IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 355 OF 2018 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 22.02.2018 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in 
Criminal Appeal No. 481/2012) 
 
Muhammad Abbas, and  
Muhammad Ramzan 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioners 
 
VERSUS 
 
The State  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Ms. Sabahat Rizvi, ASC 
 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG Punjab 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Abdul Khaliq Safrani, ASC 
 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
02.01.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioners along with two co-
accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni 
in a private complaint under Sections 302/148/149 PPC for committing 
murder of Muhammad Sarfraz. The same was instituted being dissatisfied 
with the investigation conducted by the Police in case FIR No. 85 dated 
10.04.2009 under Sections 302/148/149 PPC at Police Station Ghaziabad, 
District Sahiwal. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 
28.06.2012 while acquitting the two co-accused, convicted the petitioners 
under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. 
They were also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to 
the legal heirs of the deceased or in default whereof to further suffer four 
Jail Petition No. 355/2018 
 
2
months SI. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of 
the petitioners. In appeal the learned High Court maintained the 
conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the learned Trial 
Court.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the Trial 
Court reads as under:- 
“The complainant, Ameer Hussain filed this complaint against the 
accused persons alleging that he is resident of Chak No.413/E.B. and 
cultivator by profession. The accused persons abducted Mst. Shakila Bibi, 
aged about 16/17 years, the daughter of complainant’s cousin, 
Muhammad Sarwar S/o Niamat. The accused persons promised to return 
her. On 09.04.2009 at 9.00 p.m. the complainant along with Muhammad 
Sarwar, Hassan Abad Ali, Muhammad Amin, Sarfraz and Muhammad 
Shabbir came to Chak No.53/12L and demanded for return of Mst. 
Shakila Bibi. Hot words were exchanged between the parties. Gahni 
accused raised Lalkara that teach Sarfraz a lesson for demanding the 
hand of Shakila Bibi, whereupon Muhammad Abbas made a dagger blow, 
which landed on the right wrist of Muhammad Sarfraz. Muhammad 
Ramzan accused also made a dagger blow on the right arm pit of Sarfraz. 
He fell down smeared in blood. Later on Muhammad Nawaz accused 
made a blow of his Chhuri, which landed on the right side of his back 
while Muhammad Boota accused beaten Sarfraz with kicks and fists. The 
witnesses Abbad Ali, Muhammad Amin witnessed the occurrence and 
saved the complainant party from the clutches of the accused persons. 
The victim Sarfraz succumbed to the injuries in the way to hospital. The 
motive was that the accused persons had abducted Mst. Shakila Bibi, 
daughter of Muhammad Sarwar. Sarfraz has been pursuing the said case. 
Due to that grudge, the accused persons have caused his murder. The 
complainant lodged FIR No.85/09 but the police in connivance with the 
accused persons declared Muhammad Nawaz accused as innocent while 
accused Muhammad Ashfaq died during the trial. Hence, this private 
complaint.” 
  
  
3. 
 
The conviction of the petitioners was recorded in a private 
complaint. The complainant produced cursory evidence whereafter the 
formal charge was framed against the petitioners on 02.08.2011 under 
Sections 302/148/149 PPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed 
trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced three witnesses 
and ten CWs. In their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the 
petitioners pleaded their innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled 
against them. However, they did not make statements on oath under 
Jail Petition No. 355/2018 
 
3
Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of allegations leveled against them. They 
also did not produce any evidence in their defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners 
contended that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses, which have not been taken into 
consideration by the courts below. Contends that the PWs are interested 
and related to each other and their evidence has lost its sanctity. Contends 
that the prosecution case is based upon whims and surmises and it has to 
prove its case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to 
do so. Contends that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. 
Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive as 
alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. Contends that 
the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the 
petitioners are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the 
impugned judgment may be set at naught. Lastly contends that even if the 
whole prosecution case is admitted, at the most it falls within the ambit of 
Section 302(c) PPC.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned 
counsel for the complainant defended the impugned judgment. It has 
been contended that the petitioners were specifically nominated in the 
crime report with a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased, which 
ultimately became his cause of death. Contends that the ocular account 
has been proved beyond shadow of doubt and the medical evidence 
supports the same. Contends that the prosecution has proved its case 
through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, the 
petitioners do not deserve any leniency by this Court. However, it has not 
been denied that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the 
moment, which is spelled out from the record.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on record.   
 
