IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
JAIL PETITION NO.335/2017 
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court 
Lahore dated 04.04.2017 passed in Murder 
Reference No.467/2012 and Criminal Appeal 
No.443-J/2012). 
 
Muhammad Arshad  
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Miss Syed BH Shah, ASC 
 
 
For the State 
N.R 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
07.10.2020 
… 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Criminal petition for leave 
to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 has been sought calling in question impugned judgment 
dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, 
Lahore. 
2. 
 
The facts culminated into filing of the instant petition are that 
the petitioner was booked in case bearing FIR No.654/10 dated 
11.12.2010 offence u/s 302/324 PPC registered with Police Station 
Malakwal, District M.B Din.  
 
 
As per contents of the crime report, it is alleged that the 
petitioner while armed with hatchet gave repeated blows on the head of 
Saee Muhammad, who succumbed to injuries. He also caused injuries to 
Mst. Rasulan Bibi & Mst. Sardaran Bibi and thereafter fled away from the 
scene. Motive behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute over 
the possession of a plot. The petitioner was taken into custody on 
Jail Petition No.335/2017 
Muhammad Arshad vs, The State 
2 
 
21.12.2010. During course of investigation, recovery of hatchet was 
affected from him on 24.12.2010. During course of investigation, he was 
found fully involved in the case and as such, his name was placed in 
column No.3 of the report u/s 173 Cr.PC. The challan of the case was sent 
to court. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.11.2012 convicted 
the petitioner u/s 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death. He was also 
burdened with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- u/s 544-A Cr.PC and in 
default thereof, he was to suffer six months S.I. He was also found guilty 
of causing injuries to Mst. Rasulan Bibi and Mst. Sardaran Bibi and as 
such was sentenced 05 years as Taazir u/s 324/337-A(ii)/337-A(iii) PPC. 
He was also liable to pay Arsh which shall be 5% of Diyat notified in the 
official Gazette of year 2010. He was convicted and sentenced u/s 337-
A(iii) PPC with R.I of 10 years as Taazir and also liable to pay Arsh which 
shall be 10% of Diyat notified in the official Gazette of year 2010. The 
petitioner was however sentenced u/s 324 PPC with imprisonment of 10 
years alongwith fine Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 
six months S.I. The sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 
382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended.  
3. 
 
The judgment of the learned trial court was challenged 
before learned High Court through Criminal Appeal No.443-J/2012 
whereas the learned trial court sent the Murder Reference bearing 
No.467/2012 u/s 374 Cr.PC. The learned High Court while maintaining the 
conviction u/s 302(b) PPC but altered the sentence from death to 
imprisonment for life however the rest of the judgment of the learned trial 
court was maintained. Hence, the instant petition for leave to appeal. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, it is argued by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that in fact, both the courts below had not taken into 
consideration the evidence available on record and the same has not 
been evaluated according to the principles of “appreciation of evidence” 
Jail Petition No.335/2017 
Muhammad Arshad vs, The State 
3 
 
enunciated by the superior courts from time to time. Contends that it is an 
admitted fact that the petitioner himself sustained injury and the same has 
been suppressed by the prosecution while lodging the crime report. 
Contends that the petitioner while making statement u/s 342 Cr.PC has 
taken a definite stance that in fact, he was not the actual perpetrator of 
this occurrence rather he has been substituted. Contends that due to 
previous animus, the petitioner has been roped against the actual facts 
and circumstances and he being first offender requires leniency by this 
Court and if at all the whole prosecution case is admitted the maximum 
punishment which can be inflicted is sentenced u/s 302(c) PPC. Finally, it 
has been prayed that the leave to appeal be granted on this aspect.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length 
and gone through the record.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the instant occurrence has 
taken place in broad daylight in which one person was done to death in a 
brutal manner whereas 02 women folk were given severe injuries. The 
crime report was lodged with promptitude, although the inter-se distance 
between the place of occurrence and the police station is 10-KM. The 
facts and figures narrated above, rules out any possibility of deliberation 
and consultation. Further that there is only single accused nominated in 
the crime report which shows the fairness of the prosecution which 
normally is against the prevalent custom in our society. The petitioner was 
saddled with responsibility of causing injuries to Saee Muhammad who 
was done to death in a brutal manner and the injuries ascribed to the 
petitioner are fully established from the medical evidence. Similarly, the 
injuries caused to the women folk, and the manner in which these were 
inflicted are also reflective from the medical legal reports. The ocular 
account in this case is supported by 02 injured PWs, the statements of the 
prosecution witnesses coincide with each other on salient features of 
Jail Petition No.335/2017 
Muhammad Arshad vs, The State 
4 
 
prosecution version. The ocular account is corroborated by the medical 
evidence, recovery of hatchet further lend support to the prosecution case 
and during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found involved 
and his name was placed in column No.03 of the report u/s 173 Cr.PC. 
The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was himself 
injured but it was suppressed by the prosecution, we have minutely gone 
through the medical legal report of the petitioner which is placed on the 
record, it is reflecting that it was caused two weeks back. Unfortunately, 
the petitioner never made any endeavor to lodge counter version with the 
local police qua the injury he sustained during the occurrence as argued 
by the learned counsel. Similarly, the doctor who examined him was never 
produced. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is having the 
privilege just to show the glimpse of his version being true but in the 
instant case even we could not find any such material on the record either 
in the shape of any application to the police or any application in the court 
to summon the doctor to supplement the medical legal report which could 
prove the factum of injury on the person of the petitioner. No doubt it is 
within the domain of this Court to do complete justice but without any 
substantial material the same is beyond its scope.  
6. 
 
As a consequence, in view of the facts and circumstances 
narrated above, we do not find any scope for interference, hence, the 
instant petition before us is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.  
  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
7th October, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
*Syed Rashid Maqsood/* 
