IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.406 of 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 24.02.2017 of the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench passed in Cr.A.404/2011 and MR No.66/2011) 
 
 
Noor Zaman 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State   
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
Sh. Ahsan ud Din, ASC 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
     
 
 
For the State:              
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar,  
 
Addl. P.G. Punjab   
 
 
Date of Hearing          
22.02.2022. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Muhammad Irfan, 
50, along with his wife Rafia Begum, 45, was attending Khan 
Muhammad accompanied by his brother Fateh Muhammad inside his 
house located within the precincts of Police Station Saddar Talagang, 
at 6:30 p.m. on 12.3.2009 when Noor Zaman petitioner armed with a 
.30 caliber pistol surprised them; aggrieved over denial of some piece of 
land by Muhammad Irfan, no other than his real brother, the 
petitioner targeted him with repeated fire shots; Rafia Begum rushed 
inside a room to save herself, however, the petitioner followed and 
dealt her 5/6 fire shots; brandishing the weapon, he left the premises, 
followed by the witnesses, to come across Halima Bibi, 30/35, in the 
lane to confront his wrath, she was shot on different parts of her body. 
The petitioner took to the heels while the casualties were shifted to 
THQ Hospital Talagang; Rafia Bibi died at the spot, Muhammad Irfan 
succumbed to the injuries following day whereas Mst. Halima Bibi on 
22.3.2009. 
 
Investigation commenced on the complaint of Khan Muhammad 
Criminal Petition No.406 of 2017                                                              2 
 
(PW-15). Inspection of crime scenes include seizure of blood from 
different points, forensically opined as of human origin; 12 casings 
collected from different points were found wedded with the pistol (P-6), 
recovered pursuant to a disclosure by the accused subsequent to his 
arrest on 5.5.2009.  
Upon indictment, the petitioner claimed trial; the learned trial 
Judge vide judgment dated 26.09.2011 returned a guilty verdict on 
three counts of homicide; convicted under clause (b) of section 302 of 
the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to death on each 
with a direction to pay compensation, confirmed/upheld vide 
impugned judgment dated 24.02.2017, leave to appeal wherefrom is 
being  prayed on the grounds that colossal loss of lives, 
notwithstanding, there was no occasion for the trial Judge to convict 
the petitioner on capital charge with ultimate penalty in the absence of 
“proof beyond doubt” inasmuch as in the totality of circumstances 
neither there was any occasion for the witnesses to be at the spot nor 
they could escape unscathed as per case set up by the prosecution 
itself; it is next argued that dispatch of casings coincides with the date 
of petitioner’s arrest and as such positive forensic report cannot be 
viewed as a corroborative support. Motive was not put to the petitioner 
and it is so observed by the High Court itself and, thus, the failure of 
the prosecution on this count not only tremors the entire prosecution 
structure but also constitute a mitigating circumstance to alter penalty 
of death into imprisonment for life, concluded the learned counsel. The 
learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment; he 
argued that occurrence, a daylight affair, in a small hamlet, the 
preponderance of prosecution evidence left no space to entertain any 
hypothesis  other than petitioner’s guilt. An inconsequential omission 
regarding the motive does not mitigate enormity of offence that cost 
three innocent persons their lives, two in their prime youth, over a 
petty cause.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Misfortune 
struck 
close 
members 
of 
the 
family; 
Muhammad Irfan deceased was real brother of the petitioner whereas 
his wife Rafia Bibi, a sister-in-law; third victim Haleema Bibi, being 
wife of Muhammad Zaman, is related with the deceased in the same 
degree; litigation raging between the petitioner and Muhammad Irfan 
heavily cost the family, division wherein is an obvious aftermath. On 
Criminal Petition No.406 of 2017                                                              3 
 
