IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mr. Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.865-L of 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the Lahore High 
Court 
Lahore 
in 
Crl 
Appeal 
No.230-J/2010, 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No.1467/2010 along with M.R. No.343/2010)  
 
 
 
Ishtiaq Hussain 
(in Crl. Appeal No.110/2020) 
Muhammad Sharif 
(in Crl. Petition No.865-L/2020) 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant/Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The State, etc.  
(in Crl. Appeal No.110/2020) 
Muhammad Sharif 
(in Crl. Petition No.865-L/2014) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Ms. Bushra Qamar, ASC 
 
For the Complainant/ 
Petitioner: 
Mr. Imtiaz Khan Baloch, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
23.10.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Muhammad Abid, 
28, was done to death at 10:40 p.m. on 9.6.2009 within the precincts of 
Police Station Urban Area Sargodha; Muhammad Shoaib (PW-8), with a 
dagger blow survived the assault; Muhammad Sharif (PW-6) and Haji 
Muhammad Saeed (PW-11) witnessed the occurrence unharmed; 
casualties were shifted to the hospital where the former lodged report 
with the police at 11:50 p.m.  
2. 
 
As per prosecution case, the deceased along with Haji 
Muhammad Saeed (PW-11) was on way to his home after offering Isha 
prayer, followed by his father Muhammad Sharif (PW-6), brother Babar 
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.865-L of 2014 
 
2
Sajjad (given up) and Muhammad Shoaib (PW-8) when Ishtiaq Hussain 
appellant accompanied by his sons Ali Raza, Hassan Raza, Hussain 
Raza and Bilawal Hussain, differently armed, already ambushed in the 
lane, confronted the entourage. Bilalwal Hussain exhorted the deceased 
while Hassan Raza clutched him soon whereafter Ali Raza dealt him a 
butt blow after firing in the air, followed by a fatal shot by the appellant 
targeting the neck; Muhammad Shoaib (PW-8) tried to intervene when 
Hassan Raza stabbed him on his left thigh with a dagger; as the 
witnesses approached, the accused took to the heels while firing in the 
air. The accused avenged prosecution of criminal cases by the deceased, 
alleged the complainant. Muhammad Shaoib PW was medically 
examined at 10:55 p.m; he was noted with a firearm wound of entry on 
his left thigh accompanied by an abrasion on the nasal bridge along 
with lacerated wound 1.5 x ¼ cm on the left side of head without bone 
exposure; autopsy followed at 3:00 a.m; a firearm entry wound on the 
back of left side of chest with a corresponding exit on the front 
accompanied by an incised wound on the forehead. Spot inspection 
includes seizure of five casings of .30 caliber as well as blood, 
forensically confirmed as that of human origin. The appellant stayed 
away from law and was finally arrested on 11.12.2009 with co-accused 
already in custody since 04.07.2009; during custody, upon disclosures, 
they led to the recovery of weapons assigned to them in the crime 
report, however, with a negative forensic report. The trial culminated 
into appellant’s conviction under clause (b) of section 302 of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was sentenced to death with a direction 
to pay compensation whereas the co-accused were acquitted from the 
charge vide judgment dated 29.04.2010; assailed both by the appellant 
as well as the complainant; it was upheld by the High Court through 
impugned judgment dated 27.06.2014 with alteration of death penalty 
into imprisonment for life; once again challenged by the convict through 
leave of the Court, clubbed with complainant’s petition, seeking reversal 
of acquittal as well as death penalty awarded by the learned trial Court.  
3. 
 
   Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
complainant has cast a wider net to indiscriminately rope all the able 
bodied members of the family and evidence disbelieved qua them could 
not have been relied upon against the appellant in the absence of 
independent corroboration, hopelessly lacking in the case; that 
occurrence being a night affair, the question of identification of 
assailants is looming large on the scene, a circumstance ignored by the 
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.865-L of 2014 
 
3
courts below; that there is a stark conflict in ocular account and 
medical evidence, by itself clamouring for exclusion of the former from 
consideration; inconsequential recoveries with a discarded motive was a 
last straw, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law Officer 
assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has defended the 
impugned judgment. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that 
there was no occasion for the exclusion of co-accused from the array as 
overwhelming evidence that included testimony of an injured squarely 
implicated them with identical culpability being unmistakably in the 
community of intention that cost a youth his life in cold blood.  
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
5. 
 
Given a firearm injury endured by Muhammad Shoaib  
(PW-8) with medical examination shortly after the incident under a 
police docket, it is hard to suspect his presence at the crime scene, 
nonetheless, discrepancy in the ocular account unanimously furnished 
by all the witnesses including the injured himself is most intriguing; 
with one voice they blamed Hassan Raza, acquitted co-accused, for a 
dagger blow on the left thigh whereas according to the medical 
examination, the witness sustained a firearm injury on the stated 
locale; the accused is shown to have led to the recovery of a dagger, a 
circumstance further compounding the confusion; a witness discredited 
and disbelieved qua his own tormentor is of little relevance to sustain 
the remaining structure of the case. A confirmed presence by itself is 
not equivalence of truth. Adverting to the prosecution case vis-à-vis the 
deceased, en bloc nomination of the appellant with his entire clan, each 
armed lethally, nonetheless, settling the score with a solitary fire shot 
accompanied by a trivial incised wound on the forehead, unlikely to be 
outcome of a butt blow, clearly indicates a reckless desire to see all the 
heads rolling down the street, unambiguously suggesting presence of 
innocent proxies. Accusation that Hassan Raza held the deceased in his 
arms in order to expose him to the fire shot targeted by the appellant, 
risking his own life, is a story that may not find a buyer particularly in 
view of an exit wound on frontal side of the chest. It is also manifestly 
inconsistent with the case initially set up in the crime report wherein 
the solitary shot is mentioned to have landed on the frontal side of the 
neck and not on the back as found in the autopsy report; to reconcile 
the dichotomy, the witness deviated from his earlier stance only to be 
confronted with the embarrassment of denial. An inherently flawed 
ocular account, reflecting an unquenchable desire to unconscionably 
Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.865-L of 2014 
 
4
engage adversaries would cast away the entire case. Fraught with 
doubts, prosecution’s failure is inescapable. Criminal Appeal is allowed; 
impugned judgment is set aside; the appellant is acquitted from the 
charge; he has already been ordered to be released if not required to be 
detained in any other case vide short order of even date.   
 
As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.865-L of 2014 stands 
dismissed.   
 
 
      
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
23rd October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
