IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Jail Petition No.296 of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Appeal No.849 of 2014, 
Cr. PSLA No.126/2020 with M.R. No.230 of 2010)  
 
 
 
Shaheen Ijaz alias Babu 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Qureshi, Sr.ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
10.09.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted in a private 
complaint, alongside his son Muhammad Umar, since acquitted, the 
petitioner was returned a guilty verdict; convicted vide judgment dated 
29.3.2010 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Wazirabad, under 
clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was 
sentenced to death, altered into imprisonment for life by the High 
Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.3.2016, vires whereof, are 
being assailed on a variety of grounds.  
2. 
 
Muhammad Azhar, 35/36, was fatally shot at 5:00 p.m. on 
8.8.2008 within the remit of Police Station Saddar Wazirabad; the 
incident was reported at the police station, situating one kilometer 
from the venue, at 5:35 p.m. by deceased’s brother Muhammad 
Rafique (PW-3). Besides the petitioner, his three sons, namely, 
Muhammad Umar, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Abu Bakar, 
were arrayed in the backdrop of complaints by the deceased over 
Jail Petition No.296 of 2016  
2
discharge of filthy water from petitioner’s rooftop. The petitioner is 
attributed repeated fire shots, resulting into multiple injuries with 
blackened and burnt margins, confirmed during autopsy, conducted at 
10:20 p.m. Spot inspection includes seizure of human blood and 
casings found wedded with a .12 caliber pump action gun (P-4), 
recovered pursuant to disclosure dated 03.09.2008.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
complainant has manifestly cast a wider net to implicate the entire 
family and in the wake of his failure qua three out of four accused 
nominated in the crime report as assailants in a preconcert, there was 
no occasion left to still hold the petitioner as guilty; that even dated 
dispatch of casings (P-6/1-2) alongside gun (P-4) rendered the forensic 
report (Ex.PR) as inconsequential and, thus, after exclusion of motive 
from consideration by the High Court, reliance upon a substantially 
disbelieved ocular account, is an option fraught with a potential risk of 
error.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
The deceased and the petitioner lived in the same 
neighbourhood; though disbelieved by the High Court, nonetheless, 
motive alleged in the crime report appears to have ignited the 
unfortunate situation with a past, otherwise peaceful and smooth; in 
this backdrop, petitioner’s nomination in a broad daylight incident by 
resident witnesses hardly admits a space to entertain any hypothesis of 
mistaken identity or substitution. Prompt recourse to law straight at 
the police station excludes every possibility of deliberation or 
consultation. Petitioner’s sole nomination as being the one to have 
targeted the deceased with five entrance wounds is a circumstance that 
reflects positively on complainant’s conduct; nomination of co-accused 
with inconsequential roles notwithstanding, their presence at the scene 
followed by acquittal, seemingly out of abundant caution, does not 
tremor prosecution’s mainstay qua the role assigned to the petitioner. 
In the totality of circumstances, presence of petitioner’s sons in an 
incident, coming about next door, would not by itself bring them into 
the community of intention and as such their acquittal cannot be 
viewed as a circumstance casting away the entire case. Forensic report 
Ex.PR, though viewed with suspicion by the High Court in view of even 
dated dispatch of casings (P-6/1-2) with gun (P-4), nonetheless, 
unmistakably confirms injuries sustained by the deceased consistent 
Jail Petition No.296 of 2016  
3
therewith. A straightforward and consistent ocular account furnished 
by the witnesses overwhelmingly preponderates over petitioner’s plea of 
an accidental fire by the deceased costing his own life in a brawl 
wherein he admits his own presence. The plea in view of repeated fire 
shots widely covering different parts of deceased’s body, merits outright 
rejection being preposterous. The courts below rightly placed implicit 
reliance on the prosecution evidence that squarely constituted “proof 
beyond doubt”; scales are in balance with wage settled conscionably. 
Leave declined.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
10th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
