In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
Criminal Appeals No.24 & 25 of 2010. 
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated  
26.5.2009, passed in Crl.A No.123-J/2006 and MR No.4-T/2006) 
 
Javed Iqbal, etc (in Crl.A-24/2010) 
Khizar Hayat, etc (in Crl.A-25/2010) 
…Appellants 
Versus 
The State (in both cases) 
… Respondents 
For the appellants:  
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr. ASC (in Crl.A-24/10) 
Mir Muhammad Ghurran Khurshid Imtiazi, 
ASC (in Crl.A-25/2010) 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Asjid Javed Goral, Addl.P.G Punjab. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
02.10.2015 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J. – In the above captioned two 
criminal appeals, leave was granted by the Court vide its order dated 
12.1.2010, which reads as under:- 
 
“As many as 27 persons were charged and tried by the Judge 
Anti Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, on 6.2.2006, for various offences, 
including those under Sections 302(b), 324, 295-A, 295-B and 295-C 
PPC. For the offence under Section 295-C, only the accused, Shahbaz 
Ahmed, was convicted and sentenced to death and the remaining 
were awarded imprisonment for life. They all were convicted and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life of each of the offences under 
Sections 302(b), 295-B PPC. They were further convicted and 
sentenced for various other offences, namely, under Sections 295-A, 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
2
148, 186, 353 PPC as well as under Sections 7(a) and 9 of the Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997. One of the co-accused was a juvenile and was 
tried separately. On appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the 
conviction and sentences of all the accused under Section 295-C PPC 
whereas it upheld their conviction and sentences for the remaining 
offences. 
2. 
Javed Iqbal and Tahir Mehmood, have filed Criminal Petition 
No.692 of 2009 and the remaining convicts have filed Jail Petition 
No.842 of 2009, out of them Petitioners No.6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 
21 and 22 were represented by a private counsel. The remaining 
petitioners were not preresented. 
3. 
The case against the petitioners was that they had 
proclaimed one of them, Shahbaz Ahmed, as “Imam Mehdi” and had 
invited the people to follow him and warned that if he was resisted, 
the country as a whole and the City of Faisalabad in particular would 
face destruction. To further project their view point, the petitioners 
along with others started a procession in motorcars and proceeded 
towards the Motorway. It is alleged that the participants of the 
procession were duly armed. That the police was informed about this 
incident, who proceeded to stop the procession. According to the 
police, some of the persons in the procession started firing at the 
police personnel stationed at the Motorway Interchange of 
Faisalabad. That when the police party headed by a Deputy 
Superintendent of Police, reached the spot, the processionist 
resorted to firing upon them, injuring four of their compansions, 
namely, Navid alias Nazir Tahir Ahad, Babar Shjafi and Abid. Babar 
Shafi, later on passed away. The petitioners were thereafter 
arrested, tried and convicted as stated above. 
4. 
We have heard Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr.ASC in Criminal Petition 
No.692 of 2009 and Mr. Inayatullah Cheema, ASC in Jail Petition 
No.842of 2009. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel, we 
grant leave to ap0peal to re-examine the evidence in the light of 
contentions raised, particularly whether: 
(i) 
It was not from the firing of the police party that the 
petitioners’ companions were injured, who received firearms 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
3
injuries on the front of their bodies, and when none from the 
police party was injured in the incident. 
(ii) 
All the accused, 27 in numbers, could be convicted for 
the above stated offences as there was nothing on record 
that they shared common intention for the commission of 
each of such offences and 
(iii) 
Was it possible for the police party to identify each of 
the 27 petitioners for the commission of the crime alleged to 
have been committed by them.” 
2. 
