In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
Civil Appeal No.340 of 2002. 
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench 
dated 08.12.1999, passed in Writ Petition No.5566 of 1999) 
 
Muhammad Anwar 
…Appellant 
Versus 
Muhammad Akram & others 
… Respondents 
For the appellant:  
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, ASC/AOR. 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Tauseef Ejaz Malik, ASC. 
along with the respondent. 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl.P.G, Punjab. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
28.10.2015 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C.J. – This civil appeal with leave of 
the Court arises out of the order dated 08.12.1999, passed by a learned 
Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Writ Petition 
No.5566/1999, whereby the requisite relief, as prayed for by 
respondent No.1 was granted to him by placing reliance upon the cases 
cited as Javed Shaikh v. The State (1985 SCMR 153), Shah Muhammad 
alias Manna v. State (1994 SCMR 582), and 1987 SCMR 36 (no citation 
available on this page). 
C.A No.340/2002 
2
2. 
Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that in FIR 
No.240, dated 14.7.1992, registered at P.S Muzaffarabad, under section 
302, PPC, respondent No.1 was the sole nominated accused with the 
allegations that he has committed qatl-i-amd of his wife Mst. Azhra 
Parveen, three minor daughters Mst. Shagufta, Kiran and Aneeqa and 
his minor son Waqar, by cutting their throats with chhuri. After 
conclusion of the trial, respondent No.1 was found guilty for the 
charged offence and accordingly convicted vide judgment dated 
13.6.1993 and sentenced as under:- 
“18. 
….. In the circumstances of the case I convict Muhammad 
Akram accused under Section 302(a) PPC for causing Qatl-e-amd of 
his wife Mst. Azra Parveen as qusas and award him death penalty. He 
has murdered his four children namely Shugufta, Kiran and Aneeqa 
his daughters and his son Waqar. In accordance with Section 306(b), 
PPC he has caused the death of his four children and committed qatl-
e-amd not liable to qisas. It was argued on behalf of the learned 
counsel for the complainant that section 302(b) applied to the Qatl-
e-amd  of all the children but I feel that the accused is guilty under 
Section 308 PPC and is liable to pay diyat amounting to Rs. One lac 
seventy thousand on four counts as envisaged under Section 323 
PPC. He is also convicted under Section 308(2) PPC for causing the 
death of his four children namely Shugufta, Kiran and Aneeqa his 
daughters and his son Waqar, as tazir and is ordered to suffer 
imprisonment for fourteen years on each count. In case he does not 
pay diyat, it may be recovered from his properly, if any, which will be 
given to the legal heirs of the deceased children. In case his death 
sentence is commuted, the sentences awarded to him under Section 
308(2) PPC shall run consecutively as he has taken the lives of his 
wife and his four children. The provisions of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C are 
not extended in favour of the accused. …..” 
C.A No.340/2002 
3
3. 
His appeal before the Supreme Appellate Court Lahore, 
was also dismissed vide judgment dated 09.4.1994, however with 
modification in the quantum of sentence, which reads thus:- 
 
