IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Jail Petition No.415 of 2018 
 (Against judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed by 
Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Cr. Appeal 
No.23 of 2013) 
 
 
Muhammad Ali 
  
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
For the State: 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, 
 
Advocate General Islamabad  
  
 
 
Date of hearing: 
17.10.2019. 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
            Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Mst. Shakila 
Rafique (PW-3) was still asleep in her room alongside her daughter; 
it was a winter morning and at about 5/5:15 a.m, she was 
awakened by an entry in the room, assuming that of her husband; 
all of a sudden, she screamed after feeling some liquid spilling over 
her face, she sprang up to identify the appellant in the room; the 
family was attracted including her husband Muhammad Rafique 
(PW-1); her face was washed and thereafter rushed to Pakistan 
Institute of Medical Sciences. Dr. Farrukh Kamal (PW-5) attended 
the prosecutrix with burn injuries. According to the complainant, 
the petitioner resided in the neighbourhood with a questionable 
conduct to the annoyance of the residents, on whose behalf, he had 
moved an application to the Inspector General of Police. It is alleged 
that in the above backdrop, he selected complainant’s wife as a 
target to avenge the insult. Upon indictment, the petitioner claimed 
trial, culminating into his conviction on the counts of murderous 
Jail Petition No. 415 of 2018 
2
assault as well as Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, he was sentenced to  
10-years rigorous imprisonment along with payment of fine as well 
as Arsh; he was additionally convicted for house trespass and 
sentenced to 7-years RI with fine; benefit under section 382-B of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alongside concurrent 
commutation; his appeal failed in the High Court vide impugned 
judgment dated 20-11-2017, vires whereof are being assailed on the 
ground that the very genesis of the incident is shrouded into 
mystery and that it is far from being clear as to how the petitioner 
made his way into the bedchamber without being noticed by the 
inmates so as to conveniently carry out the assault; it is next 
argued that in a chilled winter morning much before the sun rise, it 
was simply not possible for the prosecutrix to keep her face out of 
the quilt or blanket in temperature, presumably subzero; according 
to the learned counsel, no blanket or quilt was taken into 
possession; question of identity of the assailant has also been 
argued at inordinate lengths with a reference to complainant’s large 
clan, comprising three wives with siblings, to insinuate behind the 
scene family fissures. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer has 
faithfully defended the impugned judgment.  
2.  
Heard. Record perused. 
3.  
Most of the questions, though raised ingeniously, find 
their answers in the cross-examination itself.  It is a common 
ground that petitioner lived in the neighbourhood with a joint 
terrace; to a question asked by no other than the cross-examiner 
himself, prosecutrix explained, malady of hyper tension as a reason 
for not covering her face with the quilt.  Petitioner, being a next-
door resident, taking to the heels after surprising the family, that 
attempted to apprehend him, the question of his identity cannot be 
viewed with suspicion. Prosecutrix being in her prime youth, 
horrendously mutilated, is certainly not expected to swap the 
petitioner with the real offender; she has been straightforward and 
confidence inspiring in her deposition, joined by other family 
members to firmly stand in her support to rule out conspiracy 
theories. In the face of formidable evidence, exclusively revolving 
around his culpability, plea taken by the petitioner is beside the 
point; 
statements 
of 
the 
defence 
witnesses 
are 
equally 
inconsequential. Courts below have rightly appraised prosecution 
evidence while being inconsonance with the principles of safe 
administration of criminal justice and upon our own independent 
Jail Petition No. 415 of 2018 
3
analysis, we have not been able to take a view different than 
concurrent conclusions, squarely structured within the remit of 
law. Jail Petition fails. Dismissed.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad  
17th October, 2019 
Azmat/- 
 
 
Jail Petition No. 415 of 2018 
4
 
