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.135-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
11.02.2015 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1130-
J/2010 and Capital Sentence Reference 
No.39-T of 2010). 
 
Shewaiz Rasool alias Shabi 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Ms. Khalida Parveen, ASC 
Mian Ghulam Hussain, AoR 
 
 
 
Respondent No.2 
: In person 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 14.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad 
Akbar and his three sons, namely Qasim Ali, Mubashir Hussain 
and Nazeer Hussain were done to death at 9.30 p.m. on 20.6.2004 
within the remit of Police Station Kunjha, District Gujrat. Incident 
was reported by Amjad Ali, PW who escaped assailant’s wrath as 
according to him he alongside his mother and maternal uncles 
arrived at the scene just when the family was being given blood 
bath. It is prosecution’s case that the complainant and his mother 
had visited Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Akbar, later’s real 
brothers to settle certain family differences and it was after 
reconciliation that the witnesses returned home together.  
 
Shewaiz Rasool, the present appellant, alongside Shahid 
Afzaal and Muhammad Rafi co-accused, armed with automatic 
weapons, were blamed to have targeted the deceased with multiple 
shots. Khawar Ali, Qamar-uz-Zaman, Muhammad Luqman, 
Criminal Appeal No.135-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
Muhammad Boota and Asad Ullah, differently armed were also 
alleged to have resorted to firing. The witnesses viewed the 
occurrence in electric bulb light; motive is conspicuously absent in 
the crime report. 
2. 
 
The appellant stayed away from law, while remainder 
were tried by an Anti Terrorism Court. Convicted on multiple 
counts, Shahid Afzaal and Muhammad Rafi were sentenced to 
death, whereas Khawar Ali, Muhammad Boota, Qamar-uz-Zaman, 
Asad Ullah and Muhammad Luqman, to imprisonment for life. In 
the wake of remand for re-writing of the judgment, the case came 
up before the learned High Court when vide judgment dated 
18.11.2008 it maintained  convictions and sentences of Shahid 
Afzaal and Muhammad Rafi while acquitting the remainder from 
the charge; appeal filed by them was allowed by this Court. It was 
a posthumous success for Shahid Afzaal, died during the pendency 
of his appeal. The appellant has been subsequently tried in the 
above backdrop; he was convicted on multiple counts and 
sentenced to death by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 
22.4.2010, affirmed by the learned High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 11.2.2015 vires whereof are being challenged 
through leave of the Court. 
3. 
 
The appellant is identically placed, on all fours, with 
Muhammad Rafi and Shahid Afzaal, co-accused; they had been 
assigned joint firing on the deceased; in the absence of any specific 
motive no distinction can be possibly drawn so as to distinguish, 
even obliquely appellant’s case from his co-accused. Though not 
assigned any harm to the deceased or the witnesses, acquittal of 
Khawar Ali, Muhammad Boota, Qamar-uz-Zaman, Asad Ullah and 
Muhammad Luqman stated to be in the company and community 
of intention with the appellant and acquitted co-accused, firing 
side by side, does cast a dark shadow upon prosecution’s case. 
This Court for a variety of reasons, each valid, acquitted 
Muhammad Rafi, co-accused from the charge; these include issue 
of identity of assailants during the fateful night; improbability of 
witnesses’ detour preceding assault and arrival exactly at a point of 
time when firing commenced; human incapacity to capture minor 
Criminal Appeal No.135-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
details in an extreme crises situation involving no less than eight 
persons and lack of motive etc.; these are squarely applicable to 
the case of present appellant as well and thus we have not been 
able either to draw any distinction or take a different view. Sauce 
for the goose is sauce for the gander. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal  
No.135-L/2017 is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. The 
appellant shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
14th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