Jail Petition No. 355/2018 
 
4
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the unfortunate incident 
wherein brother of the complainant lost his life had taken place on 
09.04.2009 at 9:00 p.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police at 
01:20 a.m. on the same night while the inter se distance between the 
place of occurrence and the Police Station was 25 kilometers. This aspect 
of the case clearly reflects that the matter was reported to Police promptly 
without there being any delay. As the parties were related to each other, 
therefore, there is no chance of misidentification. In order to prove its 
case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statements of Ameer 
Hussain, complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Amin (PW-2). These 
prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the 
defence but nothing favourable to the petitioners or adverse to the 
prosecution could be produced on record. These PWs remained consistent 
on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition 
exactly according to the circumstances happened in this case, therefore, it 
can safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the 
prosecution is reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring. The 
medical evidence available on the record is in line with the ocular account 
so far as the nature, locale, time and impact of the injuries on the person 
of the deceased is concerned. So far as the question that the PWs were 
closely related to the deceased, therefore, their testimony cannot be 
believed to sustain conviction of the petitioners is concerned, it is by now 
a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the 
prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard 
the testimony of such witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners could 
not point out any reason as to why the complainant has falsely involved 
the petitioners in the present case and let off the real culprit. Substitution 
in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. During the course of proceedings, 
the learned counsel contended that there are material discrepancies and 
contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses but on our specific 
query she remained unsuccessful and could not point out any major 
contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. On account 
of lapse of memory owing to the intervening period, some minor 
Jail Petition No. 355/2018 
 
5
discrepancies are inevitable and they may occur naturally. The accused 
cannot claim benefit of such minor discrepancies. The eye-witnesses have 
given details of the occurrence, which prove that they have witnessed the 
tragic death of Sarfraz. The motive had not been seriously disputed by the 
defence, therefore, it was rightly believed by the courts below. So far as 
the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. churries from the petitioners is 
concerned, the same has rightly been held inconsequential by the learned 
Trial Court by holding that the occurrence took place on 09.04.2009 while 
the weapons were recovered on pointation of the petitioners from their 
house on 20.02.2011 i.e. after about two years. Admittedly, the said house 
was a joint house wherein the other members of the petitioners’ family 
were also residing. During this period, the petitioners did not reside in 
their house. Furthermore, the churries were allegedly recovered on 
20.02.2011 but the same were sent to office of Chemical Examiner on 
29.09.2011 i.e. after elapse of seven months for which no explanation has 
been given. In these circumstances, it can safely be said that the 
prosecution has brought on record reliable evidence to sustain the 
conviction of the petitioners. However, so far as the quantum of 
punishment is concerned, we are of the view that the occurrence took 
place at the spur of the moment and there was no pre-meditation on the 
part of the petitioners. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the house 
of the petitioners where the complainant party had brought a jirga for 
return of Mst. Shakeela, niece of the complainant, who was married with 
petitioner Muhammad Nawaz against the will of her parents. A bare 
perusal of the record reveals that something happened immediately 
before the occurrence, which provoked the petitioners and they caused 
churri blows on the person of the deceased. On our specific query, learned 
Law Officer and learned counsel for the complainant could not deny the 
fact that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment. 
Admittedly, both the petitioners did not repeat their act. There was no 
deep rooted enmity between the parties. In these circumstances, the 
learned High Court ought to have taken a lenient view. Consequently, we 
convict the petitioners under Section 302(c) PPC and sentence them to 
Jail Petition No. 355/2018 
 
6
fourteen years RI each. The amount of fine and the sentence in default 
whereof shall remain intact.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition is 
converted into appeal and partly allowed and the impugned judgment is 
modified as stated in the preceding paragraph. The above are the detailed 
reasons of our short order of even date. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
2nd of January, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
