IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK 
MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.66-L OF 2020 IN 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1189-L OF 2014 
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
dated 23.10.2014 passed in Capital Sentence Reference 
No. 34-T/2007 and Criminal Appeal No.534/2007) 
 
 
Muhammad Shabbir etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Appellants 
Versus 
The State  
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent 
 
For the Appellants  
: 
Mr. Sher Afghan Asdi, ASC 
 
For the Complainant 
 
Mr. Imdad Hussain Hamdani Syed, ASC 
 
 
 
For the (State)  
: 
Mr. M. Amjad Rafiq Addl. PG 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
23.06.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:-  Criminal 
appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the impugned 
judgment of learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore 
dated 23.10.2014 passed in Capital Sentence Reference No. 34-
T/2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 534/2007 whereby the conviction 
of the appellants under section 302(b) PPC awarded by the Special 
Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha vide judgment dated 
29.03.2007 on three counts each was maintained but their 
sentences were converted from death each to imprisonment for life 
each. The compensation awarded by the learned trial court and 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 2 :-
sentence in default thereof was maintained. The benefit of section 
382-B Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellants. Convictions and 
sentences under section 324, 337A(i), 337 A(ii), 337 F(i), 337 F(iii), 
337 F(vi), 148, 149 PPC were also maintained. 
2. 
 
As per prosecution story contained in the FIR                  
No. 72/2005 dated 16.02.2005, offences under section 302, 324, 
148, 149, 395 PPC read with section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, 
registered with police station Jauharabad District Khushab 
(Exh.PBB) lodged at the instance of one Mazhar Anwaar (PW-20) is 
that he along with Gul Hayat son of Mian Muhammad, Gul Hayat 
son of Muhammad Feroze were going to Lorri Adda Hadali on feet 
and when they reached in the street near the house of Muhammad 
Mahboob, from opposite side Jeep No. B-4303/Swat came in which 
Naeemullah (his brother), Said Rasool (PW-21), Hafeezullah were 
coming and Naeemullah was sitting on front seat, Said Rasool on 
back seat whereas Hafeezullah was driving the jeep. It is further 
mentioned in the crime report that when the jeep reached near the 
shop of Muhammad Iqbal Lohar, due to speed breaker the jeep 
became slow and from the shop Muhammad Shabbir armed with G-
III, Muhammad Ameer armed with Kalashnikov, Khuda Bakhsh 
(P.O.) armed with Kalashnikov, Imran son of Atta Muhammad armed 
with Kalashnikov, Imran Abbas son of Ghulam Rasool armed with 
Kalashnikov came in front of the jeep and appellant Muhammad 
Shabbir by raising lalkara made a fire shot of rifle G-III on 
Naeemullah which hit on his head. The crime report further reveals 
that appellant Muhammad Imran fired a shot with his Kalashnikov 
which landed on the chest of Naeemullah and thereafter Muhammad 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 3 :-
Ammer made fire with Kalashnikov which hit on front of the mouth 
of Hafeezullah who was driving the Jeep, thereafter Imran Abbas 
fired a shot  with .12 bore repeater that hit on the left flank of Said 
Rasool; appellant Muhammad Munir made fire with Kalashnikov 
which hit on the mouth of Naeem Ullah; thereafter Khuda Bakhsh 
(P.O.) made fire with Kalashnikov which hit on the chest of 
Hafeezullah and then all the accused persons made indiscriminate 
firing which hit on their heads, chests and different parts of the 
bodies. It is further mentioned that the appellant Shabbir while 
escaping also took licensed rifle/Kalashnikov with magazine bag, 
ammunition and license which were lying in Jeep. At some distance, 
they found Hameedullah (deceased) and Fazal-e-Haq (PW), on this 
Khuda 
Bakhsh 
(P.O.), 
appellant 
Muhammad 
Shabbir 
and 
Muhammad Ameer made repeated fires on Hameedullah which hit 
on his chest, back, left hand and different parts of his body. The 
matter was reported to the police and as such instant crime report 
was registered with the local police.  
3. 
 
