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.107-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
28.4.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1668 of 
2010 and M.R. No.333 of 2010). 
 
Sadi Ahmad and another 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Rana Liaqat Ali Khan, ASC 
 
 
along with Ms. Nighat Saeed Mughal,   
ASC 
 
Complainant(s) 
: In person (Taj Muhammad) 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Ch. Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor 
General, Punjab  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 23.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Sadi Ahmad and 
Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bari, appellants herein, were indicted by a 
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Okara for committing murder 
of Javed Iqbal in the course of robbery on 2.4.2007 within the 
remit of Police Station Satgarha. It is alleged that Sadi Ahmad, 
appellant and Ijaz alias Jajji and two unknown assailants hired 
deceased’s cab within witnesses’ view, subsequently vanished. A 
corpse was spotted subsequently identified as that of Javed Iqbal  
and in this backdrop, the appellants and co-accused were 
suspected for the crime. Vehicle was taken into possession on 
3.4.2007; it was traced in consequence of an accident in the 
province of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa; it is prosecution case that the 
passengers impersonated themselves to hush up their identity;  
Sadi Ahmad, appellant was formally arrested on 13.4.2007; upon 
Criminal Appeal No.107-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
disclosure, he led to the recovery of various incriminatory items, 
followed by Mukhtar Ahmad on 27.2.2008. Indicted on 29.5.2008, 
they claimed trial. 
2. 
 
Prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellants 
hired the cab, done away with the deceased and while they were on 
their way to dispose of the vehicle, in the province of Khyber 
Pakhtoonkhwa they met an accident wherein Shamim Bibi died 
and Sadi Ahmad, appellant become unconscious, while Mukhtar 
Ahmad fled from the scene; in this backdrop, it relied upon 
evidence of last seen and a confessional statement by Sadi Ahmad, 
beside certain recoveries, to drive home the charge. 
 
According to the crime report, Taj Muhammad, PW along 
with Tariq Mahmood and Tanvir Amjad, saw the deceased 
departing with Sadi Ahmad and Ijaz alias Jajji, P.O. with two 
unknown persons. In the totality of circumstances, statements of 
the 
complainant, 
Tariq 
Mahmood 
and 
Saeed 
Anwar, 
notwithstanding, there is little evidence to safely frame Mukhtar 
Ahmad alias Bari with the crime as he was never exposed to the 
witnesses in the identification test.  It is prosecution case that Sadi 
Ahmad impersonated himself when he met an accident in Khyber 
Pakhtoonkhwa and his real identity was established subsequent 
thereto. None has been produced to establish identity of Sadi 
Ahmad in injured condition, when apprehended after the accident. 
There is nothing on the record to infer that some woman by the 
name of Shamim Bibi died in the accident so what is left in the 
field is deficient last scene evidence and confessional statement of 
Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bari, recorded by the learned trial Judge in 
the midst.  We are not much impressed by the evidence of last seen 
for being outside the bounds of proximity in terms of time and 
space, besides otherwise being far from confidence inspiring. 
According to the autopsy report, asphyxia is the cause of death, 
therefore recoveries of weapons do not advance prosecution case. 
Pointing out of place of occurrence by the accused and memo 
thereof being inadmissible is entirely beside the mark. It does not 
constitute information within the contemplation of Article 40 of the 
Qaoon-e-Shahadat 
Order, 
1984. 
Adverting 
to 
confessional 
Criminal Appeal No.107-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
statement of Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bari recorded on 14.1.2019, we 
do not feel persuaded to rely upon the disclosure; it is not in line 
with prosecution case set up in the crime report; so diametrically 
different that one cannot be accepted without exclusion of other 
and vice versa; it is exculpatory in nature as Mukhtar Ahmad is 
reticent about his individual role and liability in the crime. 
According to him, the deceased was blind folded, thrown in a 
sugarcane field with his hands tied with a rope, whereas as per 
autopsy report cause of death is asphyxia. Motive behind sudden 
move by the appellant, Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bari during the trial 
is far from clear; disclosure is certainly not a truthful account of 
event leading to deceased’s death. When confronted during his 
examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1898, he denied to have confessed his guilt; he repudiated pangs of 
conscience, mistakenly observed by the learned trial Judge.  
Prosecution has not been able to drive home the charge beyond 
reasonable doubt, therefore, in the absence of reliable evidence 
appellants’ conviction on moral satisfaction alone cannot sustain; 
they are extended the benefit of the doubt. Criminal Appeal 107-
L/2017 is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside; they shall be 
released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
23rd of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
