IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.195-L/2017 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
17.2.2015   
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2012 and CSR No.4-
T of 2012). 
 
 
Tariq Shah etc. 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
The State etc.   
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, ASC 
 
 
Mrs. Tasnim Amin, AOR 
 
For the State: 
 
For respondent No.2:                   
 
Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, DPG 
 
Mr. Naveed Ahmad Kh., ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
24.6.2019. 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Through leave of 
the Court, impugned herein is High Court's judgment dated 
17.2.2015 whereby appellants' convictions recorded by the trial 
Court have been affirmed, albeit with alternation of death penalties 
into imprisonment for life.  
2. 
 
Appellants, namely, Tariq Shah, Makhdoom Hussain 
and Fayyaz Shah have been arrayed as accused alongside Saqib 
Shah, Husnain Shah, Abbas Shah, Aoun Shah, Ali Hassan, and Ali 
Hussain on the complaint of Syed Ahad Haider Shah for 
committing qatl-e-amd of Ghulam Abbas Lak, Sammar Ali Shah 
and Qamar Ali Shah besides murderous assault upon Muhammad 
Naveed, Muhammad Ashiq, Muhammad Adil and Shahzad, PWs at 
8.45 a.m. on 12.10.2009 within the remit of Police Station Civil 
Lines, Faisalabad. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, 
Criminal Appeal No.195-L/2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
arrived at the scene in two vehicles, armed with Kalashnikovs, they 
confronted the deceased and the injured in front of Anti-Terrorism 
Court, Faisalabad; Saqib Shah accused is assigned a burst to 
Ghulam Abbas Lak deceased; Makhdoom Shah fired upon 
Sammar Ali Shah and Ghulam Abbas Lak whereas Husnain Shah 
and Tariq Shah targeted Qamar Ali Shah and Sammar Ali Shah 
deceased; Tariq Shah joined the co-accused while hitting Sammar 
Ali Shah; Abbass Shah once again targeted Ghulam Abbas Lak 
while Ali Hussain Shah shot Sammar Ali Shah; fire shots by Ali 
Hassan hit Qamar Ali Shah; Fayyaz Hussain Shah resorted to 
indiscriminate firing on Muhammad Naveed whereas Aoun Shah 
targeted Ashiq and Muhammad Adil. A police constable on duty, 
namely, Muhammad Shahzad, was also caught in the line of fire; 
motive for the crime is previous enmity.  
During spot inspection, the Investigating Officer secured nine 
casings ejected from two types of weapons i.e. Kalashnikov and 
.222 caliber gun besides a .30 caliber pistol with six live bullets.  
3. 
 
Before appellants' indictment, through separate trial, 
Saqib Shah, Husnain Raza, Ali Hassan and Ali Hussain, were 
acquitted from the charge. It is a common ground that Abbas Ali 
Shah and Aoun Shah, accused tried subsequently, were also 
issued a clean chit. Acquittal of the identically placed co-accused 
notwithstanding and despite exoneration, the appellants, however 
were convicted by the learned trial Court with ultimate penalty, 
altered into imprisonment for life vires whereof are being assailed 
before us. 
4.   
An internecine feud is long raging between the two sides 
facing each other in and outside the courts and in this backdrop, 
appellants' culpability, warrants a cautious judicial scrutiny. Huge 
loss of lives and receipt of multiple injuries by the witnesses are 
confirmed by those who miraculously endured the assault; their 
presence at the crime scene cannot be doubted, nonetheless, 
whether they are telling the whole truth is an issue altogether 
different; while the assailants certainly desired to eliminate old 
adversaries, the former may not have qualms to utilize the incident 
to see that some heads roll. Seen from this angle, participation of a 
large number of accused, each armed with automatic weapon,  
Criminal Appeal No.195-L/2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
to take the victims by surprise is really intriguing; with formidable 
lethality of the weapons used in first strike, every single of them 
could conveniently engage the intended targets; wholesale 
participation is an uncalled for imprudence, certainly avoidable; 
investigative conclusions and earlier adjudications reinforce the 
hypothesis of a wider net and once such a possibility is reasonably 
contemplated, participation of each nominee would inherently be 
fraught with suspicion. Seizure of two types of empties during spot 
inspection unmistakably suggests number of assailants much less 
than mentioned in the crime report. There is yet another 
predicament 
facing 
the 
prosecution 
in 
the 
totality 
of 
circumstances; those acquitted from the charge are inexorably 
placed in an identical position with the present appellants. The 
witnesses were found unworthy of reliance; there is nothing to 
improve upon their credence; injuries suffered by them are not 
passports into the realm of truth; once rejected, evidence of 
prosecution's witnesses cannot be pressed into service to sustain 
the charge, similar on all fours. Prosecution is also failing on 
investigative and forensic sides. It would be unsafe to maintain the 
convictions without potential risk of error, therefore, by extending 
benefit of doubt, Criminal Appeal is allowed; impugned judgment 
is set aside; the appellants are acquitted from the charge and shall 
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
24th of June, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
