IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NO.1298 & 1612 OF 2017 
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
dated 08.11.2017 passed in Murder Reference No.199 of 
2015/Criminal Appeal No.328-J of 2015) 
 
 
Muhammad Asif 
: 
(In Crl.P.1298/2017) 
Mehboob Alam 
: 
(In Crl.P.1612/2017) 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
Mehboob Alam and another  
: 
(In Crl.P.1298/2017) 
The State through P.G. Punjab & 
another 
: 
(In Crl.P.1612/2017) 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner  
: 
Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, ASC 
Javed Iqbal, ASC 
(In Crl.P.1298/2017) 
 
 
 
Ch. Walayat Ali, ASC 
(In Crl.P.1612/2017) 
 
For the (State)  
: 
Muhammad Jaffar, Addl.PG Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
22.04.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- The 
petitioner has sought leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the 
judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 08.11.2017 in 
Murder Reference No. 199/2015/Criminal Appeal No.328-J/2015. 
2. 
 
The petitioner was arrayed one of the accused in case 
FIR No.693/2011 dated 15.11.2011 offence under section 
302/324/337-F(i), 337-F(vi)/34 PPC registered with Police Station 
Sharakpur District Sheikhupura lodged at the instance of one 
Criminal Petitions1298 & 1612 of 2017 
-:2:-
Mehboob Alam. The complainant of this case being aggrieved by 
the conduct of local police investigation agency preferred to file 
“complaint” in the court of Learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura 
titled as “Mehboob Alam vs, Muhammad Asif and others” under 
section 302/324/34/337-F(i) PPC on 11.01.2012. The learned trial 
court proceeded with the “complaint” in the spirit of the law laid 
down by the superior court and as such the charge was framed 
vide order dated 22.05.2012. The learned trial court after 
completion of the trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution 
has succeeded to prove the case against Muhammad Asif for the 
commission of Qatl-i-Amd of Tanvir Ayyub hence, he was ordered 
to be convicted under section 302(b) PPC and was sentenced to 
death. He was further directed to pay compensation of 
Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under section  
544-A Cr.PC. He was further to undergo S.I for six months in case 
of default. The judgment of the learned trial court was assailed 
before Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal 
No.328-J/2015 (Muhammad Asif vs, the State), Murder Reference 
No.199/2015 was also sent to the court under section 374 Cr.PC 
for its confirmation. Both the matters were adjudicated and 
decided by the Learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, 
Lahore vide judgment dated 08.11.2017. The learned Division 
Bench 
after 
taking 
into 
consideration 
all 
the 
facts 
and 
circumstances decided the matter while converting sentence to 
death into imprisonment for life with reasons assigned qua 
quantum of sentence hence, the instant petition before us.  
Criminal Petitions1298 & 1612 of 2017 
-:3:-
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that in fact, it is a case of no evidence. 
The learned courts below had not taken into consideration the 
evidence available on record and the same has not been 
appreciated according to the principle of “appreciation of evidence” 
enunciated by the superior courts from time to time. Contends that 
though in the FIR against the column date and time of occurrence, 
it has been mentioned as 15.11.2011 ﻼﯾو مﺎﺷ but the same is not 
part of the statement made by the complainant at the time of 
chalking of the FIR, that even the “complaint” lodged by the 
complainant just after lapse of three months of registration of 
crime report, also not mentioned the date and time of occurrence. 
Further contends that the postmortem in this case was delayed by 
twelve to twenty four hours which further lend support to the fact 
that it was unseen occurrence and whole proceedings were carried 
out at a belated stage after due deliberation. Contends that the 
statement of the prosecution witnesses of the ocular account is at 
variance and if the same is taken into consideration, it do not 
inspire confidence to sustain conviction in case of capital charge. 
Contends that the ocular account is also in contradiction to the 
medical evidence which further lend support to the stance taken 
by the defence that none of the witness was present at the spot 
and it was an unseen occurrence and the petitioner was involved 
because of previous animosity. Lastly it was argued by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the salutary principle of “benefit of 
doubt” was not extended in favour of the petitioner and as such it 
is a fit case for interference by this Court in the interest of justice.  
Criminal Petitions1298 & 1612 of 2017 
-:4:-
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the complainant argued that the Learned High Court has 
erred while altering the sentence to death into imprisonment for 
life. Contends that it was preplanned murder, normal sentence 
provided under statute is death but the learned High Court has 
extended artificial reasoning while converting the sentence of death 
into imprisonment for life. Contends that the judgment of the 
learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The 
learned law officer has also adopted the contention raised by the 
learned counsel for the complainant.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
There is no second cavil to this proposition that 
initially the matter was lodged with the local police for initiation of 
proceedings against the accused persons nominated in the crime 
report but within a period of three months the complainant lost 
confidence in the fairness of the investigation and as such 
preferred to file “complaint” before the learned trial court. Though, 
the complainant has mentioned in his “complaint” that the accused 
persons nominated in the crime report are men of means having 
political interference and there is no scope of fair investigation but 
this aspect was not elaborated with any particular instance. As far 
as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 
particularly the time of occurrence has not been mentioned while 
lodging the “complaint” and it was not even part of the record at the 
time of making statement before the court.  
Criminal Petitions1298 & 1612 of 2017 
-:5:-
7. 
 
Bare perusal of the crime report which was lodged 
with promptitude reflect the date and time of occurrence against 
the specific column which is part of the form has been duly 
mentioned. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that it is unseen occurrence has lost its probative value 
hence, the same is repelled. Another aspect of the case that the 
postmortem in this case was delayed by twelve to twenty four 
hours was taken into consideration by us. In the instant case, one 
person lost his life, while there were two injured persons, those 
were evacuated to Mayo Hospital from the place of occurrence 
which is at a distance of 30/40 KM. Possibility of consuming the 
time in transportation might lead to delay in postmortem 
examination which was still fairly good as the doctor has opined 
proximately that it ranges from twelve to twenty four hours. In a 
country where the medical facility cum availability of paramedics 
for the job assigned is not an easy task, the consumption of such a 
time seems to be quite  reasonable hence, the prosecution evidence 
cannot be brushed aside on this score alone to extend the benefit 
of doubt as claimed. We have also noticed that there is previous 
hostility between the parties, hence it too does not inspire 
confidence and the same is repelled. We have noticed that the 
learned High Court while converting sentence to death into 
imprisonment for life has assigned justifiable reasoning supported 
by facts and law hence, the same seems to be well reasoned and 
meet all the standards of safe administration of criminal justice.  
8. 
 
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above 
and the reasons assigned, we do not find any scope for interference 
Criminal Petitions1298 & 1612 of 2017 
-:6:-
into judgment of the learned High Court hence, the instant petition 
before us is dismissed. The conviction and sentence inflicted upon 
by the learned High Court is upheld. As a consequence, leave to 
appeal is refused.   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad,  
22.04.2020 
Approved for reporting. 
Syed Rashid Maqsood 
 
 
