IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.42-P of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Peshawar  
High Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.446-P/2014) 
 
Mst. Naseem  
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
  
Farhad Khan and another 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Altaf Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Ms. Abida Safdar,  
 
Addl. Advocate General, KPK 
 
Date of hearing: 
26.07.2021 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Respondent was tried 
by the learned Sessions Judge Peshawar for committing Qatl-i-Amd of  
Haris Abdullah, 18/20, no other than his only son on 2.10.2012 within 
the precincts of Police Station Hayatabad; the incident was reported by 
his wife Mst. Naseem Khan who witnessed the occurrence alongside her 
two sisters; no motive was cited in the crime report, however, in his 
retracted confessional statement, he blamed the deceased for inaptitude 
in his academic pursuits. Upon indictment, he claimed trial that 
resulted into his conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 28.6.2014; he was 
sentenced to imprisonment for life, however, the High Court after 
converting his conviction into clause (c) of section ibid reduced the 
sentence to the period already undergone by him vide impugned 
judgment dated 25.1.2018, being assailed by the State.  
2. 
 
Ms. Abida Safdar, learned Additional Advocate General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, contends that the shocking case of filicide is an 
open and shut episode, admitting no space to treat the respondent with 
any degree of leniency; after taking us through the ocular account 
furnished by Mst. Naseem Khan and Salma Khan, respondent’s wife 
Criminal Petition No. 42-P/2018  
2
and daughter respectively, the learned Law Officer read excerpts from 
respondent’s confessional statement to demonstrate that he had acted 
most callously and in a manner deliberate and calculated and, thus, 
there was no occasion for the High Court to overstretch his culpability 
into the remit of clause (c) of the section ibid; she next argued that the 
deceased in his prime youth was ‘Masoom-ud-Dam’  and his gruesome 
murder with five consecutive shots has inflicted indelible abiding 
trauma to his devastated sisters and mother and, thus, a proportionate 
sentence possibly presents them the only temporal solace; she next 
argued that the respondent contested the charge without remorse or 
regret and denied his culpability throughout and as such in the 
absence of any specific plea, High Court ran into grievous error to let 
him off with a brief period of incarceration which tantamount to denial 
of justice both to the deceased as well as the family. Contentions merit 
consideration; leave is granted to reappraise the entire evidence with a 
view to secure ends of justice. Send for the respondent through bailable 
warrants in the sum of Rs.200,000/-, returnable to the Assistant 
Registrar of this Court at Peshawar. Station House Officer shall execute 
the warrants within a fortnight. 
 
 
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Peshawar, the 
26th July, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
