IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
  
 
Jail Petition No.263 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 7.3.2018 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Cr. Appeal 
No.190-J/2015 and M.R. No.227/2015) 
 
Muhammad Ashraf 
 
.…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State   
….Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Muddasir Khalid Abbasi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
For the State: 
 
 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.08.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
       Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-  A sudden brawl in the 
family cost Samra Hafeez, 21, deceased, her life whereas her sister Misbah 
Hafeez (PW-3) and brother Murtaza Hafeez (PW-4) survived gun shots at 
2:30 p.m. on 10.12.2010 within the precincts of Police Station Aroop, 
Gujranwala; incident was reported by their father Muhammad Hafeez  
(PW-3) at the police station; he blamed his brother Sana Ullah and sister-
in-law Farzana Bibi for having ignited the situation, pursuant whereto, the 
petitioner, a close relative, along with Muhammad Azam (P.O.) targeted 
Samra Hafeez with a .44 caliber gun while the absconder trapped Murtaza 
Hafeez, PW; they jointly injured Misbah Hafeez PW; he was indicted 
alongside Sana Ullah and Farzana Bibi, since acquitted, vide judgment 
dated 30.04.2015 convicted under clause (b) of section 302 and sentenced 
to death; on the coordinate charge of murderous assault, he was also held 
guilty for the crime. The High Court maintained the convictions, however, 
altered penalty of death into imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment 
dated 07.03.2018, vires whereof, are being assailed through a jail petition, 
taken up by Mr. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, ASC, who argued that the 
petitioner was an innocent visitor, unsuspectingly trapped in a fight that 
raged between the two brothers, a circumstance which according to the 
 Jail Petition No.263 of 2018 
 
 
2
learned counsel, is self evident from the crime report as the occurrence 
cropped up while the family members were taking meal on the rooftop. The 
learned counsel has also attempted by referring to some selective portion of 
prosecution evidence to demonstrate that petitioner was not present at the 
scene when the deceased and the injured received fire shot, insinuating the 
entire blame onto the absconding co-accused. It is further contended that 
in a dispute between two real brothers, petitioner had no earthly reason to 
shoot the family members and it appears that he is being hounded as a 
scapegoat. To qualify the point, the learned counsel referred to the failure of 
prosecution motive with the High Court as well as inconsequential recovery 
of weapon allegedly used.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Occurrence is a daylight affair, graphic details whereof, have 
been furnished by the witnesses who are not merely injured but inmates of 
the premises as well. An unfortunate situation cropped up all of a sudden 
and in that backdrop, the complainant or the witnesses had no axe to grind 
so as to swap the petitioner with the real offender. There is no space to 
entertain any hypothesis of innocence. The witnesses have been thoroughly 
cross-examined during the trial and we have not been able to find out any 
serious flaw, contradiction or infirmity reflecting upon their depositions. 
Reference by the learned counsel to the statement of Muhammad Hafeez 
(PW-5) to demonstrate that the petitioner as well as the absconding 
accused were not present during the fateful moments is preposterous and 
out of context to say the least; he has referred to the following portion of the 
statement of the witness:- 
“When we were taking meal accused Azam and 
Ashraf were not present.” 
 
He has skipped the very next line wherein the witness in the same breath 
said: 
“However, they came afterwards from inside the 
house.” 
The statement is continuity of a narration illustrating the events preceding 
commencement of assault and by no stretch of imagination or through any 
mode of interpretation one can construe it as  implying absence of the 
accused. 
 
Ocular account furnished by the witnesses is duly corroborated by 
medical evidence. Weapon recovered upon petitioner’s disclosure though 
excluded from consideration by the High Court, nonetheless, is consistent 
 Jail Petition No.263 of 2018 
 
 
3
with the injuries received both by the deceased as well as the witnesses. 
Investigative conclusions in the wake of various steps taken with a 
remarkable promptitude are inescapably pointed upon petitioner’s 
culpability who remained away from law for a considerable span of time 
before he was finally arrested on 10.9.2012. The Courts below have rightly 
appraised the evidence and found no space to entertain any hypothesis 
other than petitioner’s guilt. We, on our own analysis, have found 
petitioner’s conviction in accord with the principles of safe administration 
of criminal justice with a wage settled conscionably. Petition fails. Leave 
declined.    
 
 
  
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
 
 
 