Briefly stated, facts leading to these criminal proceedings 
are that on 15.12.2005, FIR No.1081/2005, under sections  7, Anti-
terrorism Act, 1997, 16, Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, 
427, 324, 353, 295-B, 295-C, 149, 186, 146, 148, Pakistan Penal Code 
and 13, of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, was registered by 
complainant Malik Rasheed Ahmed, DSP City at P.S Nishatabad, District 
Faisalabad with the following assertions:- 
That on 15.12.2005 at about 12:00 noon, DSP/SDPO City, Faisalabad 
received a wireless message that 25/30 persons, duly armed with 
firearm weapons and making aerial firing, were coming towards 
Sargodha Road from Nishatabad bridge. They were holding flags and 
banners and were making announcement of emergence of Imam Mehdi 
on mega phone. On receipt of complaint, he along with three other 
Police officials approached them at Bolay-de-Juggi, near Telephone 
Exchange, where he asked them to stop firing, whereupon they raised 
slogans that Imam Mehdi has emerged, who is accompanying them, 
and all nation should embrace him till 4:00 pm., otherwise they will 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
4
destroy the whole Country. They started firing at the Police party, who 
escaped by taking shelter behind their official vehicle. Thereafter they 
started proceeding ahead and kept on making aerial firing. The incident 
was reported to the City Control, and more Police contingents were 
called to control the situation. One Muhammad Younas son of Noor 
Muhammad sustained firearm injury at the hands of these persons near 
Haji Camp, which caused panic and fear in the locality. The accused 
persons made indiscriminate firing at Motorway Toll Plaza, Kamalpur, 
due to which all the officials ran away from there and accused persons 
entered Motorway and after covering a distance of about two furlongs, 
when they saw the Police party approaching them, they deboarded 
from their vehicles and in a confusion started firing at Police party, as a 
result whereof 3/4 co-accused persons received injuries. A passenger 
bus was also made hostage by them. At this spot they entered into 
negotiation with the Police, during which accused Shahbaz Ahmed, the 
self proclaimed Imam Mehdi, made derogatory remarks against the 
Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), and demanded that injured 
co-accused may be shifted to hospital. After the negotiations, following 
a strategy, all the accused persons were apprehended and crime 
weapons, as detailed in the recovery memo, were recovered from 
them. Moreover, crime empties were also recovered from different 
places on their route. The case was accordingly registered against them. 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
5
3. 
After investigation of the crime, 27 accused named in the 
FIR were set up for trial before the Special Judge ATC, Faisalabad, where 
they were accordingly charged for the said offences, to which all of 
them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial of the appellants 
was, therefore held, during which eighteen prosecution witnesses were 
examined and documents Ex-PD to Ex-PXX were produced by the 
prosecution, which amongst others contained mushirnamas of recovery 
of eight 8mm rifles, one 0.12 bore pistol, eight 0.30 bore pistols and 
one chhuri, being alleged crime weapons. After the completion of 
prosecution evidence, section 342, Cr.P.C, statements of all the accused 
were recorded before the trial Court. However, none of them offered to 
examine himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor any one of them 
except Shahbaz asked to lead evidence in defence before the trial 
Court. At the conclusion of trial, arguments were heard and vide 
judgment dated 06.2.2006, appellant Shahbaz Ahmed, upon his 
conviction, was awarded following sentences:- 
i) 
U/S 148/149 PPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. 
ii) 
U/S 295-A PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. 
iii) 
U/S 295-B PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 
iv) 
U/S 295-C PPC and sentenced to death subject to 
confirmation by the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and a 
fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default thereof to undergo for 5 years 
S.I. 
v) 
U/S 302(b)/149 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life 
as “Taa’zir”. He shall also pay the compensation of 
Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default 
thereof to undergo for 6 months S.I. 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
6
vi) 
U/S 324/149 PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. with a fine of 
Rs.1,00,000/- in default thereof to undergo for 2 years S.I. U/s 
337-L(2) PC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. on four counts. 
vii) 
U/S 186 PPC and sentenced to 3 months R.I. 
viii) 
U/S 353 PPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. 
ix) 
U/S 7 clause (a) of ATA-1997 and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in default thereof to 
undergo for 5 years S.I. 
x) 
U/S 9 of ATA of 1997 and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine 
of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default thereof to undergo one year S.I. 
Twenty-three other accused (1) Khizar Hayat son of Sikandar Ali, (2) Taj 
Din son of Hashmat Ullah, (3) Javaid Iqbal son of Abdul Waheed, (4) 
Tahir Mahmood son of Abdul Waheed, (5) Taj Ansari son of Hafiz Noor-
ul-Hassan, (6) Zafar Iqbal son of Habib Ullah (7) Ijaz Ahmad son of 
Ahmad Din, (8) Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Ibrahim, (9) Talib 
Hussain son of Farzand Ali, (10) Muhammad Yasin son of Abdul Majeed, 
(11) Imran son of Abdul Hameed, (12) Abdul Rehman son of Qasim Ali, 
(13) Muhammad Ismail son of Khushi Muhammad, (14) Muhammad 
Iqbal son of Bashir Ahmad, (15) Ateeq-ur-Rehman son of Ali 
Muhammad, (16) Ishaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Nawaz, (17) 
Mukhtar Ahmad son of Muhammad Riaz, (18) Naveed Ali Shah son of 
Haqdar Shah, (19) Muhammad Sajid Ali son of Jamshaid Ali (20) Shoukat 
Ali son of Fazal Din (21) Mahmood-ul-Hassan son of Shoukat Ali (22) 
Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Anwar and (23) Shahbaz Ahmed 
alias Bholoo son of Ishtiaq Ahmad, were convicted and awarded 
following sentences:- 
i) 
U/S 148/149 PPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. each. 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
7
ii) 
U/S 295-A PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I each. 
