IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
 (Against the judgment dated 17.11.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Murder Reference No. 10/2015 and Criminal 
Appeal No. 595-J/2014) 
 
Nasir Ahmed 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
12.12.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Nasir Ahmed along 
with co-accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 
Sargodha pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 150 dated 29.07.2011 
under Sections 302/324/34 PPC at Police Station Shah Nikdar, Sargodha 
for committing murder of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and for causing injuries to 
Bushra Bibi, a minor. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 
31.10.2014 while acquitting the co-accused, convicted the petitioner 
under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also 
directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.200,000/- to the legal heirs 
of the deceased or in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months. 
In appeal the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence 
of death awarded to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. The amount 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 2 :-
of compensation and the sentence in default whereof was also 
maintained.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR (Ex.PJ) registered on the 
statement of Sher Muhammad, complainant (PW.7) is that he was 
resident of Chak No.168/171 Shumali and a labourer. On 20.072011 the 
marriage of daughter of complainant namely Mst. Shahnaz Bibi aged 
about 18/19 years was fixed. The complainant along with his guests 
Abdul Majeed, and Abdul Hafeez, was busy in his house for marriage 
arrangements. At around 10.00 a.m. Nasir Ahmad (appellant), 
Muhammad Iqbal and Ahmad Sher came on a motorcycle. They parked 
motorcycle in the street and entered the house of complainant. Mst. 
Shahnaz Bibi daughter of complainant was sitting in the room on a chair, 
having Mst. Bushra Bibi daughter of elder daughter of complainant aged 
about 4 years in her lap. Nasir Ahmad, who was son-in-law (damad) and 
maternal nephew (bhanja) of complainant, while reaching near the door 
of room put out pistol from the folder of his shalwar and within the view 
of complainant party, fired three shots with pistol at Mst. Shahnaz Bibi. 
First fire landed behind left ear of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and made its exit 
from right side of chin. Second fire hit on left thumb of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi 
and went through and through whereas third fire hit Bushra Bibi aged 
about 4 years on her right cheek near ear. Muhammad Iqbal and Ahmad 
Sher co-accused of the appellant kept on raising lalkaras. The accused 
persons went out of the house and fled away on motorcycle. The 
complainant along with Abdul Majeed and Abdul Hafeez witnessed the 
occurrence and attended both the injured. Mst. Shahnaz Bibi succumbed 
to injuries on the spot whereas Bushra Bibi immediately shifted to 
Sillanwali Hospital from where she was referred to Sargodha and 
thereafter referred to Lahore.  
Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR was that Nasir 
Ahmad (appellant) etc. were not willing over the marriage of Mst. 
Shahnaz Bibi arranged by the complainant and told the complainant not 
to get her married there but the complainant did not accede to.” 
  
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order 
to prove its case produced twelve witnesses. In his statement recorded 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all the allegations leveled against him. He did not opt to appear as his own 
witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the 
allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce any evidence in 
his defence. 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 3 :-
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
contended that there are glaring contradictions and dishonest 
improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which have 
escaped the notice of the learned courts below. Contends that the 
prosecution case is based on whims and surmises and it has to prove its 
case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to do so. 
Contends that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. 
Contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive as 
alleged, which causes serious dent in the prosecution case. Contends that 
the recovery of weapon of offence is inconsequential as no crime empty 
was collected from the spot, as such, the same cannot be used against the 
petitioner. Lastly contends that the reasons given by the learned High 
Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are speculative and artificial in 
nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer submitted that to 
sustain conviction of an accused on a capital charge, un-rebutted ocular 
evidence alone is sufficient. Contends that the ocular account is supported 
by the medical evidence, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any 
leniency by this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their 
able assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the unfortunate incident 
wherein the daughter of the complainant lost her life had taken place on 
29.07.2011 at 10.00 a.m. in the morning whereas the matter was reported 
to the police at 10:30 a.m. on the same day while the inter se distance 
between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was six kilometer. 
