IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Jail Petition No.488 of 2015 
(Against judgment dated 21.01.2014 passed by 
Lahore High Court Lahore in Cr. Appeal No. 1286 of 
2010) 
  
 
Aurangzeb 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, ASC 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Usman, 
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.03.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted for 
homicide alongside six co-accused, since acquitted, Aurangzeb, 
petitioner herein, was returned a guilty verdict by a learned 
Additional Sessions Judge at Chiniot vide judgment dated 
12.5.2010; convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, he was sentenced to death with a 
direction to pay compensation of Rs.200000, altered into 
imprisonment for life by the Lahore High Court Lahore vide 
impugned judgment dated 21.1.2014 vires whereof are being 
assailed, through Jail Superintendent. Financial incapacity 
appears to have impeded petitioner’s approach to this Court in 
time, in view whereof delay of 626 days in filing of the petition is 
condoned. 
2. 
 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day i.e. 
6.8.2008 at about 4:00 p.m, the petitioner armed with a .30 caliber 
pistol, subsequently recovered albeit without forensic comparison, 
targeted Zulfiqar deceased; solitary shot on the abdomen with its 
Jail Petition No.488 of 2015 
 
 
2
exit proved fatal. Previous blood feud is cited as motive for the 
crime. 
3. 
 
Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, ASC has assailed the 
impugned judgment on a variety of grounds; according to him, 
occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the 
crime report, recorded at a point of time other than reflected 
therein; it is next argued that presence of the witnesses is highly 
improbable; he has particularly highlighted improvements made by 
the 
complainant 
through 
a 
supplementary 
statement 
by 
nominating unknown assailants, previously acquainted with him; 
acquittal of six co-accused, each armed lethally, though assigned 
no harm to the deceased has been pointed out to argue that same 
set of evidence cannot be pressed into service to sustain the charge 
qua the petitioner without independent corroboration, hopelessly 
missing, concluded the learned counsel. Learned Law Officer has 
faithfully defended the impugned judgment.   
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Prosecution case is primarily hinged upon ocular 
account furnished by Haqnawaz (PW-1) and Munir Hussain  
(PW-2); former is father of the deceased whereas the latter is 
former’s collateral; their close relationship notwithstanding, both of 
them have plausibly explained purpose of their presence at the 
crime scene; they had assembled to watch a Kabaddi match, 
annually held by tradition at a nearby mausoleum. To the extent of 
role assigned to the petitioner in the crime report, they remained 
consistent and straightforward; their failure qua the co-accused 
and complainant’s recourse to a supplementary statement in order 
to nominate unknown assailants, though an embarrassing failure 
for the prosecution, however, does not tremor its mainstay. 
Assembly of the accused in the stated numbers, in a festivity, is a 
possible scenario; they appear to have been let off by the learned 
trial Court out of abundant caution, an option found by us most 
expedient in circumstances; their departure does not cast away the 
case against the petitioner, singularly blamed for the crime. 
 
The incident was reported with a remarkable promptitude, 
followed by post mortem examination that cannot be viewed as 
delayed, 
factors 
excluding 
possibility 
of 
deliberations 
and 
consultations, in retrospect suggestive of witnesses’ presence at 
Jail Petition No.488 of 2015 
 
 
3
the stated point of time, coinciding with the durations mentioned 
in the autopsy report. Though inconsequential for want of forensic 
verification, nonetheless, the weapon recovered on petitioner’s 
disclosure is consistent with the nature of fatal injury. Occurrence 
being a broad daylight affair before a large gathering, does not 
admit hypothesis of substitution. Appraisal of evidence carried out 
by both the Courts below, on our own independent analysis, is 
found by us in accord with the principles of safe administration of 
criminal justice and as such does not call for interference. Petition 
fails. Leave declined.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd March, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
