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.75-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
22.04.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, 
Lahore 
in 
Criminal 
Appeals 
No.1098 
& 
1116 
of 
2009, 
Murder 
Reference No.291 of 2009 and Criminal 
Revision No.866 of 2009). 
 
 
Tariq Mehmood 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Munir Ahmed Bhatti, ASC 
 
 
 
For the Complainant(s) 
: Mr. Azam Nazeer Tarar, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 09.05.2019 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J Tariq Mehmood, 
appellant was tried alongside Waseem Sajjad, Amjad Sardar, Israr 
Ahmad, Ghulam Ali, Sikandar Hayat and Mst. Mehnaz Akhtar by a 
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mandi Baha-ud-din for 
committing qatl-e-amd of Saif-ur-Rehman, deceased in addition to 
murderous assault on Farhan, PW and abduction of Mst. Tehmina 
Akram, PW; of them Ghulam Ali, Sikandar Hayat, Israr Ahmad and 
Mst. Mehnaz Akram were acquitted from the charge, whereas the 
appellant, Waseem Sajjad and Amjad Sardar were returned a guilty 
verdict. For homicide, the appellant was sentenced to death under 
clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, 
whereas Waseem Sajjad and Amjad Sardar to imprisonment for life 
for being in the community of intention along with compensation of 
Criminal Appeal No.75-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
Rs.100,000/- each; for murderous assault, the accused were 
sentenced to ten years R.I. each with fine of Rs.10,000/- and for 
abduction each was sentenced to seven years R.I. with fine of 
Rs.20,000/-; sentences were ordered to run concurrently with 
benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 
A learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 22.04.2014 dismissed convicts’ appeals; a revision 
for enhancement of sentences met the same fate. It would be 
pertinent to point out that during pendency of the appeal, Waseem 
Sajjad, convict was released on bail by way of execution of 
sentence on 30.11.2011; the release warrant was however 
inadvertently in favour of Amjad Sardar, convict as well, in 
pursuance whereto both of them  were enlarged on bail; they are 
away from law ever since. The learned High Court dismissed their 
appeal, however without reference to their departure from the 
array. 
2. 
 
Prosecution’s case is structured upon statement of 
Muhammad Nauman, PW-4; according to him, during the fateful 
night at 8:15 p.m. the appellant along with co-accused, differently 
armed, trespassed into his home; they attempted to forcibly take 
away Samina Akram; upon family’s resistance, Waseem Sajjad, co-
accused made a fire shot on Muhammad Farhan, PW on his right 
flank; as complainant and Saif-ur-Rehman attempted to rescue the 
girl the appellant fired upon Saif-ur-Rehman, deceased followed by 
a fire shot by Amjad Sardar; former, twice hit by the both, one by 
one; accused decamped with Samina Akram within witnesses’ 
view, recovered unscathed by the police after twenty days of the 
occurrence. The assailants avenged a suspected liaison between 
Muhammad Usman, PW with appellant’s cousin. Dissatisfied with 
investigation, the complainant preferred to prosecute the case 
through a private complaint. 
3. 
 
Ocular account furnished by Muhammad Nauman, 
Muhammad Farhan and Mst. Tehmina Akram, PWs constitutes 
prosecution’s mainstay. Of them Muhammad Farhan sustained  
injury, substantially extensive in nature. Occurrence took place 
inside 
a 
residential 
premises. 
First 
sight 
cannot 
escape 
Criminal Appeal No.75-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
preponderance of evidence, however on a closer view, emerges a 
picture incompatible with the events, narrated in the crime report. 
The accused mounted assault, as per prosecution’s own case to 
settle score with Muhammad Usman, PW for his alleged affair with 
the lady related to the appellant; it is disgrace that brought the 
assailants, face to face, with Muhammad Usman, PW, well within 
their view and reach it is astonishing that while being merciless 
without restraint upon others they spared prime target of assault. 
There can be no other inference that either Muhammad Usman 
was not present at the scene or the occurrence took place in a 
backdrop other than asserted in the crime report. More intriguing 
is recovery of Mst. Tehmina Akram, PW; according to her, she 
remained in captivity for twenty days, the poor soul was taken 
away to settle score for what her brother had done to a lady of 
assailants, a conduct repugnant, by all means, nonetheless, no 
one laid a finger upon the girl despite being at their mercy; she 
returned unharmed. It is mind boggling that after having shed so 
much blood why the lady was kept under immunity. Such superior 
conduct is not expected from the accused when the entire exercise 
was calculated to disgrace the family. Statement of Mst. Tehmina 
Akram is contradicted by Rana Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, CW-
1, the investigating officer; according to him, Mst. Tehmina Akram 
rejoined the family on her own without intervention of the police. 
In the witness box, she was confronted with her previous 
statement wherein she had blamed one Farooq alias Farooqi 
Thabal as primarily responsible for the crime though she denied, 
this fact was recorded by investigating officer in her previous 
statement. The investigating officer categorically stated in his 
examination-in-chief that the aforesaid Farooq alias Farooqi 
Thabal was principally responsible for the crime; a hired assassin, 
subsequently killed in a police encounter. Occurrence, statedly, 
took place on 20.1.2005 at 8.15 p.m. however autopsy was 
conducted following day at 11.45 a.m.; interregnum spaces the 
hypothesis of consultations/deliberations. What actually happened 
during the fateful night is left to our imagination. Even the learned 
trial Judge has not believed prosecution evidence qua majority of 
the accused. Once we have found the genesis of prosecution case 
Criminal Appeal No.75-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
as inherently suspect, loss of life notwithstanding, we consider it 
grievously unsafe to maintain the convictions in a case fraught 
with improbabilities and positions, each self destructive. Criminal 
appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant 
shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 
     
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
09th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
