IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Chairman  
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Dr. Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Ad-hoc Member-I 
Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud, Ad-hoc Member-II 
 
 
Criminal Shariat Appeal Nos.9 & 19/2017 and  
Jail Shariat Petition No.02/2020 
(Against the judgment dated 17.02.2015 passed by the Federal Shariat 
Court Islamabad in Jail Cr. Appeal Nos.15 to 19-I of 2014 along with 
Cr. Rev. No.2/Q/2014)  
 
 
Muhammad Siddique 
(Criminal Shariat Appeal No.9/2017) 
Jamshaid   
(Criminal Shariat Appeal No.19/2017) 
Saif Ullah 
(Jail Shariat Petition No.02/2020) 
 
 
…Appellant/Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
(in all cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant/ 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah,ASC/AOR 
Petitioner(s): 
 (in all cases)  
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Syed Baqir Shah, ASC/Standing counsel 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.12.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J:- Bakhat Bahadar, 50, 
was found lying dead in the bushes nearby his poultry farm located 
within the remit of Police Station Vandar, District Lasbela; the corpse 
was tied with ropes and plastic pipe; poultry flock comprising 5000 
birds along with Saif Ullah and Jamshed, employed as attendants at 
the farm, were missing from the scene; they were named as suspects in 
the crime report, laid by deceased’s brother Akhtar Zeb (PW-1). As the 
investigation progressed, Muhammad Siddique, Nadim Ahmed and Ata 
Muhammad were apprehended for being privies to the crime; they were 
indicted before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lasbela for 
committing Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased during the course of Haraba; 
they claimed trial that resulted into their convictions under section 396 
read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment 
dated 13.11.2013 whereunder Saifullah and Muhammad Siddique 
Criminal Shariat Appeal Nos.9 & 19/2017 and  
Jail Shariat Petition No.02/2020 
 
2
were sentenced to imprisonment for life while Jamshed, Nadim Ahmed 
and Atta Muhammad to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The 
Federal Shariat Court vide impugned judgment dated 17.02.2015 
maintained the convictions, however, enhanced sentence of Jamshed 
appellant to imprisonment for life; Nadim Ahmed and Atta Muhammad 
convicts are off the scene for having served out their sentences. Leave 
has been granted in Shariat Appeal Nos.9 & 19 of 2019 separately filed 
by Muhammad Siddique and Jamshed, convicts clubbed with Jail 
Shariat Petition No.2 of 2020 filed by Saifullah; with a common thread, 
these are being decided through this single judgment.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the convicts contends that the accused 
have been roped in the case on the basis of a misconceived and 
misplaced suspicion, subsequently structured upon various pieces of 
fake evidence, contrived belatedly to drive home the charge; that 
confession statement Ex.PW-8/C is manifestly bogus, fabricated to 
secure convictions in the absence of any tangible or reliable evidence. 
Contrarily, the learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the 
impugned judgment by arguing that Saifullah and Jamshed convicts 
were employed at the poultry farm, their absence from the scene after 
the brutal murder of Bakhtar Bahadar deceased is in itself a 
circumstance that speaks volumes about their guilt; according to him, 
subsequent recoveries and evidence furnished by independent 
witnesses regarding transportation of poultry birds at the weighing 
station under the supervision of Ata Muhammad accused, confirmed 
by Malkat Khan (PW-9), an independent witness, squarely framed the 
accused in the web of incriminatory circumstances that include seizure 
of sale receipts of the stolen flock from the possession of Nadim Ahmed 
whose disclosure led to the arrest of co-accused. Different pieces of 
evidence revolving around the confessional statement Ex.PW-8/C by 
Jamshed convict successfully drove home charge against all the 
accused beyond a shadow of doubt, concluded the learned Law Officer.   
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Prosecution case is structured upon various pieces of 
circumstantial 
evidence 
that 
prominently 
includes 
confessional 
statement of Jamshed appellant, recorded by a Judicial Magistrate 
(PW-8) on 11.04.2011; he was arrested on 7.4.2011 on the day when 
the dead body was spotted at the crime scene. Statement of Malkat 
Khan (PW-9), taken at its best, at the most possibly proves that Ata 
Criminal Shariat Appeal Nos.9 & 19/2017 and  
Jail Shariat Petition No.02/2020 
 
3
Muhammad convict accompanied a poultry flock, incapable of being 
identified; he confronted the witness with a plea of alibi; according to 
him, on the fateful day, he attended a marriage ceremony as far away 
as in Karachi on 7.4.2011 and signed the marriage certificate as a 
witness on the said date; he himself appeared as a witness in disproof 
of charge with the support of two other witnesses to establish his plea.  
 
 
Saifullah 
petitioner 
and 
Jamshed 
appellant 
were 
surprisingly not confronted with their alleged employment at the 
poultry farm, a grievous omission that escaped notice by both the 
courts below. According to the prosecution, the stolen flock was sold at 
an outlet under the name and style of Al-Habib Agency, though 
associated with the investigation, however, none from the outlet was 
produced during the trial to prove the sale and instead prosecution 
remained content with some computer generated receipts, genesis 
whereof is shrouded in mystery.  
 
 
Prosecution appears to have rested its case on the judicial 
confession, retracted by Jamshed appellant at the first available 
opportunity. We have gone to the confessional statement (Ex.PW-8/C) 
to find it exasperatingly comprehensive as it contains even minutest 
details, remotely connected with the incident; spreading over six pages, 
it is compendium of the prosecution case that cannot be read without 
disquiet. A deponent struggling to cleans his breast so as to ventilate 
the remorseful conscience, in the ordinary course of events would 
prefer to confine himself to the brevity of his crime instead of catering 
prosecution needs to successfully prosecute its case, otherwise placed 
in difficult straits. The exercise would essentially require either a 
prompter or an acquiescent scribe. The cautions administered to 
Jamshed appellant, on a printed form, mention that he was tortured by 
police during custody and, thus, in the totality of circumstances, it is 
difficult to assume, without potential risk of error that statement 
(Ex.PW-8/C) was a voluntary declaration of guilt that too without any 
meaningful corroboration. Once found suspect qua its maker, the 
confessional statement (Ex.PW-8/C) cannot be even considered vis-à-
vis the co-accused. Fraught with doubts, compounded by inherent 
infirmities 
cumulatively 
fail 
to 
safely 
structure 
the 
charge. 
Consequently, convictions cannot be maintained. Criminal Shariat 
Appeals No.9 & 19 of 2019 are allowed; Jail Shariat petition No.2 of 
2020 is converted into appeal and is also allowed; impugned judgment 
Criminal Shariat Appeal Nos.9 & 19/2017 and  
Jail Shariat Petition No.02/2020 
 
4
is set aside; the appellants are acquitted of the charge and have 
already been ordered to be released if not required to be detained in 
any other case by our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
  
 
 
Chairman 
 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
 
Member 
 
Member 
Islamabad, the 
3rd December, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
