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 Appeals No.52-L & 53-L/2013 
(Against the judgment dated 26.10.2010 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Criminal Appeal 
No.50/2006 and M.R. No.11/2006) 
 
Syed Anwar Ali Shah 
(in Criminal Appeal No.52-L/2013) 
The State through P.G. Punjab, Lahore 
(in Criminal Appeal No.53-L/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
Irfan Ali and another 
 (in Criminal Appeal No.52-L/2013) 
Irfan Ali 
(in Criminal Appeal No.53-L/2013) 
 
   
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Nemo. 
(in Criminal Appeal No.52-L/2013) 
 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, DPG 
 (in Criminal Appeal No.53-L/2013) 
 
For respondent-Irfan Ali:                   
 
 N.R. 
 
 
 (in both cases) 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
25.6.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Rasheedabad, 
a neighborhood within the remit of Police Station Lohari Gate, 
Multan was rocked with a massive blast at 4.25 a.m. on 
7.10.2004, shortly after conclusion of a congregation; trapped 
in the gravity of explosion, 40 persons perished with scores of 
injured. An improvised device, planted in a vehicle, parked at 
the scene was ignited seemingly through remote control. The 
crime scene was littered with pieces of human bodies and the 
vehicle used in the blast; the attack was directed against a 
group with a particular persuasion conceivably by the 
opponents and this is so alleged in the crime report. A joint 
investigation team commenced the probe. The vehicle was 
identified as a Suzuki Mehran bearing registration No.MNV-
Criminal Appeals No.52-L & 53-L/2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 2-  
 
928; it was owned by Zeeshan Khalid, PW-34; according to his 
testimony, it was snatched on gunpoint on 6.10.2004 by three 
unknown persons; of them, he identified the respondent during 
test identification parade on 26.10.2004; next in line is Arif 
Saeed, PW-36; he was amongst the participants and had seen 
the vehicle being parked near the congregation at 12/12.30  
midnight with four persons alighting therefrom; he too 
participated in the identification parade to point out the 
respondent as being one in the lot; Amjad Abbas, co-accused 
stayed away from law; from amongst the injured, 29 persons 
appeared before the Court without pointing out their fingers on 
the respondent. As per evidence furnished by Muhammad 
Iqbal, PW-74, owner of the guest house along with his clerk, 
Obaidullah, PW-80, the respondent had stayed during the 
night in the guest house; the latter failed to identify him and 
was declared hostile by the prosecution; former testified about 
the entries in the guests' register. It was primarily on the basis 
of aforesaid evidence that the respondent was indicted before 
an Anti-Terrorism Court, Multan; he was returned a guilty 
verdict on multiple counts accompanied by penalty of death on 
each vide judgment dated 1.9.2006 appeal wherefrom was 
allowed vide impugned judgment dated 26.10.2010 vires 
whereof are being assailed both by the complainant as well as 
the State.  
Counsel for the complainant is not in attendance and in 
the wake of multiple adjournments on his behalf, the case has 
been argued at length by the learned Law Officer. After grant of 
leave, despite issuance of process and repeated attempts in 
consequence thereof, the respondent is not in attendance and 
in this backdrop, we find it expedient to decide both the 
appeals, bound by a common thread, directed against the same 
judgment, with the assistance of the learned Law Officer, on 
the basis of available record.   
2. 
 
The incident is a most unfortunate reminder of 
ubiquitous violence raging in an intolerant environment, 
threatening the very fabric of our society. It has to be countered 
and remedied with iron hands by exercising State authority at all 
Criminal Appeals No.52-L & 53-L/2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 3-  
 
levels. The fundamental imperative, magnitude of violence and  
colossal loss of lives consequent thereupon, notwithstanding, 
respondent's culpability has to be dispassionately adjudged on 
the touchstone of evidence presented by the prosecution during 
the trial. The High Court has viewed prosecution's evidence as 
being flawed and insufficient to drive home the charge beyond 
reasonable doubt and found it failing on as many as twelve points 
formulated in the impugned judgment. We independently, on our 
own, went through the record with the assistance of the learned 
Law Officer to re-examine/ re-evaluate each piece of evidence. 
Statement of Arif Saeed, PW-36 constitutes prosecution's 
mainstay; he claims to have seen the vehicle at 12/12.30 a.m. 
parked at the corner of the street; the respondent was amongst 
the passengers who alighted therefrom. It cannot be perceived 
that a white Mehran car would have been the only vehicle 
available at the scene, conspicuously noticed by the witness, that 
too, without being alarmed, given the perceived threat. It was a 
large gathering and not each participant attended it on foot. 
Though most fortunate, nonetheless, surprisingly the witness 
despite his being in close vicinity with the epicenter, survived 
unscathed; it is most intriguing that he withheld this vital 
information at the time of registration of case. Case of Zeeshan 
Khalid, PW-34 is not on much better footing either; according to 
him, his vehicle was snatched on 6.10.2004 at 7.00 p.m. whereas 
crime is reported on the following day at 1.20 a.m. Though, at 
first sight, ingeniously conceived, nonetheless, the script is poor. 
Such a massive blast could not be carried out in a short span of 
time, in a slipshod manner, naively being suggested; it required 
an elaborate logistical support, a time intensive exercise, to be 
carried out with  discretion. Evidence of the owner of guest 
house, Muhammad Iqbal, PW-74 when juxtaposed with Zeeshan 
Khalid, PW-34 turns out as mutually destructive; seemingly, 
there was no occasion for the respondent to stay overnight at the 
guest house when according to the prosecution, during the same 
night, he was busy with his colleagues in snatching a vehicle; an 
attendant in the guest house was declared hostile upon his 
failure to oblige the prosecution; they did not participate in the 
identification parade as well. In this backdrop, we cannot accuse 
Criminal Appeals No.52-L & 53-L/2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 4-  
 
the High Court for perversity of reasons; on the contrary, we find 
the impugned view as prudently wise and possible. Appalled by 
inhuman brutality inflicted upon innocent citizens, nonetheless, 
we have not been able to find out any sustainable circumstance 
or factor to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the High 
Court so as to take a contra view. Criminal Appeals fail. 
Dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
25th of June, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat Ali/* 
  
JUDGE 
 
