IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.416 of  2020 
(Against the judgment dated 23.04.2015 of the Lahore 
High Court Bahawalpur Bench passed in Cr. Appeal 
No.125/2014) 
 
 
Ghulam Abbas 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Fakhar Hayat, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, 
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
18.10.2021. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-  Muhammad Ashraf 
(PW-2) was in the village mosque when on 3.8.2013 the appellant 
splashed acid on his body, as a result whereof, he sustained nine burn 
wounds on various part of his body; the latter was accompanied by a 
co-accused, seen by the complainant with muffled faces while leaving 
the mosque; he was later identified by the victim when he regained his 
senses. The co-accused was exonerated and the appellant alone 
contested indictment before the learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court 
Bahawalpur; the trial culminated into his conviction under section 336-
B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with section 7(c) of the Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 8.03.2014, upheld by a 
learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur vide 
impugned judgment dated 23.04.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed 
through leave of the court dated 05.06.2020. It is argued that that as 
per prosecution’s own case lodged by no other than victim’s real brother 
two unknown assailants were seen leaving the mosque shortly after the 
occurrence and, thus, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court, 
in the absence of test identification parade, to return a guilty verdict, an 
error concurred by the High Court as well. In the absence of any motive, 
Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020 
2
there was no earthly reason for the appellant to take alleged drastic 
step, that too, within the sanctity of place of worship, concluded the 
learned counsel. The learned Law Officer has defended the impugned 
judgment.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
We are not impressed by the argument that muffled 
description narrated in the First Information Report in the absence of a 
test identification parade was fatal to the prosecution case. The 
occurrence took place inside the mosque and the victim while in the 
witness-box unhesitatingly pointed his finger on the culpability of the 
appellant. Extensive burn injuries with instant impact certainly 
debilitated the victim with suspended faculties; it is but obvious that he 
was not in a position to communicate with the complainant; absence of 
appellant’s name in itself amply demonstrates that no deliberations or 
consultations were recoursed to before registration of the case. Multiple 
burn injuries, extensive in nature, involving different parts of body rule 
out the possibility of an accident or self infliction. Victim survived the 
assault and, thus, was able to disclose assailant’s identity, a 
circumstance found by us as confidence inspiring and, thus, required 
no test identification parade, as he himself identified his tormentor. 
Motive is not a constituent of the crime and the complainant or victim 
could have trotted out thousand and one reasons but they preferred 
none. View concurrently taken by the learned trial Judge as well as the 
High Court on appellant’s culpability for having targeted the victim with 
acid is not open to any legitimate exception except that his conviction 
under section 7(c) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, set aside 
accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.   
 
 
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad, the 
18th October, 2021 
Azmat/- 
