IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.157-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
27.11.2013 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal 
No.164-J of 2008 and C.S.R. No.69-T of 
2007). 
 
Muhammad Faisal Abbas 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Tayyab Ramzan Ch., ASC 
Ms. Tasneem Amin, AoR 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Ch. Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor 
General, Punjab along with 
Complainant M. Ashraf 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 21.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Through leave of 
the Court, Muhammad Faisal Abbas, appellant has assailed, 
confirmation of his conviction and sentence returned by an Anti 
Terrorism Court, by the Lahore High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 27.11.2013. The appellant was tried alongside 
Muhammad Shahid, acquitted co-accused in the wake of incident 
dated 28.9.2006 within remit of Police Station Naseerabad, Lahore. 
It was alleged that the appellant and the co-accused, armed with 
pistols, committed robbery in a shop run by Muhammad Ashraf, 
PW; on gun point they snatched Rs.25,000/- with a cell phone 
hand set; upon resistance, one of them resorted to firing;  
complainant’s brother, Arshad Ali, succumbed to the injury, 
however, his second brother, Asghar Ali survived the assault; they 
were arrested on 6.2.2007. The appellant was identified in test 
identification parade as the one who fired upon the deceased and 
Criminal Appeal No.157-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
the injured; pistol recovered on his disclosure was found wedded 
with one of the casings secured from the spot. Upon conclusion of 
trial, the appellant confronted prosecution evidence; he blamed 
previous enmity as the factor behind his false implication, however 
without furnishing details or evidence in support thereof. The 
learned trial Judge acquitted Muhammad Shahid, co-accused, 
however proceeded to convict the appellant on six counts, ranging 
from murder, attempted murder, robbery and terrorism; on 
principal counts, he was sentenced to death; appeal met with no 
better fate and a learned division bench of Lahore High Court 
upheld the convictions and sentences consequent thereupon vide 
impugned judgment. For safe administration of criminal justice, we 
have re-apprised the entire evidence.  
2. 
 
Homicidal death of Arshad Ali and firearm injuries 
endured by Asghar Ali, PW-7 constitute a common ground; 
occurrence took place inside the shop, a family business, is also 
not disputed. Appellant’s plea that he has been implicated in the 
crime on account of previous enmity does not hold water; he has 
not been named in the report, an opportune course to engage him 
in the crime, if the complainant at all, had an axe to grind. Test 
identification parade, under magisterial supervision, is another 
formidable piece of evidence, exorably pointed upon appellant’s 
culpability. Witnesses are in a comfortable unison. In this 
backdrop, we find no occasion to take any legitimate exception to 
the findings returned by the learned trial Judge, upheld by the 
High Court. We have also carefully examined the impact of 
acquittal of co-accused upon appellant’s fate. Former has 
seemingly been acquitted on account of a different role assigned to 
him by the witnesses on the basis of a supplementary statement; 
he was blamed to have architected the crime; his acquittal out of 
abundant caution, a recognized juridical principle by now well 
entrenched in our jurisprudence does not adversely impact upon 
the prosecution case. Given dissimilarity of roles assigned to the 
appellant and the acquitted co-accused, prosecution’s partial 
failure, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not 
rescue the appellant, assigned shots to the deceased as well as the 
witness, independently corroborated by forensic evidence; the 
Criminal Appeal No.157-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
prosecution case to his extent is structured upon independent 
foundations and would not cast away with co-accused’s departure. 
In so far as appellant’s conviction under Section 7(a) of Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997, it warrants reconsideration. We have noted 
predominant purpose behind the crime as robbery, no doubt on 
gunpoint; a situation cropped up wherein the venture went violent, 
certainly un-condonable, nonetheless having no nexus with the 
situations enumerated in Section 6 of the Act ibid. Occurrence took 
place 
inside 
the 
shop 
impact 
whereof 
though 
grievously 
devastating for the witnesses, however cannot be said to have 
spilled over to the public at large. Therefore, in the peculiar facts 
and circumstances of the case, appellant’s conviction under 
Section 7 of the Act ibid is not sustainable and set aside 
accordingly. Similarly, in our view, that in the totality of the 
circumstances, alternate penalty of imprisonment for life would 
meet the ends of justice. Consequently, penalty of death is altered 
into imprisonment for life; these shall run concurrently with 
benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1898. With the above modification, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 
     
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
21st of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
