IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition Nos.1322-L, 1296-L & 1297-L of 2013 
(Against judgment dated 30.10.2013 of the Lahore 
High 
Court, 
Lahore 
passed 
in 
Crl. 
Apeal 
No.934/2010, Revision No.568/2010 with M.R. 
No.232/2010) 
 
Muhammad Rafique alias Neela 
(in Cr. P. No.1322-L/2013) 
Mushtaq Hussain 
(in Cr. P. No.1296 & 1297-L/2013) 
 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
(in Cr. P. No.1322-L/2013) 
Muhammad Rafique alias Neela, etc. 
(in Cr. P. No.1322-L/2013) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Sardar  Khuram Latif Khan Khosa, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P. No.1322-L/2013) 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Mazhar Ali Ghallu, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P. No.1296 & 1297-L/2013) 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
06.03.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Rafique 
alias Neela, Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Saeed, real brothers 
inter se, along with their father Jafar Hussain were indicted for 
homicide by the learned Sessions Judge Toba Tek Sindh; they were 
accused by Mushtaq Hussain (PW-11) for stabbing Nazim Hussain, 
deceased, 30, to death at 10:30 a.m. on 23.10.2009 within the precincts 
of Police Station Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh; Jafar Hussain 
accused was blamed to have instigated the crime; petitioner is 
attributed fatal hatchet blow to the deceased; remainders are assigned 
abrasions on the back of left upper arm and below right knee, 
respectively measuring 2 x 1 cm and 1 x 1 cm. 
Criminal Petition Nos.1322-L, 1296-L & 1297-L of 2013 
2
 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, deceased on a 
motorbike, was surprised by the accused, in the backdrop of a previous 
brawl.  
 
The petitioner was returned a guilty verdict vide judgment dated 
8.4.2010; convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan 
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to death whereas Muhammad Naveed 
and Muhammad Saeed, co-accused to imprisonment for life for being in 
the community of intention; Jafar Hussain was acquitted from the 
charge. The High Court maintained petitioner’s conviction albeit with 
alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life while acquitting 
Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Saeed from the charge vide 
impugned judgment dated 30.10.2013, vires whereof, are being assailed 
both by the complainant as well as the convict. Issues being inter 
linked, the captioned petitions are being decided through this single 
judgment.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner/convict contends that 
after acquittal of three out of four accused, each assigned a distinct 
role, there was no occasion for the High Court to rely upon the same 
discredited evidence qua the petitioner to maintain his conviction. 
Learned counsel for the complainant, contrarily, not only prayed for 
reversal of death penalty but also acquittal recorded qua the co-accused 
on the ground that there was no occasion for the High Court, after it 
had believed the witnesses, to acquit the respondents assigned a role 
confirmed by medical evidence merely on a conjectural premise. 
Learned Law Officer wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusions drawn 
by the High Court. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Petitioner is assigned fatal blow. According to the autopsy 
report, conducted at 2:30 p.m. same day, it is an incised wound of quite 
an extensive nature, penetrating into brain cavity; it is consistent with 
hatchet P-3, found stained with blood, forensically opined that of 
human origin, recovered pursuant his disclosure on 6.11.2009. 
Infliction of the fatal blow at petitioner’s hand has unanimously been 
confirmed by the witnesses; occurrence being a broad daylight affair on 
a thoroughfare within the vicinity of inhabitation, inculpatory 
investigative conclusions, being in line therewith, have not been found 
by us as open to any legitimate exception. Jafar Hussain, real father of 
the accused, is saddled with instigation; he has rightly been acquitted 
Criminal Petition Nos.1322-L, 1296-L & 1297-L of 2013 
3
by the trial Court; whereas triviality of abrasions, swayed on the High 
Court to exercise caution qua Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad 
Saeed is an equally expedient choice. Doctrine of abundant caution is a 
silver lining in our jurisprudence to ensure safe administration of 
criminal justice and application thereof does not necessarily imply 
destruction of entire volume of evidence, if otherwise found sufficient to 
sustain the centrality of the charge. Though, the Medical Officer has not 
been cross-examined during the trial, nonetheless, upon analysis, 
abrasions came about during the occurrence, admit possibilities, 
exculpatory in nature. The High Court has been well within remit to let 
off the respondents; wage settled is conscionable in circumstances. 
Scales are in balance. Petitions fail. Leave declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Lahore, the 
6th March, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
