IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Cr. Appeals No.149-L and 150-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4.3.2015 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal 
No.305/2010 and CSR No.5-T/2010) 
 
Muhammad Zubair 
(in Criminal Appeal No.149-L/2017) 
Mst. Kalsoom alias Sonia 
(in Criminal Appeal No.150-L/2017) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
(in Criminal Appeal No.149-L/2017) 
The State and another 
(in Criminal Appeal No.150-L/2017) 
 
   
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Mazhar Ali Ghallu, ASC 
(in Criminal Appeal No.149-L/2017) 
 
 
 
Mr. Zafar Mehmood Ch., ASC 
(in Criminal Appeal No.150-L/2017) 
 
For the Complainant: 
 
Mr. Shaukat Rafiq Bajwa, ASC 
(in both cases) 
 
For the State :  
 
 Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, DPG 
  
Date of Hearing: 
 
01.7.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad 
Zubair and his wife Mst. Kalsoom @ Sonia were tried by an 
Anti-Terrorism Court at Lahore; indicted for abduction of 
Muhammad Shahid for ransom, they were returned a guilty 
verdict vide judgment dated 29.1.2010; convicted under 
Sections 302(b), 365-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan 
Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Section 7(a) and (e) of the 
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, they were sentenced to death and 
imprisonment for life respectively, upheld by the High Court 
vide impugned judgment dated 4.3.2015 vires whereof are 
being challenged through separate appeals by leave of the 
Cr. Appeals No.149-L and 150-L of 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 2-  
 
Court; bound by a common thread, these are being decided 
through this single judgment. 
2. 
 
Prosecution's case is structured on application,  
Ex-PC, by Muhammad Asif, PW-12 received on 7.1.2009, at 
Police Station A-Division, Okara. According to the complainant, 
his brother Muhammad Shahid, deceased, left home on 
1.1.2009 to attend Urs of Sufi Barkat Ali; he was accompanied 
by some unknown friends and confirmed his presence at the 
mausoleum same day at 6:00 p.m.; it was during the same 
night that an unknown caller from his cell phone demanded 
ransom of Rs.50,00,000/-; he spoke himself to the family to 
confirm his custody; the captor set deadline for the payment of 
ransom as 6.1.2009. It is complainant's claim that he 
presented application, Ex.PC, on 2.1.2009. The captor 
remained in communication and the complainant, somehow, 
arranged a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and as directed, went to 
Khanewal bypass in a car alongside Zulfiqar Ali and 
Muhammad Rafiq, PWs  on 6.1.2009; they were diverted by the 
caller towards Chowk Kumharanwala near Jinnah Park to drop 
the amount at the designated point where, according to the 
witnesses, a person, supporting a beard with a girl carrying a 
kid took the amount; after a short while, the complainant again 
received a call to reach Khanewal Railway Crossing to receive 
the abductee, however, both of them vanished without 
releasing him. On 10.1.2009, from deceased's account, a cash 
of Rs.14,000/- was withdrawn from an ATM and it was 
subsequent thereto on 18.1.2009, the complainant once again 
received a call from the accused to pay Rs.2,50,000/- which he 
again paid to them near Sahiwal bypass. Both the appellants 
were arrested by Muhammad Rasheed Baig, SI, PW-13 and it is 
pursuant to a disclosure that they led to the recovery of a dead 
body on 29.1.2009, identified as that of the deceased; autopsy 
report suggested death by asphyxia. The appellants got 
recovered a sum of Rs.24,02,610/-, received by them as 
ransom as well as a kassi and pieces of string; they were put to 
a test identification parade before Muhammad Sarwar and 
Muhammad Rafiq, PWs, who failed to identify the appellants 
and seemingly for this reason they were not produced before 
Cr. Appeals No.149-L and 150-L of 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 3-  
 
the Court, however, Zulfiqar Ali, PW-11, Muhammad Asif,  
PW-12 
and 
Muhammad 
Imran, 
PW-15 
identified 
the 
appellants. Muhammad Yaqoob, father of Muhammad Zubair, 
appellant, Manzoor Ahmad, father of Mst. Kalsoom, appellant 
and Imran @ Mani, her brother-in-law were arrayed as  
co-accused; they are still away from law. 
3. 
 
  Recovery of considerable amount accompanied by 
disclosure leading to the dead body from a premises statedly 
occupied by the appellants and the account furnished by the 
witnesses, supported by photo, Ex.P-5, generated by CCTV 
camera of an ATM, at first sight, are formidable pieces of 
evidence inexorably pointing towards the appellants, however, 
in the totality of circumstances, on a closer scrutiny, there are 
various intriguing aspects of the case, inescapably reflecting 
upon its fate. The very genesis of the case is suspect, as 
according to Muhammad Asif, he presented application, Ex.PC 
on 2.1.2009 whereas according to Sajjad Ahmad, ASI, PW-5, it 
was received on 7.1.2009 at 1:45 a.m. and it is so confirmed 
not only by an endorsement but also copy of First Information 
Report; it sans all the details, the complainant subsequently 
related in the witness box; prosecution has no explanation to 
reconcile 
the 
dichotomy. 
The 
manner 
in 
which 
the 
complainant, statedly, followed the appellants to pay ransom is 
far from being confidence inspiring; there does not appear any 
earthly reason as to why Muhammad Zubair, appellant would 
take his wife and minor son with him to accomplish a task that 
he could have singularly achieved; more surprising is his 
audacity to expose himself to the witnesses, particularly when 
he had planned to do away with the abductee. Subsequent 
demand of ransom and complainant's compliance therewith is 
yet another aspect that cannot be taken without a pinch of 
salt; otherwise conducting themselves surreptitiously, the 
appellants are not expected to be so reckless in execution of 
their plan. Test identification parade does not advance 
prosecution's case as well; two from amongst the witnesses 
failed to pick the appellants in test identification parade;  both 
of them have been withheld. The entire exercise turns out as 
self destructive inasmuch as one set of witnesses cannot be 
Cr. Appeals No.149-L and 150-L of 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 4-  
 
relied upon without excluding the other from consideration and 
vice versa. Photograph Ex.P-5, purportedly generated by CCTV 
camera of an ATM is entirely beside the mark for a variety of 
reasons; ATM card was never recovered; no one from the bank 
appeared to establish nexus between the deceased and the 
ATM card allegedly used by the appellant; there is no data to 
confirm the transaction. Ex.P-5 is a photograph simpliciter. 
Appellants' arrest on 29.1.2009, disclosures made by them and 
recovery of dead body pursuant thereto are the events coming 
about in a mind boggling quick succession. Rent deed 
produced by the prosecution as Ex.PJ on the face of it appears 
to be a fabricated instrument and as such does not constitute  
positive proof of appellants' occupancy of the premises. On the 
whole, prosecution case is fraught with doubts, deducible from 
the stated positions and thus it would be unsafe to maintain 
the convictions. Criminal Appeals are allowed, impugned 
judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the 
charge and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any 
other case.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
1st July, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/*  
  
  
JUDGE 
 
