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.80-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19.02.2014 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur 
Bench in Criminal Appeal No.142-J/2010/BWP and 
Murder Reference No.14 of 2010). 
 
Mansab Ali 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Shahzad Hassan Sheikh, ASC 
(State Counsel) 
 
 
 
For the Complainant 
: Mr. Nasib Masih, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 10.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Rustam Ali was shot 
dead at 4.00 p.m. on 14.9.2008 within the remit of Police Station 
Mecloed Gunj. Incident was reported by his father Muhammad 
Bilal. Besides Mansab Ali, appellant, Muhammad Ahmad, 
Muhammad Mazhar, Muhammad Wahid, Muhammad Saleem, 
Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Ifrahim, Muhammad Yousaf and 
Muhammad Tahir, differently armed were arrayed as accused in 
the crime report. Fatal shot is attributed to the appellant, whereas 
Muhammad Yousaf accused is assigned a club blow to the 
complainant. Motive for the crime is dispute over distribution of 
water. The accused claimed trial which resulted into appellant’s 
conviction  under clause (b) of Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860 with penalty of death by a learned Additional Sessions Judge 
vide judgment dated 17.3.2010; co-accused were acquitted from 
the charge. A learned division bench of Lahore High Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 19.2.2014 maintained the conviction, 
however altered the penalty of death into imprisonment for life.  
Criminal Appeal No.80-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
2. 
 
Prosecution case is structured upon ocular account. 
According to Muhammad Bilal, PW-6, the appellant made two 
successive shots on the deceased, first landing on the right arm, 
while second hitting the back; Muhammad Mansha, PW-7 took the 
same position. Both of them are in a diametrical conflict with the 
position taken in the crime report wherein the appellant is 
assigned solitary shot landing on the deceased’s chest. Confusion 
is further compounded by the statement of Dr. Javid Ahmed, PW-
3, who noted an entry wound on the posterior aspect of left 
shoulder; the bullet exited from the chest valve; the second fire 
shot was on the right upper arm with its corresponding exit. This 
is not in line with the prosecution case that the appellant targeted 
the chest as the wound noted by the Medical Officer is an exit 
wound. Both the witnesses have been duly confronted with their 
deviation from previous statements. From amongst the acquitted 
accused, Muhammad Yousaf was assigned a club blow to 
Muhammad Munawar, PW-8, noted by the Medical Officer as a 
painful swelling; his acquittal went without challenge. The learned 
Law Officer has not been able either to justify witnesses’ departure 
from previous statements or to explain conflict between ocular 
account and medical evidence. Though with roles somewhat trivial 
nonetheless, en bloc acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence 
is yet another predicament facing the State. The prosecution case 
is fraught with doubts, thus it would be unsafe to maintain the 
conviction. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned 
judgment is set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty 
forthwith, if not required in any other case. 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
10th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.80-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
