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 
 
 
Jail Petition No.262/2015,  
Criminal Petition Nos.402-L/2015 & 412-L/2015 
(Against the judgment dated 13.03.2015 passed by 
the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal 
No.2628/2010 with M.R. No.33/2012) 
 
 
Muhammad Sharif 
(in J.P. No.262 of 2015) 
Muhammad Ajmal 
(in Cr.P. No.402-L of 2015) 
Asif Ali 
(in Cr.P. No.412-L of 2015) 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
(in J.P. No.262 of 2015) 
The State  
(in Cr. P. No.402-L of 2015) 
The State & another 
(in Cr.P. No.412-L of 2015) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. M. Yar Khan Daha, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in J.P. No.262 of 2015) 
 
Mr. Zubair Afzal Rana, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr.P. No.402-L of 2015) 
 
Rai Sajid Ali Kharal, Adv. HC  
 
(with permission of the Court 
 
 
 
 
 
in Cr.P. No.412-L of 2015) 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Khurram Khan,  
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
      Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Ahmad Ali, deceased, 45, 
was statedly shot dead at 3:00 p.m. on 30.6.2009 within the remit of Police 
Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan; incident was reported by his 
brother Asif Ali (PW-1) at 8:30 p.m. in the Rural Health Center Bonga 
Hayat; it is alleged that the deceased along with the complainant, Umar 
Fareed (PW-2), their father Rehmat Ali (given up) were on way to visit Allah 
Ditta, a relative convalescing some disease; they were on two motorbikes 
when the petitioners along with co-accused, differently armed, confronted 
Jail Petition No.262/2015,  
Criminal Petition Nos.402-L/2015 & 412-L/2015 
 
  
 
2
the entourage; after subduing them, the deceased was separated and 
repeatedly shot by Ajmal petitioner followed by Manzoor Ahmed (P.O.) and 
Muhammad Sharif petitioner within witnesses’ view, kept at bay on 
gunpoint; they took away a .30 caliber pistol held by the deceased.  
A previous brawl between the deceased and Ajmal petitioner is cited as 
motive for the incident. Crime report suggests that gunshots attracted the 
nearby patrolling police that shifted the casualty to the Rural Health 
Center Bonga Hayat where he was provided assistance at 3:20 p.m. and 
referred to Jinah Hospital Lahore, however, succumbed to the injuries on 
way near Pattoki, at 6:00 p.m.  
 
Dissatisfied with the police investigation, the complainant instituted 
a private complaint, wherein pursuant to issuance of process, petitioners 
along with Ghulam Rasool were indicted by a learned Additional Sessions 
Judge at Pakpattan; the trial culminated into acquittal of Ghulam Rasool, 
however, vide the same judgment dated 28.10.2010, Muhammad Ajmal 
and Muhammad Sharif, petitioners, were convicted under clause (b) of 
section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to death and 
imprisonment for life, respectively; the High Court maintained the 
convictions albeit with alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for 
life vide impugned judgment dated 13.03.2015, vires whereof, are being 
separately assailed by both the convicts through Jail Petition No.262 of 
2015 and Criminal Petition No.402-L of 2015; complainant seeks through 
Criminal Petition No.412-L of 2015 enhancement of sentences awarded to 
the convicts; bound by a common thread, these are being decided through 
this single judgment.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the deceased 
was done to death in an un-witnessed occurrence under mysterious 
circumstances and that the witnesses were taken on board much late in 
the day to set up a false case after deliberations and consultations,  
a hypothesis that according to the learned counsel is confirmed by the 
investigative conclusions; that despite seizure of casings of different 
calibers from the spot and recovery shown by one of the petitioners, 
namely, Muhammad Ajmal, the weapon was not dispatched for forensic 
comparison; that the complainant massively improved upon his previous 
statement on fundamental aspects of the case and as such was not worthy 
of reliance; that the case was fraught with irreconcilable contradictions 
and inconsistencies and as such it would be unsafe to maintain the 
convictions, concluded the learned counsel. Contrarily, the learned Law 
Officer defended the impugned judgment on the ground that the view 
Jail Petition No.262/2015,  
Criminal Petition Nos.402-L/2015 & 412-L/2015 
 
