IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALl MAZHAR
MR. JUSTICE SHAHID WAHEED
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2017
(On appeal against the judgment dated 3103.2017 passed by
the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 228 & 28412012 and Murder Reference No, 43/2012)
(1) Muhammad Iqbal, (2) Maqsood Ahmed,
(3) Mehram Khan, (4) Muhammad Jaffar,
(5) Muhammad Shoaib, (6) Lal Khan and
(7) Mumtaz
Shafqat Hussain (complainant)
(In Cr.P. 614/2017)
(In Cr.P. 618/2017)
Petitioners
VERSUS
The State and another 
(In Cr.P. 614/2011)
Muhammad Iqbal and others 
(In Cr.P. 618/2017)
Respondents
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Basharatullah Khan, ASC
(In cr. p. 61412017)
Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC
(In Cr.P. 618/2017)
For the State: Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG
For the State: Mr. Muhammad Jaffer, Addl. P.G.
Date of Hearing: 
30.11.2022
JUDGMENT
SAYYED MAZAHAR All AKBAR NAQVI. J.- Petitioners along with two co-
accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal, pursuant to a
case registered vide FIR No. 196 dated 29.07.2009 under Sections
302/324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Saddar, Talagang, District Chakwal for
committing murder of Muhammad Aslam and Altaf Hussain and for causing
injuries to lftikhar Ahmed, Ulfat Haider and Sher Ahmed.
2. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court seized of
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2011 
2
the matter framed charge against nine accused under Sections
302/324/148/149 PPC. The learned Trial Court while framing the charge
specifically mentioned that all the accused while forming an unlawful
assembly in furtherance of their common object have committed the crime
wherein two persons lost their lives while three sustained injuries and, as
such, committed an offence falling under Section 149 PPC. In order to prove
its case, the prosecution produced as many as sixteen witnesses. On the
conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused persons got recorded their
statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations
leveled against them. They did not opt to appear as witness under Section
340(2) Cr.P.0 to disprove the allegations. However, they produced some
documents in their defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court
vide its judgment dated 15.05.2012, while acquitting two co-accused Nawab
Khan and Mumtaz, convicted the petitioners as under:-
1)
Muhammad lgbal and Macisood Ahmed
u/s 302(b) PPC Sentenced to death along with compensation of
Rs.300,000/- payable to legal heirs of Haji
Muhammad Aslarn and Altaf Hussain, deceased,
recoverable as arrears of land revenue. In default
whereof, they shall suffer six months SI.
u/s 148 PPC 
Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI each.
2)
Mehram Khan and Muhammad Jaffar
U/s 324 PPC 
Sentenced to suffer three years RI.
U/s 148 PPC 
Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI each.
Both sentences were ordered to run
concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.0
3)
Muhammad Shoaib, Lai Khan and Mumtaz
U/s 148 PPC 
Sentenced to suffer 2 years RI.
They were also held entitled to the benefit of
Section 382-B Cr.PC.
3. The petitioners challenged their conviction by filing Criminal
Appeal No. 228/2012 before the learned Lahore High Court. The complainant
also filed Criminal Appeal No. 284/2012 challenging the acquittal of the two co-
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 614 & 618 OF 2017 
3
accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to five co-accused.
The learned Trial Court also sent Murder Reference No. 43/2012 under Section
374 Cr.P.C. In appeal, the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of
the petitioners Muhammad lqbal and Maqsood Ahmed under Section 302(b)
PPC, altered the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The remaining
sentences to the extent of compensation awarded to them by the learned Trial
Court was maintained. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with
benefit of Section 382-8 Cr.P,C. So far as the remaining petitioners namely
Mehram Khan, Ghulam Jaffar (Muhammad Jaffar), Muhammad Shoaib, Lal Khan
and Mumtaz are concerned, their sentence was modified to the extent of the
sentence which they had already undergone subject to payment of fine of
Rs.50,000/- payable by each accused to the injured. Hence, these petitions
seeking leave to appeal.
4. During the course of proceedings before this Court, a query was
made to the learned counsel for the petitioners/convicts qua the legality of the
judgments rendered by the Trial Court as well as the High Court wherein the
Trial Court while taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances found
the accusation against the petitioners established through confidence inspiring
evidence and as such convicted them under Sections 302/324/148 PPC on the
basis of individual liability ascribed to them. It is astonishing aspect of the case
that despite of the fact that all the accused including the petitioners before us
were charged under Section 148/149 PPC but while deciding us the aspect of
'common object' was squarely ignored and the conviction and sentence was
recorded quite surprisingly on the basis of individual role. Similarly the Appellate
Court while deciding the appeal of the petitioners did not bother to pay
attention to the illegality committed by the Trial Court and dealt each accused
on the basis of individual liability.
