IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 
(Against judgment dated 19.01.2015 
passed 
by 
Lahore 
High 
Court 
in 
Criminal Appeal No.2264 of 2011 as 
well as CSR No.46-T of 2011) 
 
 
Muhammad Tariq Ramzan 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant: 
Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Qadri, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, 
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
  
 
 
Date of hearing: 
09.10.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
     Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Muhammad Tariq 
Ramzan, appellant tried alongside his real brothers Zahid Ramzan 
and Abid Ramzan, since acquitted, was returned a guilty verdict by 
the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Faisalabad, in 
the absence of Tahir alias Mana and Nazar Abbas, co-accused, 
since proceeded against as proclaimed offenders; alongside Tahir 
alias Mana, he is attributed fire shots to Muhammad Adeel 
deceased within the remit of Police Station Mansoorabad, District 
Faisalabad on 16.8.2011 at 2:30 p.m. It is prosecution’s case that 
the accused used blasphemous and derogatory language against 
the holy personage and as the deceased admonished them, they 
harboured a grudge, finally settled on the fateful day. The accused 
were sent to face trial on both charges separately and it is admitted 
at all hands that they have been acquitted from the charges of 
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 
2
blasphemy. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with 
Tahir alias Mana targeted the deceased with multiple fire shots; 
autopsy report confirmed six entry wounds with corresponding 
exits. Arrested on 29.8.2011, the appellant pursuant to a 
disclosure, led to the recovery of .30 caliber pistol P-3, found 
wedded with two of the casings secured from the spot. Upon 
conclusion of investigation, indicted before the learned Special 
Judge, he alongside the co-accused claimed trial which culminated 
into his conviction with penalty of death on two counts vide 
judgment dated 15.12.2011; his appeal failed on all counts, 
however, with alteration of penalty of death into imprisonment for 
life vide impugned judgment dated 19.01.2015, vires whereof are 
being challenged by leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
Acquittal of co-accused as well as failure of case of 
blasphemy besides the improbable presence of the witnesses at the 
relevant time have been pressed into service by Mr. Sagheer 
Ahmad Qadri, ASC to argue that it would be unsafe to maintain 
the judgment; contrarily defended by the learned Law Officer.   
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
The prosecution case is primarily structured upon 
ocular account furnished by Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad 
Iqbal, PWs; we are not impressed by the argument that they had 
no business at the crime scene, a small grocery outlet in the 
village; both of them from the same neighbourhood, i.e. Chak 
No.203/RB, Mananwala Faisalabad and as such in the absence of 
strong and positive evidence, to suggest the contrary, their 
presence cannot be viewed with suspicion. On an independent 
analysis of their statements, they are found in a comfortable 
unison on all the salient details of the occurrence as well as the 
issues collateral therewith nor there is even an oblique reference to 
any animus, propelling them to falsely implicate the appellant in a 
small locality within broad daylight. Though held inconsequential 
by the High Court, nonetheless, weapon recovered on appellant’s 
disclosure is found consistent with the nature of injuries suffered 
by the deceased. Notwithstanding, prosecution’s failure on the 
charges of blasphemy, the ocular account itself independently is 
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 
3
found by us sufficient to sustain the charge. The High Court has 
already exercised caution with regard to quantum of sentence to be 
exacted from the appellant. The evidence points inexorably upon 
appellant’s culpability, leaving no space to entertain any 
hypothesis of his innocence, however, with failure of charges of 
blasphemy, the motive part of prosecution case plunges into 
darkness that casts away the charge under section 7(a) of the Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, while maintaining appellant’s 
conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal 
Code, 1860, he is acquitted from the charge under Section 7 of the 
Act ibid; amount of compensation and consequences in the event 
of default are kept intact with benefit of section 382-B of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Criminal appeal is partly allowed in 
the terms noted above.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad  
9th October, 2019 
Not Approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
