in THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Multan Bench in Jail Cr.A. No.606 /2003) 
 
 
Shaukat Hussain  
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
14.02.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Through leave of 
the Court impugned herein is judgment dated 06.05.2015 by a 
learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench 
Multan whereby guilty verdict returned by a learned Additional 
Sessions Judge at Rajanpur in a case of homicide vide judgment 
dated 30.06.2003 was maintained. 
 
It is alleged that the appellant, suspecting illicit liaison, 
strangulated Afshan Batool, no other than his better half, inside his 
home, at 10:00 p.m. on 15.11.2000. Incident was reported shortly 
after midnight by deceased’s paternal uncle Ghulam Shabbir (PW-7); 
according to him, the deceased, in the backdrop of above acrimony, 
was staying with her parents wherefrom the appellant after 
mediation took her to his home; complainant and his companion 
followed him and allegedly witnessed the assault at 10:00 p.m; it is 
their case that the appellant along with his brother Mushtaq 
Hussain, since acquitted, placed a noose around the neck with 
Crl. Appeal No.585-2020                                    2 
 
Dopatta (P-7) and wire (P-8) and it is through constriction that the 
deceased was done to death within their view.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
prosecution case on the face of it is extremely improbable inasmuch 
as not only the father of the deceased abstained from the witness 
box but medical evidence is also inconsistent with the ocular 
account. Arrival of the witnesses exactly at the fateful point of time 
when the deceased was allegedly being strangulated is a coincidence 
that seldom occur, argued the learned counsel. According to him, 
the position taken by the appellant sounds more convincing so as to 
let off him, particularly after prosecution’s failure qua identically 
placed co-accused. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended 
the impugned judgment.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
In incidents of domestic violence more so in the event of 
homicidal death of a wife in the house of her husband a heavy onus 
is cast upon the latter to satisfactorily explain circumstances leading 
to the tragedy. See Article 122 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 
1984. However, in the present case, explanation furnished by the 
appellant, when juxtaposed with the prosecution evidence, warrants 
a serious reconsideration; according to him, the deceased had 
happily rejoined him, albeit to the annoyance of the complainant 
who otherwise harboured a grudge and desired to see the marriage 
on the rocks; in the nutshell, he shifted the blame on the 
complainant. What puts us on caution is absence of deceased’s 
father from the scene; he neither joined the investigative process nor 
opted to be in the witness-box; he would have been prosecution’s 
best choice to prove both desertion as well as calamity that struck 
her daughter; his silence is most intriguing, lending support, in 
retrospect, to the position taken by the appellant. Prosecution story 
is further negated by the autopsy report wherein on the neck a 
ligature mark is conspicuous by its absence; there is one bruise 
accompanied by four abrasion marks with an intact hyoid bone; 
though the death is opined as asphyxial, nonetheless, it does not 
appear to have occurred in the manner suggested in the crime 
report. It is also hard to believe that the witnesses four in number 
could not have intervened to rescue the deceased, statedly struggling 
to resist the assault within their view, close distanced at the crime 
Crl. Appeal No.585-2020                                    3 
 
scene. Acquittal of co-accused, without challenge, is yet another 
predicament confronting the prosecution. Fraught with doubts, 
position taken by the appellant cannot be dismissed without being 
imprudent. Appeal is allowed; impugned judgment dated 06.05.2015 
is set aside; the appellant is acquitted from the charge and shall be 
released forthwith if not required to be detained.  
 
      
 
  
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
14th February, 2022 
Azmat/- 