  
 
3
taken by the High Court being factually sound as well as realistically 
balanced called for no interference. Learned counsel for the complainant 
citing magnitude of brutality inflicted upon the deceased urged 
enhancement of sentence to death being a conscionable wage in 
circumstances.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
According to the crime report, the assailants distinctively 
targeted the deceased with multiple shots, as a consequence whereof, he 
received five fire shots on different parts of the body; examined in injured 
condition under a police docket at 3:20 p.m. he was noted with five entry 
wounds of various dimensions with corresponding exits. We are mindful of 
the fact that in a sudden crisis situation, it would be callously unrealistic 
to expect from a terror stricken witness to furnish immaculate details with 
precision, nonetheless, the complainant by his own choice took specific 
positions wherefrom he deviated in the private complaint and was duly 
confronted therewith, as under: 
“I had stated to the police in Ex.PA that Ajmal 
accused has inflicted four firearm injuries on the 
person of Ahmad Ali deceased. Confronted with 
Ex.PA wherein three injuries are mentioned. I had 
also stated in my private complaint Ex.PC that 
Ajmal accused had made four fires which hit the 
deceased Ahmad Ali. Confronted with Ex.PC 
wherein two fires are mentioned. I had also stated 
in my cursory statement Ex.DA that Ajmal accused 
had inflicted four fire shots on the person of the 
deceased Ahmad Ali. Confronted with Ex.DA 
wherein two fires have been mentioned and receipt 
of injury of second shot is not mentioned.” 
 
Since there are three accused assigned fire shots, shift in complainant’s 
position cannot be viewed as trivial or inconsequential as it realigns his 
entire case and in retrospect admit possibilities that reflect upon the 
factual details set out in the crime report. This deviation is not the only 
factor that puts us on caution as we are more profoundly intrigued by 
discrepancies evident in the police note wherein according to Muhammad 
Ashraf ASI (CW-3), upon receipt of information, he along with Ghulam 
Murtaz 647/C, Muhammad Ejaz 95/C and Noushair Ali 137/C met the 
complainant at RHC Bonga Hayat 8:30 p.m. when he recorded complaint 
Ex.PA and arranged papers for autopsy, whereas as per MLR No.1659 
Ex.PH/1, the deceased in injured condition was examined under a police 
docket carried by the above named Ghulam Murtaz 667/C who appeared 
as CW-7 and remained silent about his having escorted the deceased for 
medical examination while he was alive; it was most opportune occasion to 
record the crime report; on the contrary, he stated to have escorted the 
Jail Petition No.262/2015,  
Criminal Petition Nos.402-L/2015 & 412-L/2015 
 
  
 
4
dead body from RHC Bonga Hayat to DHQ Hospital Pakpattan, a position 
that went unchallenged, both by the complainant as well as the defence, 
however, in retrospect confirms beyond doubt that police were available 
with the deceased at 3:20 p.m. and, thus, recording of complaint Ex.PA as 
late as at 8:30 p.m. is mindboggling. Argument that crime report Ex.PA is 
outcome of consultations and deliberations cannot be dismissed out of 
hand and as such shadows upon the possibility of witnesses’ presence who 
otherwise surprisingly survived a devastating assault unscathed.  
 
Presence of a .30 caliber pistol with the deceased and his failure to 
use it in a situation when it was most warranted is also part of an 
incomplete tale; despite an elaborate investigative process, it was never 
recovered.  
 
Exoneration of Muhammad Sharif and Ghulam Rasool during the 
investigation is yet another dilemma confronting the prosecution; it 
requires a serious consideration as seemingly there was no reason for three 
assailants to jointly take on the deceased, lying at their mercy when every 
single of them could individually accomplish the premeditated purpose 
without incurring corporal consequences for the entire clan; plea of a wider 
net cannot be thrown to the wind.  
5. 
 
In the absence of proof beyond doubt, it would be unsafe to 
maintain the convictions. Criminal Petition No.402-L of 2015 and Jail 
Petition No.262 of 2015 are converted into appeals and allowed; impugned 
judgment dated 13.03.2015 is set aside; petitioners/appellants are 
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.412-L of 2015 stands 
dismissed. 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Lahore, the 
16th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
