IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
15.02.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Revision No. 
205/2021) 
 
Muhammad Usman 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Junaid Iftikhar Mirza, ASC 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sidhu, Addl. P.G.  
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.04.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Muhammad Usman 
along with co-accused was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Section 
30, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 201 
dated 18.07.2017 under Sections 324/337-F(v)/34 PPC at Police Station 
Kahuta, District Rawalpindi for attempting to take life of the complainant and 
his wife. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.05.2021 
convicted the petitioner as under:- 
i) 
Under Section 324 PPC 
To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine 
of Rs.50,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the 
petitioner shall undergo SI for a term of three months.  
 
 
 
ii) 
Under Section 337-F(v) PPC 
To pay Daman amounting to Rs.50,000/- to injured Qudrat 
Hussain. The amount of Daman was directed to be paid in lump 
sum.  
 
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also given to the petitioner.  
JAIL PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 
-: 2 :-
 
2. 
 
The co-accused of the petitioner was also convicted and 
sentenced on various charges. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, 
Rawalpindi while acquitting the co-accused, maintained the conviction of the 
petitioner and the same was upheld by the learned High Court vide 
impugned judgment pursuant to Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner. The 
prosecution story as given in the judgment of the learned Additional District 
Judge reads as under:- 
“4. 
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Qudrat 
Hussain complainant/PW-1 moved complaint EX.PA before the police 
claiming therein that the accused persons came to his house for affecting 
compromise between Muhammad Usman accused and daughter of 
complainant who are husband and wife. In the meanwhile the accused 
persons became furious, the accused Ghulam Qadir made fire shot on the 
son of complainant which was missed. The accused repeated the fire which 
hit the wife of the complainant on left thigh and then Muhammad Usman 
after snatching the pistol made fire shot to the complainant which hit him 
on left elbow joint and then the witnesses rescued them and requested the 
accused persons who thereafter fled away, hence the case.” 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to 
prove its case produced ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under 
Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted all the 
allegations leveled against him. However, he neither appeared as his own 
witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the 
allegations leveled against him nor produced any evidence in his defence. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case against 
the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the ocular account in this 
case is coming from a source which is related and it does not inspire 
confidence to sustain conviction of the petitioner. Contends that the 
prosecution witnesses of the ocular account are at variance on salient 
features of the prosecution version, as such, the same cannot be made basis 
to sustain conviction of the petitioner. Contends that the pistol allegedly 
recovered from the petitioner was not sent to the Forensic Science 
Laboratory, therefore, the recovery is inconsequential. Contends that the 
JAIL PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 
-: 3 :-
learned High Court did not take into consideration the above aspects of the 
matter, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at naught. In the 
alternative, learned counsel contended that the sentence of the petitioner 
may be reduced to what he has already undergone.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed 
this petition on the ground that the eye-witnesses had no enmity with the 
petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case and the medical evidence is 
also in line with the ocular account, therefore, he does not deserve any 
leniency from this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the evidence available on the record with their able 
assistance.  
7. 
 
A bare perusal of the record shows that the unfortunate 
incident, wherein the complainant and his wife sustained injuries, took place 
on 18.07.2017 at 10:30 pm. The injured were firstly taken to Tehsil 
Headquarter Hospital where the matter was reported to the Police through 
written complaint and thereafter the FIR was lodged on the same day at 
11:30 pm i.e. just after one hour of the occurrence. Thus, it can safely be said 
that FIR was lodged with promptitude. Promptness of FIR shows truthfulness 
of the prosecution case and it excludes possibility of deliberation and 
consultation. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by Qudrat 
Hussain, complainant (PW-1), Rukhsana Bibi (PW-2) and Muhammad Zaheer 
(PW-3). These prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-
examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the petitioner or 
adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record. These witnesses have 
given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of 
accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in 
the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence. These 
PWs remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they 
made deposition according to the circumstances surfaced in this case, 
therefore, it can safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the 
prosecution is reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring. The medical 
JAIL PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 
-: 4 :-
evidence available on the record further corroborates the ocular account so 
far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of 
injured is concerned. Qudrat Hussain, complainant (PW-1) had received 
injury at the hands of the petitioner. The testimony of this injured PW as well 
as the stamp of injuries on his person clearly proves his presence at the place 
of occurrence. Qudrat Hussain (PW-1) and Mst. Rukhsana Bibi (PW-2) were 
the inmates of the house where the occurrence took place, therefore, both 
these witnesses were the most natural witnesses. In the present case, the 
eye witnesses, one of whom had received injuries by the petitioner, have 
spoken consistently and cogently in describing the manner of commission of 
the crime in detail. The testimony of an injured eyewitness carries more 
evidentiary value. During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel 
contended that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the 
statements of the eye-witnesses but on our specific query he could not point 
out any major contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. 
Although, the weapon of offence i.e. a pistol was recovered from the 
petitioner but as the same was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, 
therefore, the recovery is inconsequential. To prove the motive part of the 
prosecution story, the witnesses of the ocular account appeared in the 
witness box and deposed against the petitioner. The perusal of the record 
reflects that the defence did not seriously dispute the motive part of the 
prosecution story. In these circumstances, there is sufficient evidence 
available on the record to sustain conviction of the petitioner. However, so 
far as the sentence of 05 years is concerned, we are of the view that the 
occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without there being any 
pre-meditation on the part of the petitioner. The complainant himself stated 
that his daughter was married with the petitioner and due to strained 
relations she was living in her parents’ house for the last one month. The 
petitioner came there to convince her and to take her to his house. They also 
had taken meal there. However, subsequently a quarrel took place between 
the parties, which resulted in the commission of the crime. The injured 
Qudrat Hussain only sustained one firearm injury and the petitioner did not 
repeat the same. The locale of the injury suggests that the petitioner had no 
intention to kill the injured. The petitioner has already suffered most of his 
JAIL PETITION NO. 148 OF 2022 
-: 5 :-
sentence. In this view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction of the 
petitioner under Sections 324/337-F(v) PPC, the sentence of 05 years RI 
awarded to him under Section 324 PPC is reduced to the period which he has 
already undergone. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 
petitioner had prayed that petitioner is a poor person and cannot pay the 
Daman amount in one go, therefore, requested for installments of the 
Daman amount. Section 337-Y(2) PPC provides that “in case of non-payment 
of daman, it shall be recovered from the convict and until daman is paid in full 
to the extent of his liability, the convict may be kept in jail and dealt with in 
the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment or may be released 
on bail if he furnishes security equal to the amount of daman to the 
satisfaction of the Court.” In this view of the matter as we have already 
reduced the sentence of the petitioner to what he has already undergone, 
keeping him behind the bars for the indefinite period till the payment of 
Daman would not be in the interest of justice. We, therefore, direct that the 
petitioner may be released subject to his furnishing surety equal to the 
amount of Daman to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The learned 
Trial Court is directed to grant one year’s time to the petitioner for payment 
of Daman amount, which would be payable in equal installments. However, it 
is made clear that in case of any default in payment of monthly installment, 
the petitioner shall be taken into custody and dealt with in accordance with 
law.  
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this jail petition is 
converted into appeal, partly allowed and the impugned judgment is 
modified accordingly.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of April, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
