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.137-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25.02.2015 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Criminal Appeal No.1935 of 2012 and Capital 
Sentence Reference No.39-T of 2012). 
 
Khurram 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Sher Afghan Asadi, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 15.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Atif Sajjad, 
15/16, worked as an Apprentice with his father, Sajjad Ahmed, 
PW, an Auto Mechanic; on fateful day i.e. 28.6.2012 at 11.30 a.m. 
he left shop to fetch grocery items and deposit utility bills; he did 
not return; suspecting abduction, his disappearance is reported to 
the police on the following day. Muhammad Munir, SI, PW, 
attempted to locate the abductee through his cell phone, however 
without success. Abdul Qayyum and Muhammad Sabir, PWs 
joined investigation on 16.7.2012; they nominated Bilal, Khurram, 
Ajmal and Amir as the suspects; they saw the abductee with the 
accused on 28.6.2012. It is in this backdrop that appellant was 
arrested same day; Bilal, co-accused is still away from law. 
Consequent upon their disclosure, a dead body was recovered from 
a house, concealed beneath a floor, identified as that of Atif Sajjad. 
According to autopsy report, it was at advanced stage of 
putrefaction, partially skeltonized with unidentifiable features. 
Criminal Appeal No.137-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
Through 
supplementary 
statement 
dated 
3.8.2012, 
the 
complainant blamed the accused to have demanded ransom to the 
tune of rupees two crores, information, thenceforth, withheld by 
him out of concern for his son’s life. Upon conclusion of trial vide 
judgment dated 14.11.2012, learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court-
1, Gujranwala  convicted the appellant alongside Ajmal and Amir, 
co-accused, for homicide, abduction for ransom and screening of 
evidence; they were sentenced to death. The learned High Court 
acquitted Ajmal and Amir, co-accused from the charge; however, 
appellant’s conviction was maintained with Capital Sentence 
Reference returned in the affirmative. 
2. 
 
Abdul Qayyum, PW-11 and his brother Muhammad 
Sabir, PW-12 are the star witnesses; both of them, with one voice, 
claimed to have last seen the deceased in accused’s company, 
seemingly, volitional. They have given the date of encounter as 
28.6.2012, while conspicuously omitting the point of time thereof. 
The witnesses were once again together on 16.7.2012 when they 
visited the complainant to fix an electric generator; having seen 
him perturbed, upon inquiry, they shared information with him;  
disclosure diverted course of investigation towards the accused.  
One may find it hard to buy the story, capturing details, at a 
thorough fare in a crowded city at an unspecified point of time as 
well as with purpose of presence, vague by all means, that too per 
chance, incidentally required by the prosecution to prosecute its 
case. The script is far from being plausible. Acquittal of the 
identically placed co-accused adds to predicament of these 
witnesses.  
The dead body was recovered from a premises, statedly 
owned by Ghaffar Ahmed, CW-1; on motion dated 25.10.2012 by 
the State, he was summoned for 13.11.2012 to establish that the 
house was rented to the accused and that it was the same place 
wherefrom the dead body was recovered; exercise was taken in the 
midst of the trial. While a Court has ample power to send for 
witnesses for just decision of the case, nonetheless, power of this 
amplitude must be exercised with circumspection without 
disturbing the adversarial balance of the trial. There was no 
Criminal Appeal No.137-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
statement of the witness recorded during the investigation; no 
proof of ownership or tenancy as admitted by the witness. Such a 
sudden move and reliance thereon to the detriment of an accused, 
cannot be viewed as conscionable. There is yet another reason to 
discard this piece of evidence as according to the witness the 
house was jointly occupied by the accused including those 
acquitted form the charge. Advance stage of putrefaction, with 
elimination of facial features, without DNA analysis, represents a 
real issue regarding the identity of the corpse, recovered in 
pursuance to a joint disclosure though statedly recorded, one by 
one, nonetheless in the same session.  
3.  
 
On the whole prosecution’s case structured upon the 
statements of three witnesses, in alliance at each step, is fraught 
with doubts otherwise it is hard to distinguish appellant’s 
culpability from the acquitted co-accused. Criminal appeal is 
allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is 
acquitted from the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not 
required in any other case. Above are the reasons of our short 
order of even date which is reproduced as under:- 
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, the instant 
criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence 
of the appellant Khurram are set aside. He is acquitted 
of the charge framed against him. He shall be released 
forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other 
criminal case.” 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
15th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
