IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel 
 
 
Criminal Appeal Nos.15-Q & 16-Q of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 03.09.2018 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in Cr. A. No.390 of 2016) 
 
 
Muhammad Iftikhar  
(in both cases) 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State 
(in both cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Sr.ASC 
 
Mr. Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Qazi, 
 
Addl. A.G. Balochistan 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Ahsan Rafique Rana, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
01.11.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Syed Zulfiqar, 42, was 
shot dead during the night between 27/28-1-2015 within the precincts 
of Police Station Qaidabad, Quetta; the appellant conveyed information 
to deceased’s brother Jawad Hussain (PW-1) who attended the casualty 
in Civil Hospital Quetta. A solitary fire shot on the right side of face was 
opined as fatal. The complainant named the appellant as suspect 
without citing any motive for the crime.  
 
Indicted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II Quetta, the 
appellant claimed trial, pursuant whereto, the prosecution produced a 
number of witnesses, complainant being the most prominent of them, 
who reiterated his case in the witness-box. The appellant confronted 
prosecution evidence with a denial, blaming the deceased, a drug 
addict, to have committed suicide, albeit in the premises they lived 
together. The learned trial Judge proceeded vide judgment dated 
24.11.2016 to convict the appellant under clause (b) of section 302 of 
Criminal Appeal Nos.15-Q & 16-Q of 2020 
2
the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced the appellant to 
imprisonment for life with a direction to pay compensation, upheld by a 
learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Balochistan vide 
impugned judgment dated 03.09.2018, being assailed through leave of 
the Court.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that entire 
prosecution case is structured upon a misconceived and misplaced 
suspicion as there is no eye witness of the occurrence and no other 
than the appellant himself informed the complainant about the suicidal 
death of the deceased being his friend with whom he lived in the same 
premises; he has further argued that it was appellant himself who 
brought the deceased to the hospital in a bid to save his live; mere fact 
that the deceased lived with the appellant by itself is no proof that the 
appellant committed the crime. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer, 
assisted by counsel for the complainant, argued that the deceased 
resided with the appellant and it was within his exclusive knowledge as 
to what befell upon him as the story of suicide is negated by medical 
evidence whereunder  the medical officer ruled out possibility of suicide 
pursuant to cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant; he 
adds that recovery of a .9 mm pistol wedded with the casing secured 
from the spot, in the totality of circumstances, constituted proof beyond 
doubt sufficient to sustain the conviction.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused 
4. 
 
Complainant is not an eye witness of the crime nor anyone 
else came forward to disclose the circumstances leading to the 
unnatural death of the deceased. It is also a common ground that the 
appellant not only took the deceased to the hospital but also informed 
the complainant at an odd hour of the night. Locale of injury being the 
face below the right eye with blackened margins is a possible choice for 
a person hell bent to take his own life. There is no positive opinion by 
the medical officer that ruled out the possibility of suicide; the 
conviction is based upon an indiscreet suggestion by defence lawyer 
with a grievous inaptitude and, thus, the appellant should not be 
allowed to be victim of a bad choice of his defence. Totality of 
circumstances fails to qualify to sustain the capital charge. Mystery of 
the occurrence is fraught with doubts and, thus, it would be unsafe to 
maintain the conviction. Criminal Appeal No.15-Q of 2020 is allowed; 
the impugned judgments of the courts below are set aside; the appellant 
Criminal Appeal Nos.15-Q & 16-Q of 2020 
3
is acquitted of the charge; he has already been ordered to be released 
forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 
 
Criminal Appeal No.16-Q of 2020 stands dismissed as not 
pressed.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Quetta, the 
1st November, 2021 
Azmat/- 
