IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.36-Q of 2012 
(Against judgment dated 25.4.2012 passed 
by Balochistan High Court, Quetta in  
Cr. Appeal No.375/2009 along with MR 
No.25/2009) 
 
 
Dad Muhammad 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC 
  
 
 
 
For the State 
Mr. Baqar Shah, ASC/State Counsel 
  
 
 
Date of hearing: 
6.11.2019 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
               Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Dad 
Muhammad, petitioner, indicted for being privy in the 
murder of Mst. Ayesha, no other than his real daughter, in 
connivance with his absconding son-in-law Muhammad 
Ismail alongside two other unknown culprits, was returned 
a guilty verdict by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at 
Kalat vide judgment dated 13.11.2009; convicted under 
Clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860, 
he 
was 
sentenced 
to 
death, 
altered 
into 
imprisonment for life with pre-trial commutation, vide 
impugned judgment dated 25.4.2012 by a Division Bench 
of  High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, vires whereof are 
being challenged with a delay of 30 days, condoned in the 
interest of justice in view of corporal consequences of the 
conviction.  
2. 
 
It is alleged that the deceased, blamed for being 
unchaste, was strangulated to death both by petitioner’s 
son Taj Muhammad as well as son-in-law Muhammad 
Criminal Petition No.36-Q of 2012 
 
2
Ismail with the assistance of unknown co-accused, during 
the night intervening 15/16-7-2009 whereafter she was 
burried within the area of Shekhri at an unspecified place. 
It is prosecution’s case that subsequently the corpse was 
disinterred by the accused and thrown into a well, 
wherefrom it was discovered, pursuant to petitioner’s 
disclosure; according to the autopsy findings recorded by 
Dr. Sadia Sarwar (PW-6), it was a decomposed body with 
unidentifiable facial features; barring a fracture in the 
skull and a ligature mark around the neck, no other sign 
of 
violence 
was 
observed 
by 
the 
Medical 
Officer; 
strangulation was opined as cause of death. In order to 
drive home the charge, prosecution has primarily relied 
upon the evidence of motive and disclosure, leading to the 
recovery of dead body; according to statement of Pir 
Muhammad (PW-4), the accused had confronted the 
deceased on the following day of her marriage to inquire 
about her affair with her cousin Abdul Manan; she 
vanished subsequently, to be finally found lying dead in a 
well as testified by Naqib Ullah, ASI (PW-5). The petitioner 
confronted the prosecution evidence by entering the 
witness-box in disproof of the charge; cross-examination 
comprises denied suggestions alone.  
3.  
Heard. 
4.  
Homicidal death of a teenage girl, that too, on the 
following day of her marriage on the suspicion of her being 
unchaste, though shockingly abhorrent, nonetheless, we 
have not been able to find any piece of evidence to even 
obliquely connect the petitioner with the crime; evidence of 
discovery of dead body, in the wake of a disclosure, when 
examined in its totality also fails to sustain the charge 
inasmuch as it is prosecution’s own case that the 
deceased was deceitfully taken to the venue where after 
her murder, she was burried in a graveyard. It is quite 
intriguing as to why the accused after they had 
surreptitiously accomplished their purpose, disinterred the 
corpse, so as to dump it once again in a well. Ghulam Ali 
Criminal Petition No.36-Q of 2012 
 
3
(PW-2), a witness of discovery of dead body, did not utter a 
single word about any disclosure. Statement of Manzoor 
Ahmad, SHO (PW-1) is hit by Article 38  of the Qanun-e-
Shahdat Order, 1984 and, thus, is liable to be excluded 
from consideration. Volume and standard of evidence, 
even otherwise, is far from being sufficient to sustain the 
capital charge. The petitioner had picked up the courage to 
enter the witness-box in disproof of the charge; on oath 
and with vehemence, he denied his complicity in the crime 
and prosecution encountered him merely with bald 
suggestions alone, each denied. In this backdrop, it would 
be grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction without 
potential risk of error. Criminal Petition is converted into 
appeal; allowed; impugned judgment is set aside; the 
appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released 
forthwith, if not required in any other case.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad  
6th November, 2019 
Azmat/- 
