IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mr. Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court Lahore in Crl Appeal No.280 of 2011 along with CST No.10-T of 
2011)  
 
 
Shaban Akhtar 
(in Cr. A. No.67-L/2020) 
Umar Daraz 
(in Cr.P. No.1133-L/2020) 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
  
The State through Prosecutor General Punjab 
(in both cases) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Mobin Ahmed Siddiui, ASC 
 
For the Complainant: 
Mr. Akhtar Hussain Bhatti, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Khurram Khan,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
20.10.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Shaban Akhtar, 
appellant, along with his brother Ahsan Akhtar, co-accused since 
acquitted, was tried by the learned Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court 
Sargodha on multiple counts that included abduction for ransom as 
well as homicide; upon conviction, both the accused were condemned to 
death on three heads with direction to pay compensation as well as fine; 
for screening of evidence, they were additionally sentenced to 7-years RI 
besides forfeiture of property vide judgment dated 15.2.2011. A learned 
Division Bench of the Lahore High Court Lahore acquitted Ahsan 
Akhtar, co-accused, from the charge while maintaining appellant’s 
conviction albeit alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life 
vide impugned judgment dated 17.10.2014, vires whereof are being 
assailed both by the convict as well as the complainant; bound by a 
common thread, these are being decided through this single judgment.  
2. 
 
Mubarak Ali, a lad aged 9/8, went missing after school 
hours from his home at 2/2:30 p.m. on 22.11.2010, located within the 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
2
precincts of Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali; he was initially 
searched by the family, however, upon failure, his father Umar Daraz 
(PW-2) laid information with the police on 24.11.2010; no one was 
nominated as suspect nor he apprehended any motive behind 
disappearance. On 25.11.2010, the complainant upon receipt of 
information through Sajjad Ahmed (PW-4) and Muhammad Mursaleen 
(given up), having last seen the deceased with the accused at about 
3:00 p.m. nominated them as suspects; he also shared receipt of a 
missed call from two cell phone numbers i.e. 0301-5663916 & 0306-
317244. On 28.11.2010, a caller identified by the complainant through 
voice as Ahsan Akhtar, demanded ransom of rupees one million for 
release of his son; he joined police investigation on 04.12.2010 when 
the appellant pursuant to a disclosure led a police contingent to an 
uninhabited Baithak to point out the dead body, identified by the 
witnesses as that of the deceased; wrist joints and neck were tied, 
respectively with a rope and piece of cloth; the skin was peeled off in a 
putrefied condition. Hyoid bone was found fractured with a ligature 
mark measuring 23 x 1.8 cm, constricting the neck all around; 
compression of airways resulting into asphyxia was opined as cause of 
death, occurred within preceding five to ten days without any sign of 
carnal assault. As the investigation progressed, the Investigating 
Officer, upon disclosures, secured cell phone handsets from both the 
accused; two SIMS (subscriber identity modules) were produced by the 
complainant. Prosecution evidence primarily comprises statements of 
Umar Daraz complainant (PW-2), Sajjad Ahmad (PW-4) and the 
Investigating Officer Noor Muhammad (PW-9), unanimously denied by 
both the accused without being their own witness in disproof of the 
charge or defence evidence.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that horrors of 
the incident notwithstanding, nonetheless, there is no credible evidence  
to even obliquely frame the appellant with the charge, particularly after 
prosecution’s failure qua Ahsan Akhtar accused, indicted inseparably 
within the integrity of the charge; that prosecution has not brought on 
record any forensic evidence to establish digital nexus of cell phone 
handset, 
allegedly 
recovered 
from 
the 
appellant 
to 
constitute 
conversational link with the SIMs (subscriber identity modules) 
produced by the complainant; that going by prosecution’s own case the 
ransom was demanded by a caller, whose voice was identified as that of 
Ahsan Akhtar co-accused, a story disbelieved by the High Court, 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
3
resulting into his acquittal that raised the very structure of the case to 
the ground. Evidence of last seen belatedly furnished by a partisan 
witness, namely, Sajjad Ahmad being far from plausible is hardly 
sufficient to sustain the charge. Appellant’s arrest, disclosure leading to 
the recovery of dead body and remission into judicial custody on 
4.12.2010, events mind-bogglingly in quick succession are too 
intriguing to be believed by a prudent mind, concluded the learned 
counsel. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned 
judgment whereas learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently 
defended the judgment of the trial Court; according to him, the 
prosecution in a manner truthful and straightforward produced 
confidence inspiring evidence available in the circumstances and, thus, 
High Court had no occasion either to acquit Ahsan Akhtar or alter 
penalty of death awarded to the appellant having regard to the brutality 
inflicted upon the innocent soul, leaving behind an abiding pain for the 
family. There was no axe for the witnesses to grind and as such they 
were rightly believed by the learned trial Judge for valid reasons, 
emphatically stressed the learned counsel.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Violence inflicted upon the child is abhorrently shocking 
leaving the family in a perennial trauma; the appellant and his  
co-accused have been blamed for the beastly act that certainly deserves 
no leniency, nonetheless, their guilt has to be dispassionately 
determined on the touchstone of ‘proof beyond doubt’; a proof 
structured on evidential foundations admitting no hypothesis other 
than their guilt. The child left home after attending the school, 
apparently for a routine play on 22.11.2010; his search by the family 
was an obvious exercise; with no clue, the incident was reported after 
more than 48 hours without nomination and this happened within a 
small rural locality i.e. Chak No.15/ML wherein according to the 
prosecution the child was last seen by Sajjad Ahmad (PW-4) in the 
company of both the accused while they were standing on the metalled 
road to await a Lahore bound bus to undertake a detour apparently 
without any stated purpose. Muhammad Mursaleen has opted to stay 
away from the witness box whereas Sajjad Ahmad is reticent on the 
relevant details in terms of point of time and place they noticed the 
deceased with the accused; they learnt about the calamity only on their 
return from Lahore on 25.11.2010. Sajjad Ahmad (PW-4) subsequently 
after disclosure of last seen faithfully remained with the prosecution to 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
4
attest various recoveries. It is rather intriguing that the witnesses were 
the only individuals in the village who had seen the child obligingly 
accompanying his assassins without being alarmed or surprised by 
their unusual movement. The witness admits to have a cell phone with 
him during his “stay” at Lahore; it is rather strange that he did not 
communicate with his family throughout his absence from the village 
and if at all he had any conversation was not informed about the 
incident that must have alarmed the small neighbourhood. Argument 
that the solitary witness was inducted on the basis of a mistaken/ 
misplaced suspicion cannot be viewed as entirely unrealistic.  
 