After registration of the aforesaid case, it was found 
that the appellants Muhammad Shabbir etc. after committing the 
occurrence forcibly snatched a car No. LRZ-4949 Model 2004 2-OD 
on gun point  within the view of Allah Bakhsh (PW-19) and fled 
away. The appellants were taken into custody and after the 
conclusion of the investigation; they were challaned while placing 
their names in column No.3 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 
On receipt of challan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 
Khushab formally charge sheeted the appellants vide order dated 
20.03.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 4 :-
complainant moved application under section 12 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 which was dismissed vide order dated 
14.11.2005 and complainant filed writ petition No.18694/2005 
before learned High Court and vide order dated 26.02.2007 the 
learned High Court transferred this case from learned Additional 
Sessions Judge Khushab to the court of Special Judge, Anti 
Terrorism, Sargodha and a fresh charge was framed against all the 
accused on 20.03.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and 
claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced 
as many as 22 witnesses. The appellants were examined under 
Section 342, Cr.P.C, however, they opted not to appear in their 
defence as their own witness in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. to 
disproof the allegations levelled against them and they did not 
produce any defence evidence. 
4. 
 
The learned trial court after conclusion of trial found 
that the prosecution succeeded to prove allegations against the 
petitioner, hence convicted the appellants under section 302/149 
PPC and sentenced to death each on three counts for committing the 
murder of Naeemullah, Hafeezullah and Hameedullah along with 
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. 
payable to each legal heirs of deceased and in default thereof 
further undergo six months each on three counts. They were also 
convicted under sections 324/149 PPC and sentenced to ten years 
R.I. each for attempting to commit the Qatl-i-Amd of Said Rasool 
along with fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof further 
undergo three months S.I. each. They were also convicted under 
section 337 A(i)/149 PPC and to pay Rs.25,000/- each as Daman 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 5 :-
for causing Shajjah-e-Khafifah to Said Rasool and in default thereof 
further undergo two years R.I. They were also convicted under 
section 337 A(ii)/149 PPC and to pay Rs.15,000/- each for causing 
Shajjah-e-Mudiah to Said Rasool as five percent of Arsh and also 
undergo five years R.I. as Tazir. They were also convicted under 
section 337 F(i)/149 PPC and to pay Rs.25,000/- each as Daman for 
causing Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah to Said Rasool and also undergo one 
year R.I. as Tazir. They were also convicted under section under 
section 337 F(iii)/149 PPC and to pay Rs.25,000/- each as Daman 
for causing Ghayr-Jaifah Mutalahimah to Said Rasool and also 
undergo three years R.I. as Tazir. They were also convicted under 
section 337 F(vi)/149 PPC and to pay Rs.25,000/- as Daman for 
causing Ghayr-Jaifah Munaqqillah to Said Rasool and also undergo 
seven years R.I. each as Tazir.  They were also convicted under 
sections 148/149 PPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. 
each. The appellants were also convicted under section 7(a) of the 
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sentenced to death each along with fine 
of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof undergo three years S.I. 
They were also convicted under section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism 
Act, 1997 read with section 149 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life each along with fine Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof 
further undergo three years S.I. 
5. 
 
The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of the 
learned trial court dated 29.03.2007 filed criminal appeal 
No.534/2007 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereas the 
learned trial court forwarded Capital Sentence Reference No.34-
T/2007 for confirmation of the sentence of death inflicted upon the 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 6 :-
appellants. The learned Division Bench of High Court vide judgment 
dated 23.10.2014 set aside the convictions and sentences recorded 
against the appellants under section 7(a) & 7(c) of Anti-Terrorism 
Act, 1997, however, maintained their convictions under section 
302(b) PPC awarded by the learned trial court on three counts each 
but converted the sentence from death each to imprisonment for life 
each. The compensation awarded by the learned trial court and 
sentence in default thereof was maintained. The benefit of section 
382-B Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellants. Convictions and 
sentences under section 324, 337A(i), 337 A(ii), 337 F(i), 337 F(iii), 
337 F(vi), 148, 149 PPC were also maintained.  
6. 
 