iii) 
U/S 295-B PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each. 
iv) 
U/S 295-C PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each 
and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default thereof to 
undergo for 5 years S.I each. 
v) 
U/s 302(b)/149 PC and sentenced to imprisonment for life 
each as “Taa’zir”. They shall also pay the compensation of 
Rs.5,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased, in 
default thereof to undergo for 6 months S.I. each. 
vi) 
U/S 324/149 PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I each with a 
fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo for 2 
years S.I. each. U/S 337-L(2) PPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I 
each on four counts. 
vii) 
U/S 186 PPC and sentenced to 3 months R.I each. 
viii) 
U/S 353 PPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. each. 
ix) 
U/s 7 clause (a) of ATA-1997 and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life each and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default 
thereof to undergo for 5 years S.I. each. 
x) 
U/S 9 of the ATA of 1997 and sentenced to 5 years R.I each 
and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo 
one year S.I each. 
All sentences shall run concurrently and Benefit of section 
382-B, Cr.P.C is given to the convicts. 
While the remaining three accused (1) Muhammad Abid Hussain son of 
Ali Muhammad (2) Naveed Ahmed son of Shah Muhammad and (3) 
Tahir Ahmad son of Munir Ahmad, were convicted and sentenced as 
under:- 
i) 
U/S 148/149 PPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. each. 
ii) 
U/S 295-A PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I each. 
iii) 
U/S 295-B PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each. 
iv) 
U/S 295-C PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each 
and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default thereof to 
undergo for 5 years S.I each. 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
8
v) 
U/S 302(b)/149 PC and sentenced to imprisonment for life 
each as “Taa’zir”. They shall also pay the compensation of 
Rs.5,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased, in 
default thereof to undergo for 6 months S.I. each. 
vi) 
U/S 324/149 PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I each with a 
fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo for 2 
years S.I. each. U/S 337-L(2) PPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I 
each on three counts. 
vii) 
U/S 186 PPC and sentenced to 3 months R.I each. 
viii) 
U/S 353 PPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. each. 
ix) 
U/s 7 clause (a) of ATA-1997 and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life each and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default 
thereof to undergo for 5 years S.I. each. 
x) 
U/S 9 of the ATA of 1997 and sentenced to 5 years R.I each 
and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default thereof to undergo 
one year S.I each. 
All sentences shall run concurrently and Benefit of section 
382-B, Cr.P.C is given to the convicts. 
4. 
Against the judgment of the trial Court (ATC), remedy of 
appeal was availed by the appellants before the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore through appeals/jail appeals No.123-J, 124-J, 259 and 260 of 
2006. These appeals were heard together with Murder Reference No.4-
T of 2006, and by consolidated judgment dated 06.5.2009, the same 
were disposed of in the manner that criminal appeal No.123-J/2006 was 
partly allowed in favour of the appellants to the extent that their 
conviction under section 295-C, PPC was set aside, murder reference 
was not confirmed, and they were acquitted of the said charge with 
further observation that the sentences awarded to them shall run 
concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C shall also be given to 
them. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
9
High Court that criminal petition and jail petitions were filed, wherein 
leave was granted in terms of the order reproduced above. 
5. 
