IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 26.05.2020 passed by the Lahore High 
Court Lahore in Cr. Appeal No.1003/2012 with M.R. No.196/2012)  
 
 
 
Zeeshan alias Shani 
(in Cr.P.851-L/2016) 
Muhammad Ayub 
(in Cr.P.827-L/2016) 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Muhammad Ayub & another 
(in Cr.P.851-L/2016) 
The State & another 
(in Cr.P.827-L/2016) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Azam Nazeer Tarar, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P.851-L/2016) 
 
Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, ASC 
 
(in Cr.P.827-L/2016) 
 
For the State: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
06.08.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Junaid Ayub, 20/21, 
was shot dead with a .30 caliber pistol on 22.03.2010 at 3:30 p.m. 
within the precincts of Police Station City Sumandri, Faisalabad; 
incident was reported by his father Muhammad Ayub (PW-2), who 
blamed Zishan alias Shani and Abid Ali accused for the crime; both let 
off by the police during investigation, tried subsequently by a learned 
Additional Sessions Judge in a private complaint, resulting into 
acquittal of the latter; convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner, however, was sentenced to 
death vide judgment dated 14.04.2012, altered into imprisonment for 
life by the High Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2016, being 
Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016  
2
impugned both by the convict as well as the complainant through the 
captioned petitions.  
 
Prosecution case is primarily structured upon ocular account 
furnished by Asad Ayub and Abid Ali PWs. According to the witnesses, 
they were on way when the accused confronted them in the backdrop 
of a previous quarrel. Abid Ali, since acquitted, is attributed 
exhortation pursuant whereto Zishan alias Shani targeted the 
deceased on his chest with solitary shot, confirmed during autopsy 
conducted on the same day.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the complainant contends that there 
was no occasion for the courts below to acquit Abid Ali, firmly placed in 
the community of intention after both the courts below relied upon the 
ocular account through a source aboveboard; the bottom line is that 
section 34 of the Code ibid is not a dead letter and the courts are 
required to give effect to the legislative intent to bring each accomplice 
to the task found guilty in furtherance of common intention. Both the 
accused shared the motive and as such there was no space to draw 
distinction in their culpability except for the actual shot fatally fired in 
compliance with the command, issued by Abid Ali, concluded the 
learned counsel. Learned counsel for the convict, on the other hand, 
contends that the deceased was done to death in an un-witnessed 
occurrence as is evident from the tenor of First Information Report 
lodged by deceased’s father who had admittedly not seen the 
occurrence; it is argued that Asad Ayub (PW-3), no other than deceased 
real brother, would have reported the matter to the police in a normal 
course and his induction as a witness heavily reflects upon the veracity 
of prosecution case. It is next argued that according to the 
investigation conducted by Asghar Ali SI, the murder was in fact 
committed by one Usman and it was so confirmed by Naseer and Nasir 
who had actually witnessed the occurrence; he has stressed upon the 
vagueness of the alleged motive to argue that there was no occasion for 
the convict-petitioner to take on the deceased; he has also referred to 
non-availability of any casing from the spot and an inconsequential 
recovery to conclude that it would be unsafe to maintain the 
conviction.  
3. 
 
Given the role attributed to Abid Ali, co-accused, in the face 
of a non-specific motive and sudden unanticipated encounter, his 
acquittal by the learned trial Judge, upheld by the High Court does not 
appear to be based upon conclusions that can be viewed as 
Criminal Petition Nos. 851-L and 827-L of 2016  
3
preposterous or impossible. It is by now well settled that reversal of 
acquittal requires strong grounds and cannot be interfered with merely 
on the possibility of a contra view. Leave is declined in Criminal 
Petition No.827 of 2016. However, in the totality of circumstances, we 
consider it expedient to re-appraise evidence qua Zishan alias Shani 
convict to ensure safe administration of criminal justice with a view to 
examine the investigative conclusions, diametrically incompatible with 
the case set up in the crime report. Leave is granted.   
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
6th August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
