IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice MushirAlam 
Mr. Justice YahyaAfridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 13.06.2014 passed by 
the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl.A. No.693/2007 
along with M.R. No.206/2007) 
 
 
Ghulam Mustafa 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For theAppellant(s): 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Siddique 
Khan 
Baloch, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
MirzaAbidMajeed, 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
29.09.2019. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Indicted alongside 
Sajjad alias Shada, Abdul Wahid, Fakhar Iqbal and Shoukat 
Ali, since acquitted, the appellant was returned a guilty 
verdict by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kamalia; 
convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan 
Penal Code, 1860 for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad 
Imran, 22, at 7:00 p.m. on 22.11.2004 within the remit of 
Police Station City Kamalia, he was sentenced to death vide 
judgment dated 25.04.2007, maintained by the High Court 
albeit with alteration penalty of death into imprisonment for 
life vide judgment dated 13.06.2014, being impugned through 
leave of the Court.  
Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2020 
2
2. 
 
On the fateful day, after spending Eid holidays in 
his home town, the deceased was scheduled to return to his 
workplace in Lahore alongside co-worker Yasin (PW-10); 
at about 7:00 p.m. the complainant went to see off him; as he 
reached Madani Chowk, he saw the appellant, armed with a 
Churri, accompanied by acquitted co-accused, each differently 
armed, mounting assault upon the deceased; the appellant 
dealt a Churri blow to the deceased on the left side of his 
abdomen; Irshad and Abdul Wahid dealt him with club blows 
on his head while Fakhar Iqbal and ShoukatAli, brandishing 
pistols kept the witnesses at bay; though omitted by the 
complainant in crime report (Ex.PB), Yasin (PW-10) statedly 
endured blunt weapon injuries, inflicted by the  acquitted  
co-accused. Admonition by Yasin (PW-10) to the accused, 
blamed foreve-teasing, is cited as motive for the murder 
followed by an altercation of even date.Autopsy was 
conducted at 1:30 p.m. on 23.11.2004; though admitted by 
the medical officer during the cross-examination, Yasin 
(PW-10) was also examined by himduring the same night.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
evidence disbelieved qua majority of the accused, some of 
whom are assigned effective roles, vis-à-vis the injured cannot 
sustain appellant’s conviction in the absence of independent 
corroboration, hopelessly lacking in view of exclusion of 
prosecution evidence on recovery and motive; that crime 
report is silent on injuries sustained by Yasin (PW-10), 
introduced by the complainant, for the first time in the 
witness box through an improvement, duly confronted during 
his cross-examination; he has also assailed the credentials of 
Yasin PW as an eye witness on the ground that he admittedly 
made no statement to the Investigating Officer despite claim 
of presence and as suchhis testimony carried no weight, 
particularly in view of rejection of his statement on his own 
Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2020 
3
injuries. The learned Law Officer defended the impugned 
judgment.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
The 
incident 
occurred 
in 
a 
residential 
neighbourhood, located at a distanceof 2 ½ k.m. from Police 
StationCity Kamalia, witnessed amongst others, by Yasin 
(PW-10)who claims to have himself sustained multiple club 
blows on different parts of his body i.e. head and nose, noted 
by medical officer who conducted the autopsy; surprisingly 
his medico legal certificate is not on the record; though the 
medical officer admitted in his cross-examination to have 
examined him at 7:45 p.m, presumably under a police docket. 
In this backdrop, report to the police at a place other than 
police stationat 12:15 a.m. confirms a delay that clamors for 
explanation;admission by the medical officer suggests an 
intriguing interregnum that reflects a surreptitious silence, 
casting its shadow on the autopsy delayed by 18 ½ hours, 
despite availability of the medical officer; confounding 
prosecution’s dilemma further,the witness has not even been 
believed against his own assailant and, thus,stranded from 
the scene.Complainant’s case qua Yasin (PW-10) is not on a 
better footing either as he made no reference in the crime 
report to the injuries suffered by the said witness which is 
further contradicted by the autopsy report inasmuch as 
solitary stab wound on the abdomen is noted with no injuries 
on the head as attributed in the crime report to Irshad and 
Abdul Wahid co-accused, since acquitted. It is no less 
surprising that the accused despite armed with pistols 
preferred to target the deceased with a non-conventional 
weapon. 
With 
a 
manifestly 
flawed 
ocular 
account, 
prosecution’s failure on motive and recoveryof weapon as well 
as co-accused has grievously undermined its case vis-à-vis 
the appellant as well. Arguments that the occurrence did not 
take place in themanner as alleged in the crime report and 
Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2020 
4
that incident was subsequently reported by the witnesses, 
stage-managed in circumstances, cannot be dismissed out of 
hand. Since the very genesis of the incident is far from being 
clear, it would be grievously unsafe to single out the appellant 
from the array. Criminal Appeal is allowed; impugned 
judgment is set aside; the appellant is acquitted of the charge 
and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained 
in any other case.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
29thSeptember,2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-  
 