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned Sr. ASC for some of the 
appellants in these appeals read the contents of the FIR in verbatim to 
portray the actual incident forming basis for the registration of FIR 
No.1081/2005 against the appellants. Thereafter he read the evidence 
of all material witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, 
particularly the eye-witnesses of the occurrence to show that the whole 
investigation was conducted with a pre-determined mind and 
misdirected, inasmuch as on the basis of bare allegations of aerial firing, 
a peaceful mob was encircled by the Police and fired upon, which action 
culminated in the incident of murder of one Baba Shafi by some 
unknown person, may be Police, and injuries to 3/4 appellants. The gist  
of his submissions was that the whole story is concocted in order to 
hush-up the highhandedness  of the police in badly tackling the 
situation, due to which a small issue was blown out of proportion, 
particularly against the appellants, excluding appellant Shahbaz Ahmed 
son of Shah Muhammad, who had, according to the prosecution, 
declared himself Imam Mehdi and spoken some derogatory remarks 
about Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH). He also emphasized 
that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it was quite easy 
for the police/investigation agency to involve as many persons in the 
crime as they liked, but this important legal aspect of the case was not 
at all taken into consideration by both the Courts below, which resulted 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
10
in gross miscarriage of justice to the appellants. Making reference to 
section 342, Cr.P.C statements, he conceded that convict, Shahbaz 
Ahmed in his section 342, Cr.P.C statement has admitted the case of 
prosecution in toto to the extent of his own conduct and involvement in 
this strange incident, but at the same time learned ASC raised objection 
about the mental state of this appellant, as it was not possible for a 
man of normal prudence to have taken such stance of being self-
proclaimed Imam Mehdi. In the end, learned ASC made reference of 
some cases in support of his submissions, regarding the principle that 
benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case was to be extended to the 
accused. In our opinion, this proposition of law is so well recognized 
that it needs no further elucidation. 
6. 
Another legal aspect of the case argued before us by the 
learned Sr. ASC was regarding non-compliance of the mandatory 
requirement of section 196, Cr.P.C, about seeking sanction/permission 
for trial of an accused charged under sections 295-A, PPC, which was 
lacking in the present case.  In this context, he relied upon the case of 
Nawaz Sharif v. The State (2000 MLD 946).  Indeed, section 196 of 
Cr.P.C bars the Court from taking cognizance of an offence under 
section 295-A of PPC, without requisite sanction/approval/permission 
and failure to obtain such mandatory permission renders the 
proceedings to that extent a nullity in law. However, we are not 
impressed by this submission of the learned Sr. ASC, as bar of taking 
cognizance provided under section 196, Cr.P.C will not apply to the 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
11
proceedings before the Anti Terrorism Courts in view of the combined 
effect of Sections 12, 19, 30 and the overriding effect of section 32 of 
the ATA, being proceedings under a special statute, which provides 
exclusion of those provisions of Cr.P.C and other laws which are 
inconsistent with the provisions of ATA. In this context, a glance at these 
provisions of the ATA goes to show that section 12, which starts with non-
obstante clause, deals with the jurisdiction of Anti-terrorism Courts; section 
19 provides for a detailed procedure under sub-sections (1) to (14), regarding 
the procedure and powers of Anti-terrorism Court; section 30, which also 
starts with non-obstante clause, provides for modified application of certain 
provisions of the Code (Criminal Procedure Code), during the proceedings 
before the Anti-terrorism Court, and lastly section 32 gives overriding effect 
to the provisions of ATA, and provides that notwithstanding anything 
contained in the Code or any other law but, save as expressly provided in this 
Act, the provisions of the Code shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with 
the provisions of this Act, apply to the proceedings before an Anti-terrorism 
Court, which shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. The case of Nawaz 
Sharif (supra) relied by the learned Sr. ASC in support of his submission 
about the applicability of section 196, Cr.P.C to the proceedings before 
the Anti Terrorism Courts, also negates his arguments. For ease of 
reference, relevant conclusion in this judgment is reproduced as under:- 
“Thus, there being inconsistency and the difference between the 
provisions of section 30 of the Act and section 196 of the Code, the 
provisions contained in the latter will not be applicable to the 
proceeding before the Special Court. Therefore, in view of the 
inconsistency, as discussed above, section 32 of the Act would come 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
12
into play and the bar contained in section 196, Cr.P.C would not in 
any way affect to the taking of cognizance by this Court in exercising 
power under section 19 of the Act. Consequently, the application is 
dismissed.” 
7. 
The other learned ASCs appearing on behalf of the 
appellants in these connected appeals adopted the arguments of 
learned ASC Dr. Khalid Ranjha with the addition that the few legal heirs 
of deceased Baba Shafi had pardoned some of the appellants, but 
unfortunately no final orders could be passed by the Court on such 
compromise application under section 345, Cr.P.C, as some other legal 
heirs of the deceased were out of the Country, as evident from the 
contents of CMA No.325/2015 and orders passed thereon. 
8. 
On behalf of the State, Mr. Asjad Javed Ghoral, learned 
Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab, strongly supported the 
impugned judgment passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore 
High Court and contended that whatever relief the appellants were 
entitled to, has already been allowed to them through the impugned 
judgment, therefore, they are not entitled to any further relief.  
