 
 
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.91-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
23.04.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal 
Appeal No.140 of 2010 and Murder 
Reference No.12 of 2010). 
 
Noor Ahmad 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mian Muhammad Tayyab, ASC 
 
 
 
For the Complainant(s) 
: Mr. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 17.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Shehnaz Begum, 
statedly, betrothed with Noor Ahmad, appellant was done to death 
inside the safety of her home by the later, in the wake of family’s 
refusal to tie the knot. It is alleged that on the fateful day at about 
10.00 a.m. the appellant armed with a pistol surprised the family;  
shot the deceased within the precincts in witnesses’ view; incident 
was reported by her brother Mumshad Farid, PW. A solitary fire 
shot surrounded by blackened edges, on the left side of forehead 
with corresponding exit, blamed as cause of death was noted by 
the medical officer. Genital examination revealed that hymen was 
ruptured with red margins; introitus admitted two fingers; 
secretion of whitish discharge with blood traces was noticed; rigor 
mortis was fully developed; swabs were subsequently found 
stained with seminal traces. Arrested on 14.5.2009, the appellant 
led to the recovery of pistol P-5, forensically found wedded with the 
Criminal Appeal No.91-L of 2017.  
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
casing secured from the spot, dispatch preceding arrest; when 
indicted he claimed trial. Complainant joined by his brother, 
Shehzad Farid furnished ocular account to drive home the charge. 
They unanimously accused the appellant for having murdered 
their sister on family’s refusal to give him deceased’s hand due to 
his 
questionable 
antecedents. 
The 
appellant 
confronted 
prosecution evidence with his own story; he blamed the family 
being itself responsible for the murder; he cited reasons that 
included, deceased’s virtues as well as her legated property; he 
also denied engagement with the deceased. The learned trial Judge 
unimpressed by the plea proceeded to convict the appellant under 
clause (b) of Section 302 read with Section 449 of Pakistan Penal 
Code, 1860; he was sentenced to death and imprisonment for life 
respectively alongside compensation as well as fine. The learned 
High Court without adverting to appellant’s conviction under 
Section 449 of the Code ibid and sentence consequent thereupon, 
while upholding the judgment, altered penalty of death into 
imprisonment for life with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1898.  
2. 
 
Occurrence took place inside a residential premises in 
a rural neighborhood, at a point of time when presence of the 
witnesses can hardly be doubted; whether they came up with the 
whole truth, nonetheless, is another question. As claimed by the 
prosecution, the deceased was a nubile virgin, however, autopsy 
findings suggest a carnal encounter not long before she met 
homicidal death. This in retrospect makes it difficult to dismiss 
position taken by the appellant out of hand. Similarly, going by the 
motive alleged in the crime report, the family members who 
rescinded the proposal were more apt targets than the poor soul; 
her legacy is also not disputed. Vendetta notwithstanding, 
seemingly, there are beneficiaries of death other than the 
appellant, with many other options in life. Occurrence statedly 
took place at 10.00 a.m. whereas the autopsy was conducted at 
5.00 p.m. development of complete rigor mortis on the body of a 
young lady in hot weather, belies point of time of assault given in 
the crime report. Dispatch of casing on 13.5.2019, a day before 
appellant’s arrest is a suspect circumstance. Position taken by the 
Criminal Appeal No.91-L of 2017.  
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
appellant when juxtaposed with the totality of prosecution’s 
evidence, does not appear to be entirely beside the mark. Findings 
recorded by the medical officer are realistically intriguing, casting 
doubts, neither illusionary nor imaginary. It would be unsafe to 
maintain the conviction. Therefore, by extending the benefit of the 
doubt to the appellant, Criminal Appeal 91-L/2017 is allowed, 
impugned judgment is set aside; he shall be released forthwith, if 
not required in any other case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
17th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