The Investigating Officer has not been able to collect any digital/ 
forensic data to establish communication between the appellant and the 
complainant despite seizure of cell phone handsets and SIMs 
(subscriber identity module). Automated system, beyond human 
interference could have conclusively established the telephonic 
conversation and prosecution’s failure to procure and bring on record 
easily available data has consequences as contemplated under Article 
29 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Complainant’s claim that 
he had identified Ahsan Akhtar by his voice on 28.11.2010 when he 
demanded ransom does not synchronize with his claim to have heard 
only “hello” on 23.11.2010, when he had already named both the 
accused on the basis of information shared with him by Sajjad Ahmad 
and Muhammad Mursaleen PWs on 25.11.2010. Apparently there was 
no earthly reason for the caller to expose his number to the family 
already suspecting him as a culprit in the crime. Chronology of events 
relied upon by the prosecution does not tally with the findings regarding 
the duration wherein the child was done to death; it also militates 
against the timeframe of the demand of ransom. The child went missing 
in the afternoon of 22.11.2010; the incident is reported on 24.11.2010 
whereas the accused were nominated on the following day i.e. 
25.11.2010 and it is subsequent thereto that on 04.12.2010 soon after 
his arrest, the appellant led to the recovery of the dead body, examined 
same day; the Medical Officer estimated time between death and 
postmortem within 5 to 10 days. The above events cannot be adjusted 
within the proximity of timeframe, suggested by no other than the 
prosecution’s own witness, without potential risk of error. The 
devastated family is certainly not responsible for the error nor can be 
possibly attributed any motive, nonetheless, the mosaic of appellant’s 
purported criminality is shattered beyond recognition on simple 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
5
calculation; his conviction requires “proof beyond doubt” which cannot 
be equated with moral satisfaction or strongest suspicion though 
structured upon beliefs most bonafide. Yet another predicament bracing 
the prosecution is acquittal of appellant’s brother on the same set of 
evidence, reflecting a possible view, standing insurmountably in 
impediment to adverse consideration qua the appellant, unless 
reversed, an option hardly available in circumstances. It would be 
unsafe to maintain the conviction. Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 is 
allowed; the appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released 
forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.  
 
As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
stands dismissed.   
 
 
      
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
20th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
