It should, however, be a 
circumstance which points to the inference that the particular 
accused whose case is being considered did participate in the 
commission of the offence. The force that such circumstance should 
possess in order that it may be sufficient as corroboration must 
depend on the particular circumstance of each case. However, the 
circumstance itself must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” 
 
8. 
 
In Nazir Vs. The State (PLD 1962 SC 269) this Court explained 
the Niaz supra judgment in the following terms:- 
“There cannot be an inflexible rule that the statement of an 
“interested” witness can never be accepted without corroboration. 
By what was said in Niaz Vs. The State (PLD 1960 SC 387) it was not 
meant to lay down any rule of law though it explained for the 
guidance of Courts the Supreme Court’s approach to the problem 
that generally confronts the Courts in cases of crime by violence.  
There may be an interested witness whom the Court regards 
as incapable of falsely implicating an innocent person. But he will be 
an exceptional witness and, so far as an ordinary interested witness 
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 7 :-
is concerned, it cannot be said that it is safe to rely upon his 
testimony in respect of every person against whom he deposes. In 
order, therefore, to be satisfied that no innocent persons are being 
implicated along with the guilty, the Court will in the case of an 
ordinary interested witness look for some circumstance that gives 
sufficient support to his statement so as to create that degree of 
probability which can be made the basis of conviction. This is what 
is meant by saying that the statement of an interested witness 
ordinarily needs corroboration.” 
 
9. 
 
It is settled principle of law that the conviction must be 
based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt 
arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused and 
burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond 
reasonable doubt. It is also an established principle of law and equity that 
it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person 
should not suffer. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case 
are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which 
entitles the petitioner benefit of the doubt not as a matter of grace and 
concession but as of right. For the accused to be afforded this right of 
the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many 
circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the 
benefit of the same must go to the accused. Reliance is placed on Mst. 
Asia Bibi Vs. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 
SCMR 1345), Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) and Abdul 
Jabbar vs. State (2019 SCMR 129).  
 
10. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition is 
converted into appeal, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. 
The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail 
unless detained/required in any other case.  
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1329 OF 2017 
11. 
 
In view of the judgment passed in the connected Criminal 
Petition No. 1710-L/2017, this petition seeking enhancement of the 
sentence awarded to the petitioner/convict Maqsood Alam has become 
infructuous and the same is dismissed accordingly.  
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 1710-L & 1329 OF 2017 
-: 8 :-
12. 
 
The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of 
even date.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
12th of October, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
