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.133-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
09.02.2015 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.381 of 
2012 and CSR No.7-T of 2012). 
 
Shaukat Ali 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 16.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-   Through leave of 
the Court, impugned herein is judgment dated 9.2.2015 of a 
learned division bench of Lahore High Court whereby appellant’s 
conviction and sentence returned by a learned Anti Terrorism 
Court vide judgment dated 23.2.2012 is maintained.  
2. 
 
Naveed alias Guddu, hereinafter referred to as the 
deceased, left home after receipt of a phone call at 7.30 p.m. on 
22.8.2011. Upon failure to return, his disappearance was reported 
by his brother, Muhammad Rafique, PW-7. On 25.8.2011, the 
family received a phone call, demanding ransom of Rs.500,000/- 
in pursuance whereto the witnesses went to the designated place 
where they saw the appellant who decamped from the scene. The 
incident was reported to the police in consequence whereof the 
appellant was arrested on 26.8.2011 and upon his disclosure dead 
body of the abductee was retrieved, wrapped in a jute bag. It is in 
this backdrop that the appellant alongside Shahzad, co-accused 
were indicted before the Court; third accused Nadeem Hussain is 
Criminal Appeal No.133-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
still away from law. The learned Trial Judge while acquitting 
Shahzad co-accused from the charge convicted the appellant under 
Sections 201, 302(b), 365-A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read 
with Section 7(e) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997; he was sentenced to 
death on three counts along with five years R.I. under Section 302 
of the Code ibid with fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo four months 
S.I. in lieu thereof. 
3.  
 
Muhammad Rafique, PW-7, Muhammad Shehbaz, PW-
9 and Fida Muhammad, PW-10 are prominent amongst the 
witnesses to drive home the charge. They have furnished details 
preceding as well as subsequent to deceased’s disappearance. The 
investigating officer also collected cell phone data to establish 
conversations between the captor and the family. However, 
prosecution’s reliance is primarily upon appellant’s confessional 
statement dated 16.9.2011 before a judicial magistrate. It 
constitutes the mainstay.  
4.  
 
Though the appellant when indicted claimed trial and 
retracted from his confessional statement during his examination 
under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, 
nonetheless, on a careful examination we have found his 
confessional statement free from all taints. Seemingly voluntary 
without duress or inducement; inculpatory in nature the 
confessional statement reflects a complete and truthful narration 
of event leading to deceased’s death. The learned Magistrate has 
taken due care to administer necessary warnings to the appellant 
and recorded each detail thereof in his own hand. It does not 
appear to have been fabricated to advance prosecution’s case and 
thus can be squarely relied upon without any reflection on safe 
administration of criminal justice. It is by now well settled that a 
retracted confession can form basis for conviction if found 
voluntary and truthful. Retraction notwithstanding when examined 
in the totality of circumstances, the disclosure is synchronized 
with the events leading towards deceased’s death and recovery of 
dead body on appellant’s disclosure. These circumstances exclude 
every hypothesis of his innocence and thus the Courts below have 
rightly relied upon the confessional statement, there being no 
Criminal Appeal No.133-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
space to entertain any hypothesis of innocence. Guilty verdict calls 
for no interference; the appeal fails. However, in so far as question 
of quantum of sentence to be exacted from the appellant is 
concerned 
it 
requires 
reconsideration; 
in 
the 
totality 
of 
circumstances, it is unmistakably found that  predominant 
purpose behind the crime was to extract ransom and it was in that 
process that the deceased lost his life due to suffocation and 
tranquilizer, excessively administered to subdue him; taken from 
this angle, alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life on 
each count would be a conscionable wage in circumstances. 
Consequently, penalty of death is altered into imprisonment for life 
on each count with amounts of fine and compensation kept intact; 
sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B of 
the Code ibid. With the above modification, Criminal Appeal 133-
L/2017 is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
16th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