9. 
Before the hearing of these appeals, we have called for the 
jail rolls of the 26 appellants, which reveal that appellant Muhammad 
Iqbal son of Bashir Ahmed has died during the pendency of these 
appeals, therefore, the appeal to his extent, became infructuous. As 
regards the remaining appellants, Khizar Hayat, Taj Din, Javed Iqbal, 
Tahir Mehmood, Taj Ansari, Zafar Iqbal, Ejaz Ahmed, Muhammad Ilyas, 
Talib Hussain, Muhammad Yasin, Imran, Abdul Rehman, Muhammad 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
13
Ismail, Attiq-ur-Rehman, Ishaq, Mukhtar, Naveed Ali, Muhammad Sajid, 
Shaukat Ali, Mehmood-ul-Hassan, Muhammad Iqbal, Shahbaz Ahmed, 
Muhammad Abid, Naveed Ahmed and Shahbaz Ahmed, by now they 
have all served their substantive sentences for over 9-years and 9-
months, but having been also convicted under sections 7(a) and 9 of 
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA), they have not been granted any 
remissions in view of the bar provided by section 21F of the said Act of 
1997, vis-à-vis the ratio of judgments in the case of Shah Hussain v. The 
State (PLD 2009 SC 460) and Nazar Hussain and another v. The State 
(PLD 2010 SC 1021). The learned Additional Prosecutor General further 
made reference to the depositions of prosecution witnesses to show 
that the question of indiscriminate firing from the side of appellants 
was answered by the trial Court and the appellate Court on the basis of 
undeniable testimony of the eye-witnesses of occurrence, thus, their 
conviction and sentences are fully justified. The learned Additional 
Prosecutor General, however, when confronted with the deposition of 
PW-8 Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed, DSP, did not dispute that he had directed 
the Police to respond to the firing of the appellants and they did; not 
only this but the injured witness Muhammad Younas (PW-10) also 
deposed that Police was making firing at accused persons. He also did 
not dispute that no one from the general public, except Muhammad 
Younas, received bullet injury, which could not be attributed to any 
particular appellant. Moreover, no Police personnel received any bullet 
injury as against three of the appellants, who admittedly suffered bullet 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
14
injuries; which lend credence to the case of the appellants that it was 
due to the Police firing at the appellants that some of them received 
firearm injuries, and fatal injury was caused to one Baba Shafi, who was 
also from amongst them, as evident from the deposition of Dr. 
Muhammad Naeem (PW-16), who stated that the deceased had on his 
body one light blue colour belt with written name of “BABA SHAFI” in 
Urdu and one badge with printed words in Urdu  “DIN-E-YOUNAS”. 
Besides, the learned Additional Prosecutor General conceded that all 
crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence, which were 205 
(70+75+60) in number, were attributed to the appellants. But strangely 
recovery of no crime empty from the bullets fired by the Police was 
shown by the IO, though he promptly carried out the process of 
investigation of the crime. 
10. 
In the light of above submission made by the learned ASCs 
and the learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab, we have 
carefully examined the case record of sessions case No.01/ATC/2006 in 
the form of paper book in Criminal Appeal No.124-J/2006, and other 
connected appeals. We have also examined the case record of these 
appeals, which reveals that through Crl.M.A No.325/2015, some of the 
legal heirs of Baba Shafi, the only deceased of this incident, have 
pardoned two of the accused i.e. Javed Iqbal and Tahir Mehmood. 
However, such attempt of compromise did not materialize due to the 
absence of other legal heirs of the deceased, who are statedly abroad. 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
15
11. 