“We find great force in the submission of the learned defence 
counsel that conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 
302(a) PPC with respect to the murder of Mst. Azra Parveen is not 
sustainable in the eye of law in view of the provisions of sections 306 
and 307 PPC, as the appellant being her husband is her wali, so we 
alter the conviction of the appellant under section 302(a) PPC to one 
under section 308 PPC and award him sentence of fourteen years R.I. 
and also direct him to pay diyat amounting to Rs.1,70,000/-. The 
sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under section 
308 PPC on five counts shall run consecutively.” 
4. 
On 15.6.1999, respondent No.1, who was in custody and 
serving his sentence, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, 
Multan Bench with the prayer that different sentences awarded to him 
may be ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively, as 
ordered by the trial Court and the appellate Court. This petition was 
heard by a learned Division Bench in the Lahore High Court and allowed 
vide impugned judgment 08.12.1999. 
5. 
We have heard the arguments of learned ASC for the 
appellant. He strongly contended that respondent No.1 is guilty of 
committing brutal murder of his wife, three minor daughters and a 
minor son and it was in this background that the trial Court as well as 
the appellate Court for valid reasons recorded in their respective 
judgments had ordered that the sentences awarded to him shall run 
consecutively, but this aspect of the case was unfairly ignored and done 
C.A No.340/2002 
4
away by the learned Division Bench in the High Court in a cursory 
manner, by placing reliance upon certain judgments, which too were 
not only distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand, but also 
subsequently reviewed by a larger bench of the Apex Court.  
6. 
The learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab on 
behalf of the official respondents strongly supported the case of the 
appellant and placed reliance upon the following cases to show that the 
case cited in the impugned judgment have already been reviewed:- 
a. 
Bashir v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 1145). 
b. 
Muhammad Arshad v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 310). 
c. 
Ali Khan Kakar v. Hammad Abbasi (2012 SCMR 334). 
7. 
Besides, he referred some other cases to show that in the 
facts and circumstances of the case, awarding of different sentences 
with directions that the same shall run consecutively was in accordance 
with law. Thus, no interference was called for from the High Court while 
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which is 
discretionary in nature and not at all meant to perpetuate injustice of 
such nature. 
8. 
The learned ASC for respondent No.1, when confronted 
with the above stated facts and the law cited at the bar, did not dispute 
the position either on facts or law, but submitted that since the 
respondent No.1 was wali of the victims of the incident, therefore, a 
lenient view in the matter, as taken by the High Court in its impugned 
judgment, is justified. 
C.A No.340/2002 
5
9. 
We have carefully considered the arguments of learned 
ASCs and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute as 
regards the relevant facts of the case noted above that respondent 
No.1 was found guilty for committing qatl-i-amd of his wife, three 
daughters and a son in a brutal manner and for that account, 
consciously the trial Court, while awarding sentence to him, had 
ordered that the same shall run consecutively, and in addition to it, he 
was also held liable to pay diyat amount at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per 
victim. The appellate Court had also consciously examined this aspect 
and concurred with such view looking to the nature of the occurrence.  
10. 
The discretionary power vested in the Court to direct that 
the awarded sentences to run consecutively or concurrently is to be 
exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, 
keeping in view the scope of section 35 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1908, the nature and manner of occurrence and the gravity 
of the offence. Thus, it seems quite strange and unreasonable that 
through impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench of the High 
Court had done away with the conditionality of such sentences while 
exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which 
is equitable and discretionary in nature and not meant to give premium 
to a criminal for commission of such heinous crime. A reference to the 
above cited judgments makes it abundantly clear that the citations 
referred and relied upon by the High Court in its impugned judgment 
were reviewed by a larger bench of the apex Court and in one of these 
C.A No.340/2002 
6
cases Ali Khan Kakar v. Hammad Abbasi (2012 SCMR 334), while 
considering a similar request in review jurisdiction, the conviction of the 
accused, who was awarded total sentence of 300 years imprisonment, 
was upheld. 
11. 
From the material available before us, we have seen that a 
sum of Rs.8,50,000/- has been deposited by respondent no.1 in Court 
towards payment of diyat amount. It is, therefore, ordered that this 
amount may be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as mandated by 
law.  
12. 
Foregoing are the reasons for our short order in this 
appeal, which is reproduced as under:- 
 
“We have heard the arguments of learned ASCs and perused the 
case record. For the reasons to be recorded separately, this appeal is 
allowed and the impugned judgment dated 08.12.1999 is set aside. 
Respondent No.1 Muhammad Akram, who is present in Court, is ordered to 
be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence in terms of the 
judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court dated 09.04.1994 passed against 
him.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, 
28th October, 2015. 
Approved for reporting. 
تﻗادﺻ 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
