IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No. 
307 of 2009) 
 
 
Niaz Ahmed 
…Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Hasrat Mahmood, etc. 
 
 
     …Respondents 
              
 
 
For the petitioner: 
Sh. Ahsan-un-Din, ASC 
 
 
For respondents No. 1-3: 
Mr. Tanvir Iqbal, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
04.11.2015  
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: We have heard the learned 
counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through 
the relevant record of the case appended with this petition.  
 
2. 
As regards the merits of the case we have noticed that the 
occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and 
according to the FIR as well as the private complaint initially only a 
suspicion 
had 
been 
expressed 
by 
the 
petitioner 
against 
respondents No. 1 to 3 vis-à-vis their involvement in the murder in 
issue. During the trial the proseuction had based its case against 
respondents No. 1 to 3 only on circumstantial evidence in the 
shape of the last-seen evidence, motive and an extra-judicial 
confession. All the said three pieces of evidence had threadbarely 
been discussed by the trial court as well as the High Court and 
Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 
 
2
both the courts below had concurred in their conclusion that the 
proseuction had remained unable to prove its case against 
respondents No. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt and resultantly 
the trial court had acquitted the said respondents and the High 
Court had upheld such acquittal. Upon our own independent 
evaluation of the said pieces of evidence we have not been able to 
take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by 
the courts below.  
 
3. 
It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that the petitioner had initially lodged an FIR in respect 
of the incident in question and subsequently, having remained 
dissatisfied with the investigation of the case by the local police, he 
had instituted a private complaint regarding the selfsame incident 
containing identical allegations as leveled in the FIR and, thus, by 
virtue of the law declared by this Court in many cases the trial 
court ought to have conducted the trial in the complaint case first 
and it ought not to have consolidated the complaint case and the 
Challan case for a joint and simultaneous trial. In this regard the 
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the 
cases of Nur Elahi v. The State, etc.  (PLD 1966 SC 708), Mst. 
Rasool Bibi v. The State and another (2000 SCMR 641), Syed 
Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid and 5 others (1981 
SCMR 361) and Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 
(PLD 1984 SC 95). We have attended to the said argument 
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also 
perused the precedent cases referred to by him in support of such 
contention. The law is settled by now that if different versions of 
the same incident are advanced by the rival parties through cross-
cases and such different versions contain different sets of accused 
persons then trial of such cross-cases is to be held simultaneously 
and side by side and a reference in this respect may be made to 
the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. The State and another (PLD 1971 
SC 713), Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and Nine others (PLJ 1981 
SC 895), Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali, etc. (1987 PSC 646) and Mst. 
Rasool Bibi v. The State and another (2000 SCMR 641). The law is 
Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 
 
3
equally settled on the point that where the same party lodging the 
FIR also institutes a private complaint containing the same 
allegations against the same set of accused persons then the trial 
court is to hold a trial in the complainant case first and in the 
meanwhile the Challan case is to be kept dormant awaiting the fate 
of the trial in the complaint case and a reference in this respect 
may be made to the cases of Nur Elahi v. The State, etc. (PLD 1966 
SC 708), Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 SC 53), Syed 
Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid and 5 others (1981 
SCMR 361), Mumtaz and others v. Mansoor Ahmed and another 
(NLR 1984 Cr.L.J. 300 (SC)), Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali and 
others (PLD 1986 SC 737) and Aziz-ur-Rehman v. The State (PLD 
1987 Lahore 245). In the case in hand the trial court had ordered a 
consolidated trial of the Challan case and the complainant case 
which apparently was not the recommended course to be adopted. 
Be that as it may the fact remains that the provisions of section 
537, Cr.P.C. provide that no finding, sentence or order passed by a 
court of competent jurisdiction is to be reversed or altered in 
appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity 
in the mode of trial unless such error, omission or irregularity has 
in fact occasioned a failure of justice. An explanation attached with 
section 537, Cr.P.C. clarifies that in determining whether any 
error, omission or irregularity in any proceedings in the Code of 
Criminal Procedure has occasioned a failure of justice the court 
shall have regard to the fact whether an objection in that regard 
could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the 
proceedings. In the present case we have pertinently noticed that 
after a consolidated trial having been ordered by the trial court the 
petitioner had never raised any objection throughout the trial 
against the mode of trial adopted. Apart from that the learned 
counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to convince us that 
the mode of trial adopted by the trial court had caused any failure 
of justice because whatever be the mode of trial adopted by the 
trial court the evidence available with the proseuction was not 
likely to improve. We have already noticed above that the evidence 
available with the proseuction was not worthy of implicit reliance 
Criminal Petition No. 685 of 2015 
 
4
and, thus, the courts below have been found by us to be quite 
justified in concluding that the proseuction had failed to prove its 
case against respondents No. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. In 
these circumstances no occasion has been found by us for 
interference in the matter by this Court. This petition is, therefore, 
dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
04.11.2015 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif 