This aspect of the case clearly reflects that the matter was reported to 
Police promptly without there being any delay. As the occurrence has 
taken place in the broad daylight and the parties were known to each 
other, therefore, there is no chance of misidentification. The ocular 
account in this case has been furnished by Sher Muhammad, complainant 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 4 :-
(PW-7) and Abdul Hafeez (PW-8). These prosecution witnesses were 
subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing 
favourable to the petitioner or adverse to the prosecution could be 
produced on record. Both these PWs remained consistent on each and 
every material point inasmuch as they made deposition exactly according 
to the circumstances happened in this case, therefore, it can safely be 
concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, 
straightforward and confidence inspiring. The complainant Sher 
Muhammad was inmate of the house where the occurrence took place, 
therefore, his presence was natural. So far as the presence of Abdul 
Hafeez (PW-8) is concerned, it is admitted position that at the relevant 
time, the wedding ceremony of the deceased Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was going 
on and he being a close relative had come to complainant’s house to 
attend the ceremony. The medical evidence available on the record 
corroborates the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and 
impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased is concerned. Even 
otherwise, it is settled law that where ocular evidence is found 
trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over 
medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of 
an accused. In Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (1996 SCMR 908) this Court 
candidly held that “ocular testimony being wholly reliable, conviction 
could even be safely based on the same without further corroboration.” In 
Naeem Akhtar Vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396) this Court observed that 
“eye-witness who was a doctor and victim of the occurrence had narrated 
the incident in each detail without any omission and addition and his 
evidence being of unimpeachable character is alone sufficient to the 
charge.” In Faisal Mehmood Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1025) it was held 
that “reliable ocular testimony did not need any corroboration to lose 
conviction”. Same was the view of this Court in Muhammad Ilyas Vs. 
The State (2011 SCMR 460) wherein it was held that “it is not medical 
evidence to determine question of guilt or innocence but it is ocular 
version which is required to be taken into consideration at first 
instance”. The value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 5 :-
corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain the 
conviction. Casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical 
evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. 
During occurrence when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a 
momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance 
between the deceased and the assailant and the points where such fire 
shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to 
correctly mention the location of the fire shots with exactitude. Minor 
discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do 
not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give 
photo picture of ocular account. Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account 
with medical evidence being not material imprinting any dent in 
prosecution version would have no adverse affect on prosecution case. 
Requirement of corroborative evidence is not of much significance and 
same is not a rule of law but is that of prudence. As far as the question 
that the witnesses of the ocular account are related to the deceased, 
therefore, their testimonies cannot be believed to sustain conviction of 
the petitioner is concerned, it is by now a well established principle of law 
that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased 
cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses especially 
when the relationship with the assailant is so close and admittedly the 
marriage ceremony was going on in the house. Presence of PWs cannot be 
doubted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any 
reason as to why the complainant has falsely involved the petitioner in the 
present case and let off the real culprit. Substitution in such like cases is a 
rare phenomenon. The complainant would not prefer to spare the real 
culprit who murdered his daughter and falsely involve the petitioner, who 
was his son-in-law and maternal nephew, without any rhyme and reason. 
During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel contended that 
there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of 
the eye-witnesses but on our specific query he could not point out any 
major contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. It is 
a well settled proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 6 :-
evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in 
the evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires 
confidence. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, 
the defence can take advantage of the same. While appreciating the 
evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as 
a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial 
matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case 
ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such 
minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the 
prosecution case should be ignored. To prove the motive part of the 
prosecution story, the witnesses of the ocular account appeared in the 
witness box and deposed against the petitioner. The perusal of the record 
reflects that neither the defence seriously disputed the motive part of the 
prosecution story nor the PWs were cross-examined on this aspect of the 
matter. On our specific query, learned counsel admitted that although the 
petitioner was represented by a counsel and an opportunity was given to 
cross-examine the witnesses but despite that the witnesses were not 
cross-examined on the issue of motive. In this view of the matter, we are 
constrained to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the 
motive against the petitioner. So far as the recovery of weapon of offence 
i.e. .30 bore pistol is concerned, the same is inconsequential simply for the 
reason that no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, 
which could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. 
There seems to be something which was extended as obliging concession 
due to close relationship with the deceased family. Admittedly, the 
petitioner remained absconder for a period of about six months and the 
same is also a corroboratory piece of evidence against him. Keeping in 
view the facts and circumstances of the present case, even if the recovery 
of weapon of offence is excluded from consideration, still there is ample 
evidence in the form of unimpeachable and trustworthy ocular account, 
medical evidence and motive to sustain conviction of the petitioner on the 
capital charge. In Muhammad Aslam Vs. The State (2004 SCMR 872), this 
Court by holding that when ocular account is believed to be inspiring 
JAIL PETITION NO. 865 OF 2017 
-: 7 :-
confidence 
and 
trustworthy, 
mere 
the 
fact 
that 
recovery 
is 
inconsequential by itself could not be a ground for lesser penalty, 
maintained the penalty of death awarded to the accused by the lower 
courts. Reliance is also placed on Muhammad Afzal Vs. The State (2003 
SCMR 1678).  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
12th of December, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