S. This Court in a recent judgment reported as Bashir Ahmed Vs. The
State (2022 SCMR 1187) while elaborately discussing the penal provisions has
held as under:-
"13. A careful analysis of the aforesaid categories falling under
the provision of Section 302 PPC abundantly makes it clear that
the provision of Section 302(a) PPC is a distinct provision having
different mode and manner of application with different
CRIMINAL PERTION NOs. 614 & 618 OF 2017
considerations exclusively derived from the Islamic judicial system.
The proceeding under the aforesaid provision is a rare
phenomenon whereas the majority of the cases dealt with by the
courts below fall under Section 302(b) PPC. As stated above,
provision of Section 302(b) PPC provides two sentences i.e. death,
(ii) imprisonment for life. Murder cases exclusively falling within
the ambit of Section 302(b) PPC would be dealt with in a manner
exclusively depending upon the number of assailants. Undeniably a
single assailant can commit the aforesaid offence but if the
number of assailants is more than one and the offence is
committed in furtherance of common intention then the provision
of Section 34 PPC would certainly attract. Similar to that if the tally
of the accused is five or more and the offence is committed in
furtherance of common object then the provision of Sections
148/149 PPC would be applicable. The learned Trial Court seized of
the matter depending upon the number of accused has to render a
definite finding qua the applicability of Section 34 PPC (common
intention) or Sections 148/149 PPC (common object). These two
legal aspects are to be addressed with the application of the
aforesaid provision of Section 302(b) PPC depending upon the
number of assailants. It is bounden duty of the courts below to
ascertain the aspect of common intention or common object
primarily at the time of framing of the charge on the basis of
contents of FIR, statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C, if
any, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.0 and other attending
documents collected by the Investigating Officer during
investigation. The Trial Court is equally responsible to give a
definite finding qua the applicability of Section 34 PPC or Sections
148/149 PPC at the time of conclusion of the trial while handing
down the judgment. Now adverting to the moot point which was
raised during the proceedings that if anybody is found guilty of
commission of offence attracting the provision of Section 302(b)
PPC, the co-accused can be saddled with the responsibility on the
basis of individual liability or the whole occurrence has to be
decided keeping in view that the offence was committed in
furtherance of their common intention and the provision of
Section 302(b) PPC would be applied conjointly against the persons
joining hands falling under either of the categories i.e. common
intention or common object falling under Section 34 or 148/149
PPC depending upon the number of persons facing charge, We
may observe that any judgment which concludes the commission
of offence falling under Section 302(b) PPC in furtherance o
common intention or common object but decides the us on the
basis of individual liability would be squarely in defiance of the
intent and spirit of law on the subject."
6. The above view was upheld by this Court in Muhammad Nawaz
vs. The State (PLO 2022 SC 523) and Jail Petition No. 344/2018 titled
'Muhammad Waheed Vs. The State'. A bare perusal of the afore-referred
judgment of this Court makes it abundantly clear that while dealing with cases
of qatl-i-amd as embodied under Section 300 PPC in chapter XVI of Pakistan
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 614 & 618 OF 2017 
5
Penal Code, the Trial Court has to evaluate as to whether the act is committed in
furtherance of common intention/object or on the basis of individual liability to
press in the provision of Section 302(a)(b) or 302(c) PPC and it has to give a
definite finding qua the same. Any judgment which concludes that the
offence of qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) PPC was committed in
furtherance of common intention or common object but the sentence is
inflicted on the basis of individual liability, the same would be squarely in
defiance of the intent and spirit of law on the subject. However, if the
Court comes to the conclusion that the elements of common intention
and common object have not been established, then each accused would
be dealt with according to their individual role and severity of allegations
and would be sentenced accordingly by the Court exercising its
discretionary powers.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above,
we convert these petitions into appeals, allow the same and set aside the
judgments of both the courts below. The matter is remanded back to the
Trial Court to re-write the judgment on the basis of available evidence
after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment. During the pendency of the us before the Trial Court,
petitioners would be treated as under trial prisoners.
Islamabad, the
30th of November, 2022
Approved For Reporting
IllIIIir.11i
