 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.90-P of 2016 
(Against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar 
passed in Cr.A. No.404-P/2015) 
 
Asif Khan 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Sher Shah and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Nisar, 
 
Additional Advocate General, KP 
 
Date of hearing: 
30.07.2021 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- In the backdrop of an 
ongoing feud, Said Muhammad alias Gulalai was shot dead at 10:55 
a.m. on 5.9.2005 within the precincts of Police Station Umar Zai 
District Charasadda; Ibrahim PW endure the assault with multiple 
gunshot. Sher Shah, Tayyab along with their absconding brother Riaz 
were arrayed as culprits for the crime; the first two were tried by a 
learned Addl. Sessions Judge; they were convicted for homicide as well 
as coordinate charges; they were differently sentenced that included 
penalty of death as well, vide judgment dated 26.04.2015, overturned 
by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.09.2016, vires 
whereof, are being assailed on the grounds that there was no occasion 
for the High Court to let off the respondents in the face of formidable 
evidence establishing their participation in the crime in a daylight affair, 
with one of the accused still away from law. It is next argued that 
though the complainant subsequently died natural death, nonetheless, 
injuries sustained by him during the occurrence stood fully established 
to corroborate ocular account by available witnesses. While taking 
through the impugned judgment, learned counsel has highlighted some 
narrative variations viewed by the High Court as “different versions” to 
argue that descriptive differences hardly affected the preponderance of 
evidence unmistakably pointed towards the culpability of the assailants 
Criminal Petition No.  90-P/2016  
 
2
and, thus, the reasons being artificial, do not present any doubt 
regarding the guilt of the respondents, that may be deduced from the 
record; the bottom line is that impugned view being subjective and 
incompatible with the evidence brought on the record runs counter to 
settled principles of administration of criminal justice and, thus, 
clamours for intervention by this Court to avoid miscarriage of justice. 
Send for the respondents through bailable warrants in the sum of 
Rs.200,000/- each, returnable to the Assistant Registrar of this Court 
at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute the warrants within a 
fortnight.     
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Peshawar, the 
30th July, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
