IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 3.6.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court 
Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur in Criminal Appeal No.515-J of 2011 
and M.R. No.65 of 2011)  
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Mehboob 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
  
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutta, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
26.10.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Blamed for committing 
Qatl-i-Amd of Waris Ali, 24/25, the appellant accompanied by his sons, 
since acquitted, contested indictment before a learned Additional 
Sessions Judge at Bahawalnagar; convicted under clause (b) of Section 
302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to death vide 
judgment dated 16.12.2011, altered into imprisonment for life vide 
impugned judgment dated 3.6.2015, vires whereof, are being assailed 
through leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
The appellant had leased out his agricultural land on 
annual rent of Rs.130,000/- to Barkat Ali complainant (PW-4); a sum of 
Rs.30,000/- for the year 2010 to be paid in the month of November was 
yet outstanding when on the fateful day i.e. 23.6.2010 at about 7:15 
a.m. the accused restrained the complainant as well as the witnesses 
from cutting fodder; a brief altercation, however, shortly ended in a 
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2020  
2
truce albeit with a threat by Khalid Mehmood alias Bhola,  
acquitted co-accused; a short while later, the appellant with his two 
sons, armed with .12 caliber shotguns and an hatchet, confronted the 
complainant, his son Dilbar Hussain (PW-5), brother Muhammad 
Yousaf and Sabir Ali PWs once again. The appellant fired in the air from 
a distance of two acres, simultaneously commanding his sons Khalid 
Mehmood and Tariq to take on the witnesses. It is prosecution’s case 
that Barkat Ali PW assisted by the witnesses snatched gun from Khalid 
Mehmood before he could fire upon them; it was at this point of time 
that the deceased apprehending a fire shot by the appellant attempted 
to take refuge behind a cart, however, was trapped by a shot and 
succumbed to the injury at the spot. Autopsy conducted at 4:30 p.m. 
confirmed four entry apertures with multiple pallets, each surrounded 
by burnt margin. Spot inspection includes seizure of blood without 
there being any casing. As the investigation progressed, appellant’s 
sons were let off. The appellant, arrested on 27.6.2010, upon a 
disclosure led to the recovery of a .12 caliber shotgun (P-7). The family 
faced trial together, confronting prosecution evidence in a unison with 
the following plea: 
“I am innocent and similarly my co-accused are also innocent 
as they were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. 
They were rightly found and declared innocent by the police. In 
fact on the day of occurrence I peacefully went to my land to 
demand lease money from the complainant. At that time 
complainant himself was armed with gun and I was empty 
handed. When I demanded lease money from complainant and 
his son Waris Ali (deceased) they not only refused to pay the 
lease money but also abused and insulted me on which we 
grappled with each other and in this process the gun held by 
the complainant accidentally went off and the fire of that gun 
hit Waris Ali deceased. The gun P-5 produced before the police 
was that of the complainant. The police had reached the place 
of occurrence without recording evidence and fabricated this 
case after conducting local inquiry in connivance with the 
complainant party.” 
   
Qua the appellant, it failed to inspire the courts below.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
prosecution withheld the whole truth as is evident from investigative 
conclusions that favoured Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Tariq; he 
contends that their unchallenged acquittal by itself confirmed the 
veracity of appellant’s plea, otherwise supported by the attending 
circumstances that included the findings recorded by the Medical 
Officer. 
Prosecution 
failure 
on 
motive 
compounded 
by 
an 
inconsequential recovery had further vindicated the appellant’s position 
and that acquittal of the co-accused, framed within the integrity of 
charge, though roles somewhat different, nonetheless, cast away the 
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2020  
3
entire case, concluded the learned counsel. Learned Law Officer has 
contrarily defended the judgment on the ground that assigned with the 
fatal shot, the petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced in 
circumstances. 
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Prosecution’s failure on motive notwithstanding, a default 
in payment of the rent, nonetheless, appears to have ignited a situation 
on the fateful day with no previous rancor. During the brawl, 
comprising two episodes, both sides confronted each other. Two .12 
caliber shotguns, one produced by the complainant and the second, 
recovered pursuant to a disclosure, spell out a confrontation in close 
blank proximity; on the contrary, in scaled site plan (Ex.PE/2), inter se 
distance between the appellant and the deceased is shown as 9 ½ 
Karam, a scenario that does not accommodate autopsy findings of 
burning surrounding each wound. When confronted, during the cross-
examination, with the distance between the appellant and the deceased, 
when the latter received the fatal shot, he complacently reaffirmed the 
disclosure. Locale of fatal shot on the back of the deceased in a 
configuration where both sides are confronting each other face to face is 
yet another circumstance intriguing upon the prosecution story. 
Though a cart noticed during spot inspection was secured by the 
Investigating Officer, nonetheless, pallet marks are conspicuously 
absent; it is no less surprising that the deceased, present on the driving 
seat of a tractor, statedly scrambling by the instinct of self preservation, 
would prefer a more vulnerable option to save his life; in retrospect, 
argument that the situation was acted out to write off the aftermaths of 
an obvious accidental shot does not appear to be unrealistic. 
Muhammad Bashir SI (PW-3) has investigated the case throughout and 
painted a picture altogether different by projecting the appellant being 
alone at the crime scene; his disclosure that “It is correct that during 
investigation from three nominated accused of the complainant, two were 
found innocent because in my investigation they were not present at the 
time and place of occurrence.” clearly suggests that occurrence did not 
take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report. Dichotomy 
inherent in the script visibly casts its shadows and, thus, in the totality 
of circumstances, prosecution has failed to bring forth “proof beyond 
doubt”. Criminal Appeal is allowed; impugned judgment is set aside; the 
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2020  
4
appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if 
not required to be detained in any other case.  
 
      
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
26th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