the other side of the divide, Khan Muhammad (PW-15) and Fateh 
Muhammad (PW-16), real brothers inter se are, nonetheless, members 
of the same clan; both of them pointed their fingers singularly upon 
the petitioner as being the sole perpetrator of the crime. We have gone 
through their statements to find them in a comfortable unison on all 
the salient details of the occurrence as well as issues collateral 
therewith; being resident of the same neighbourhood, their presence 
cannot be doubted merely on the ground that Fateh Muhammad  
(PW-16)  was busy in the marriage ceremony of his son on the fateful 
day and, thus, according to the learned counsel, had no occasion to 
visit the deceased. The learned counsel has taken us through a portion 
of cross-examination, best viewed as half cooked inasmuch as it sans 
relevant timing and details regarding the marriage ceremony so as to 
entertain hypothesis of his exclusion from the scene. Similarly, old age 
and weak eye sight with frail health do not reflect upon his credentials 
as a truthful witness at the age of 65 to hypothesize mistaken identity 
of a close relative, figuring singularly on the scene. Preponderance of 
ocular account, being consistent with medical evidence and durations 
given therein, in itself constitute “proof beyond doubt” inescapably 
pointed upon petitioner’s culpability. Proved to the hilt, it is an open 
and shut case. Petitioner’s plea that the deceased fell victim to 
celebratory fires in the marriage ceremony is a story too preposterous 
to find a buyer given the points dead bodies were found during the 
spot inspection, locations confirmed through seizure of blood. 
 
Alternate plea of lesser penalty in view of omission to put motive 
to the accused in his examination under section 342 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1898 or dispatch of casings on the day of 
petitioner’s arrest are the issues entirely beside the mark. Examination 
of accused under section 342 of the Code is not a dogmatic ritual 
involving 
vitiating 
impact; 
the 
fundamental 
purpose 
of 
such 
examination is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance 
appearing in the evidence against him and that may be done at any 
stage of inquiry or trial without previous warning and the accused is 
under no obligation even to respond to that; it is essentially a 
communication between accused and the Judge. The underlying 
purpose is not to take the accused by surprise; he must be aware of 
the accusation and material being adduced in support thereof. The 
record shows that the petitioner was fully aware of the motive set up 
by the prosecution; his counsel specifically cross-examined the 
Criminal Petition No.406 of 2017                                                              4 
 
witnesses about the ongoing dispute. See Khan Muhammad (PW-15),  
“…….there was no dispute of Haleema with Noor Zaman accused in any 
capacity. Rafia deceased had no litigation with Noor Zaman in an independent 
capacity but her husband Irfan was in litigation with Noor Zaman accused. 
During the whole investigation, we never produced any document relating to 
the litigation between Noor Zaman and Muhammad Irfan deceased. During the 
investigation, no disputed land between Noor Zaman accused and Irfan 
deceased was shown to the I.O. ……. I do not know the nature of dispute 
between accused and Muhammad Irfan deceased”. Similarly, while cross-
examining Fateh Muhammad (PW-16), the witness responded to a 
query regarding motive “It was in my knowledge that there was litigation 
between Irfan and Noor Zaman. We did not give any copy of the litigation to the 
police during investigation.” Thus, it is not open to the defence that the 
petitioner did not know as to why he was in the dock. It is high time to 
get out of the quagmire of hyper technical past so as to adopt a more 
realistic and dynamic approach to ensure an effective administration of 
criminal justice, a sine qua non to maintain peaceful equilibrium in 
the society; an inconsequential lapse or failure to observe a procedural 
formality without causing prejudice or handicap to an accused in his 
defence cannot be allowed to deny justice to the victim of crime. 
Similarly, presumption of genuineness is attached to the official acts 
both under article 129 (e) of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984 as 
well as under Article 150 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, supreme law of the land and, thus, in the absence of a 
positive proof to the contrary, pleaded specifically, a delayed dispatch 
by itself cannot be viewed with suspicion. Three innocent persons 
including two women in their prime youth have been done to death 
with repeated fire shots, two in the safety of their home, in a manner 
most callous and brute, thus, the wage settled is conscionable in 
circumstances; scales are in balance. No interference is called for. 
Petition fails. Leave declined.    
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
22nd February, 2022 
Azmat/- 