Leave to appeal was granted by this Court by means of 
order dated 20.02.2020 for reappraisal of entire evidence available 
on the record for safe administration of criminal justice. 
7. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned 
counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that both the courts below 
have not taken the evidence available on the record in its true 
prospective and same has not been evaluated according to the 
established principles of law enunciated by superior courts from 
time to time. Contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its 
case against the present appellants as there are many major 
discrepancies in the statements of the PWs and there is conflict 
between ocular account and medical evidence. It has been further 
argued that firing is attributed to all the accused including Khuda 
Bakhsh (P.O.), hence, learned High Court has failed to appreciate 
the facts and law of the case in its true perspective and has drawn 
wrong conclusion due to which gross miscarriage of justice has 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 7 :-
taken place in this case. Further contends that there are 
circumstances which created reasonable doubt in the prudent mind 
about the guilt of the appellants, then they would be entitled for the 
same not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of 
right. Further contends that besides causing specific injuries on the 
persons of deceased, they all resorted to indiscriminate firing and 
firearm injuries on the person of injured Said Rasool was specifically 
attribute to co-accused Muhammad Hussain who was acquitted by 
the learned High Court and when the injured eyewitness has not 
been believed qua his own injuries, his evidence cannot be used to 
convict the appellants when recoveries from the appellants were not 
relied by the learned High Court. Learned counsel further contends 
that the complainant in his statement as PW-20 has stated that no 
untoward incident had taken place after the acquittal of Naeem till 
the occurrence , hence, the motive setup by the prosecution remained 
far from being proved, therefore, it create a doubt in the genuineness 
of the prosecution version resulting into acquittal of the appellants. 
8. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by 
learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has argued that 
the prosecution has been succeeded to establish the case against 
the appellants. Further contends that three persons were done to 
death in brutal manner whereas one person was seriously injured 
which shows the highhandedness of the appellants which is spelled 
out from the facts and circumstance of this case. It is contended that 
the ocular account was furnished by the quite independent and 
trustworthy witnesses duly supported by the medical evidence. 
Lastly it was argued that the appellants by resorting to firing had 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 8 :-
taken the life of three innocent persons and the prosecution adduced 
its case through straight forward, reliable and confidence inspiring 
evidence, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly convicted and 
sentenced the appellants under the relevant provisions of law. 
9. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record. 
 
