IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed  
 
 
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 in Criminal Petition 
No. 1245-L of 2010  
(Against the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed by this Court in 
Criminal Petition No. 1245-L of 2010) 
 
 
Kareem Nawaz Khan 
            
 
…Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State  
…Respondent 
 
For the petitioner: 
Mr. Abid Saqi, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehr Khanl Malik, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
21.06.2019 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.:  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 512 of 2019  
 
 
This miscellaneous application is allowed in the terms 
prayed for therein. Disposed of.  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 513 of 2019 
 
2. 
For the reasons mentioned in this miscellaneous application 
the same is allowed and the delay in filing of the present review 
petition is condoned. Disposed of. 
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 
2
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 
 
3. 
Karim Nawaz Khan petitioner had allegedly murdered his 
sister, a brother and a sister-in-law by firing at them with the use 
of a Kalashnikov in an incident taking place at about 12.00 Noon 
on 03.06.2007 inside the house of Muhammad Khan complainant 
in village Whandi Shiapur in the area of Police Station Moch, 
District Mianwali in the backdrop of a motive based upon a dispute 
between the parties over some ancestral property. With these 
allegations the petitioner was booked in case FIR No. 101 
registered at the above mentioned Police Station soon after the 
incident and after a regular trial the petitioner was convicted on 
three counts of an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was 
sentenced to death on each count and to pay compensation and 
Diyat to the heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also 
convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 7(a) of the 
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and even on that count of the charge he 
was sentenced to death and to pay fine. The petitioner was 
additionally convicted by the trial court for an offence under 
section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and for the said 
offence he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years 
and to pay fine. The petitioner challenged his convictions and 
sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was 
dismissed and all his convictions and sentences recorded by the 
trial court were upheld and confirmed by the High Court. 
Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court through Criminal 
Petition No. 1245-L of 2010 but the said petition was also 
dismissed by this Court on 05.06.2012 and leave to appeal was 
refused to him. Hence, the present review petition before this 
Court.  
 
4. 
On 05.06.2012 this Court had dismissed Criminal Petition 
No. 1245-L of 2010 after attending to the merits of the petitioner’s 
case and it had been held by this Court that the courts below were 
justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and in 
upholding and confirming his sentences. Through the present 
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 
3
review petition it has been brought to this Court’s notice that after 
passage of the said order by this Court upholding and maintaining 
the petitioner’s convictions and sentences the heirs of all the three 
deceased had entered into a compromise with the petitioner which 
compromise was presented before the trial court, i.e. the Anti-
Terrorism Court, Sargodha and vide judgment dated 19.02.2014 
the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargohda was pleased to 
accept the said compromise on all the three counts of the charge 
under section 302(b), PPC whereas the said compromise was 
rejected to the extent of the petitioner’s convictions and sentences 
for the offences under sections 7(a) and 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism 
Act, 1997. We have gone through the said order passed by the trial 
court on 19.02.2014 and have noticed that the trial court had felt 
satisfied regarding genuineness and completion of the acclaimed 
compromise between the parties. Through the present review 
petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in 
view of the compromise affected between the parties vis-à-vis the 
offences under section 302(b), PPC the sentence of the petitioner 
for the offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 
may be reduced from death to imprisonment for life. In support of 
this submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has refereed 
to the cases of Muhammad Nawaz v The State (PLD 2014 SC 383), 
Shahif Zafar and 3 others v The State (PLD 2014 SC 809) and M. 
Ashraf Bhatti and others v M. Aasam Butt and others (PLD 2006 SC 
182). The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing 
for the State has submitted that in the above mentioned precedent 
cases this Court had indeed utilized a compromise between the 
parties for reduction of a convict’s sentence of death to 
imprisonment for life on a charge under section 7(a) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and, thus, the matter of reduction of the 
petitioner’s sentence on such a score in the present case lies 
within the discretion of the Court.  
 
5. 
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going 
through the record we have noticed that the appellant was very 
closely related to all the three murdered persons in this case, i.e. 
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 
4
he was a brother of two of the deceased and a brother-in-law of the 
third deceased and the incident in issue had taken place because 
of a dispute between the parties over some ancestral property. 
According to the prosecution itself there was no enmity between 
the parties and the present incident had taken place about half an 
hour of an earlier incident wherein the petitioner and the deceased 
and some others had quarreled with each while discussing the 
matter of ancestral property. It could, thus, be said that in the 
absence of any on-going enmity between the parties the present 
occurrence had taken place because of some very recent 
provocation offered to the petitioner by the complainant party while 
discussing the issue regarding ancestral property. It may, 
therefore, be a case not of grave and sudden provocation but a 
case which was based upon some provocation recently offered to 
the petitioner although the same was not sudden. In a case of such 
a situation this Court has held that the least that a Court can do 
in such a case is to reduce the sentence of death to imprisonment 
for life and a reference in this respect may be made to the case of 
Ghulam Abbas v Mazhar Abbas and another (PLD 1991 SC 1059).  
There is an additional factor available in this case for reduction of 
the petitioner’s sentence of death to imprisonment for life and that 
is that a valid compromise had been arrived at between the parties 
which has already been allowed by the trial court vis-à-vis three 
counts of the charge under section 302(b), PPC. In the cases of 
Muhammad Nawaz v The State (PLD 2014 SC 383), Shahif Zafar 
and 3 others v The State (PLD 2014 SC 809) and M. Ashraf Bhatti 
and others v M. Aasam Butt and others (PLD 2006 SC 182) this 
Court has already considered a valid and accepted compromise in 
the coordinate offence to be a valid ground for reduction of a 
sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the charge of 
terrorism or of a non-compoundable offence.  
 
6. 
For what has been discussed above this review petition is 
allowed, the order under review dated 05.06.2012 passed by this 
Court in Criminal Petition No. 1245-L of 2010 is recalled, the said 
petition is converted into an appeal and the same is partly allowed 
Criminal Review Petition No. 52 of 2019 
5
with the result that the sentence of death passed against the 
petitioner/appellant for the offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 is converted into a sentence of imprisonment 
for life. The order passed by the trial court regarding payment of 
fine on that charge is maintained but it is ordered that in default of 
payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six 
months. On account of a valid compromise having been arrived at 
between the heirs of the three deceased and the present appellant, 
which compromise has already been allowed by the trial court, his 
convictions and sentences on three counts of the charge under 
section 302(b), PPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said 
counts of the charge. The appellant has already served out his 
sentence of imprisonment for the offence under section 21-L of the 
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which shall be deemed to have run 
concurrently with his other sentence of imprisonment.  The 
appellant shall be allowed the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. 
as far as his reduced sentence under section 7(a) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 is concerned. This review petition and the 
appellant’s petition converted into an appeal are disposed of in the 
terms noted above.  
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
21.06.2019 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif 
 