Reverting to other material aspects of the case, we find 
that the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses, out of whom PW-7 
Malik Rashid Ahmed, DSP, PW-8 Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed, DSP, PW-10 
Muhammad Younas (injured), PW-12 Malik Khalid Mahmood, Inspector 
and PW-13 Muhammad Abid Aziz, Inspector, were eye-witnesses of the 
occurrence. However, none of these witnesses attributed direct role of 
firing at deceased Baba Shafi to any particular appellant. Moreover, the 
prosecution did not produce/examine any official from the motorway 
police as well as the driver or any passenger of the bus which was 
allegedly taken hostage by the appellants. Similarly, in their statements 
under section 342, Cr.P.C, none of the appellants owned or accepted 
the liability of causing fatal injury to deceased Baba Shafi or injuries to 
four others, out of whom three are the appellants before us. Rather 
they all, including three injured appellants Abid, Naveed, and Tahir, 
attributed this role specifically to police firing. Admittedly, the incident 
dated 15.12.2005 occurred in broad daylight at 12:00 noon, when a 
larger contingent of Police was called and after the whole occurrence, 
as detailed in the FIR, matter was tactfully settled, number of 
appellants were arrested at the spot and purported recovery of crime 
weapons was made from them. These facts simply prove that a serious 
law and order situation was created by the appellants under the 
leadership of self-proclaimed Imam Mehdi i.e. the appellant Shahbaz 
Ahmed. During this incident, as evident from the statement of PW-8 
DSP Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed and PW-10 Muhammad Younas, injured, the 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
16
Police also resorted to firing to disburse this mob, which in one way or 
the other resulted in panic and a fight free for all, causing damage to 
certain private properties and vehicles. In our opinion, in this 
background, the prosecution evidence, lacking examination of any 
independent witness from the locality and many other material 
witnesses; 
containing 
vague/general 
allegations 
with 
material 
contradictions about the whole incident, particularly about suppression 
of fact of Police firing etc, was not sufficient either to fix the 
responsibility of murder of Baba Shafi, injuries to some of the 
appellants and another person on the appellants or showing any of the 
ingredients of sections 6 and 8 of the ATA, except against appellant 
Shahbaz Ahmad, so as to justify their conviction under section 7(a) and 
9 of the ATA. Moreover, considering the plea of the appellants, except 
appellant Shahbaz Ahmed, that cross firing took place between Police 
personnel and accused persons, which is proved from the record, the 
possibility that death of Baba Shafi and injuries to the appellants might 
have been the result of Police firing also cannot be ruled out. It also 
seems rather strange and affects the credibility of whole investigation 
that despite exchange of firing, no crime empties of police firing were 
recovered from the place of occurrence and all the crime empties 
recovered from the place of occurrence matched with the weapon 
allegedly recovered/attributed to the appellants. This aspect of the case 
coupled with the fact that parcels of crime empties and weapons were 
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together on 26.12.2005, after 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
17
an unexplained delay of 11 days, cast further doubt about the case of 
the prosecution. 
12. 
To move further, when we look at the case of the 
appellants as per their own assertions, except appellant Shahbaz 
Ahmed, we find that they all had totally denied any highhandedness on 
their part during the occurrence and unanimously taken the plea that 
they had taken out a peaceful procession against one Riaz Gohar Shahi, 
whom they considered “Dajjal” and appellant Shahbaz Ahmed rescued 
them from the clutches and obnoxious belief of that “Dajjal”. Therefore, 
to celebrate this occasion, such procession was taken out under the 
command of Shahbaz Ahmed, who solely claimed himself as Imam 
Mehdi, being under some spiritual power. 
13. 
From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, 
which is, as mentioned earlier, bald, vague and in general terms, the 
commission of offence under sections 295-A and 295-B, PPC by the 
appellants, other than appellant Shahbaz Ahmad, is not proved upto 
the mark, but all of them in their section 342, Cr.P.C statements, in 
reply to questions number 2, 3 and 4 have admitted their guilt in 
unequivocal terms. Hence on this count, their conviction under these 
provisions of PPC is to be maintained/sustained. 
14. 
In the light of aforementioned, it is clear that case of 
appellant Shahbaz Ahmed son of Shah Muhammad is distinguishable 
from other appellants, therefore, by extending them benefit of doubt, 
their appeals are partly allowed to the extent that conviction of all the 
Crl.A No.24& 25/2010 
18
appellants, except appellant Shahbaz Ahmed, under sections 302(b), 
324, 337L(2), PPC and sections 7(a) and 9 of the ATA is set aside, while 
their convictions under other provisions of law awarded by the trial 
Court, as modified by the appellate Court, are upheld. As a result they 
will be entitled for the benefit of all the remissions and benefit of 
section 382-B, Cr.P.C from the date of their arrest. The jail authorities 
be informed accordingly. 
15. 
 
Insofar as appellant Shahbaz Ahmed son of Shah 
Muhammad is concerned, his appeal is also partly allowed to the extent 
that his conviction under section 302(b) and 324, PPC is set aside, while 
sentences under other provisions of law awarded to him by the trial 
Court, as modified by the appellate Court, are upheld. 
 
 
 
 
Announced. 
Islamabad, 
22nd February 2016. 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Not approved for reporting. 
تﻗادﺻ 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