 
We have noticed that it is a case of highhandedness in 
which three persons were done to death in brutal manner and one 
person was seriously injured.  It is noticed that as per post mortem 
reports, the deceased Naeemullah received 28 injuries, deceased 
Hafeezullah received as many as 34 injuries and deceased 
Hameedulah received 12 injures on different parts of their bodies. 
The injured PW Said Rasool also received as many as nineteen 
injures on different parts of his body. The occurrence initiated when 
both the deceased  Naeem Ullah ( sitting on front seat), Hafeezullah  
(driver) and injured Said Rasool (PW-21) (sitting on back seat) were 
passing on Jeep No.B-4303/Swat near the shop of Muhammad Iqbal 
Lohar, the appellants came from the shop and appellant Muhammad 
Shabbir made a fire shot of rifle G-III on Naeemullah which hit on his 
head; appellant Muhammad Imran made a fire shot with his 
Kalashnikov which hit on the chest of Naeemullah whereas 
appellant Muhammad Munir made fire with Kalashnikov which hit 
on the mouth of Naeem Ullah and all the accused persons made 
indiscriminate firing which hit on their heads, chests and different 
parts of the bodies.  The injured Said Rasool (PW-21) also sustained 
serious injuries. It is further noticed that after committing the 
occurrence, when the appellants etc. were decamping, at some 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 9 :-
distance they found Hameedullah and one Fazal-e-Haq, the 
appellants etc. made repeated fires on Hameedullah which hit on 
his chest, back, left hand and different parts of his body. 
Subsequently, it was found that after committing the occurrence, the 
appellants etc. forcibly snatched a car No. LRZ-4949 (P-35) within 
the view of Allah Bakhash (PW-19) on gun point and on 17.02.2005 
the appellants were arrested near Jhelum River while travelling on 
the same car. The ocular account has been furnished by Mazhar 
Anwaar (PW-20) and Said Rasool injured (PW-21) and prosecution 
also rely on the statement of Allah Bakhash (PW-19).  So far as the 
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the firearm 
injuries of Said Rasool (PW-21) were specifically attributed to co-
accused Muhammad Hussain who was acquitted by learned High 
Court, is concerned, careful perusal of the entire evidence produced 
by the prosecution reveals that since the occurrence had taken place 
in the broad daylight in the street  near the shop of Muhammad 
Iqbal Lohar in the same village, therefore, the presence of Mazhar 
Anwaar (PW-20) and Said Rasool injured (PW-21) at the scene of 
occurrence was quite natural and beyond any doubt and the 
statements of the prosecution witnesses are consistent, confidence 
inspiring and in consonance with the probability and circumstances 
of the case and being worthy of credence, which could not be 
brushed aside. Injured Said Rasool (PW-21) received firearms 
injures in the occurrence while sitting in the jeep and saw the 
occurrence, hence, his presence at the relevant time cannot be 
considered as unnatural and improbable and he has no enmity or 
malice against the appellants and his testimony is duly supported 
by medical evidence having been found confidence inspiring, truthful 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 10 :-
and unimpeachable. Furthermore it is noticed that co-accused 
Muhammad Hussain has been acquitted by learned High Court on 
the basis that his name has been replaced with Imran Abbas son of 
Ghulam Rasool, caste Kharal resident of Chak No. 47 North, District 
Sargodha by complainant Mazhar Anwaar (PW-20) in his second 
supplementary statement dated 18.02.2005 and no identification 
parade was held for identification of the co-accused Muhammad 
Hussain and prosecution is not certain about the identity of 
Muhammad Hussain, benefit of which was given to him. It is further 
noticed that the report of Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PZ) shows that 
all empties except some were fired from the weapons recovered from 
the appellants. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that 
there are major discrepancies in the statement of PWs, it is 
established law that if the discrepancies are shattering the 
prosecution story on salient feature then it has substance to 
intervene on the subject otherwise it has no impact on the veracity of 
the prosecution story. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled 
"MUHAMMAD IQBAL  versus THE STATE” (PLD 2001 Supreme 
Court 222).We have observed during the course of proceedings that 
the father of appellant Muhammad Shabbir was murdered wherein 
Naeemullah deceased was one of the accused. There is no denial to 
this fact that he was finally acquitted of the charge, therefore, the 
revenge in the mind of appellant continued cultivation and ultimately 
instant occurrence has taken place. In such like cases where the 
murders 
are committed 
as revenge depends upon human 
physiology. The human being a creature of the environment; 
therefore, he is governed by the background of the society from 
where he hails. Although this aspect do not cover the doctrine of 
Criminal Appeal No. 66-L of 2020. 
-: 11 :-
provocation still the area and other antecedent of persons are 
relevant factor while taking into account which might be suggesting 
for a moment where revenge can be regarded as mitigating 
circumstances, however, the question of sentence in each criminal 
case definitely has direct nexus with the particular circumstances of 
the said case. This principle was considered and relied upon by 
salutary judgment titled "AJUN SHAH versus THE STATE" (PLD 
1967 Supreme Court 185). The learned High Court while handing 
down the judgment impugned before us has already taken care of 
all established principles of law and converted the sentences of each 
appellant from death to imprisonment for life which seems to us 
appropriate and in accordance with law. The contentions raised by 
learned counsel are without any force which are repelled. As a 
consequence, this appeal is dismissed. 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Lahore 
23.06.2020 
Approved for reporting. 
Athar 
