  
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed  
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.413/2003 and 414/2003 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl.A.202/1996 and Crl.Rev. 
245/1996 and M.R. No.379/1998) 
 
Crl. A. No.413/2003 
 
Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu & others 
…Appellants  
VERSUS  
The State 
….Respondent 
 
For the appellants: 
 
Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, ASC 
 
For the State: 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. PG (Pb) 
 
Crl. A. No. 414/2003 
 
 
Haji Muhammad Sadiq 
…Appellant 
VERSUS  
Liaquat Ali, etc 
….Respondents 
 
For the appellant: 
 
Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC  
 
For private respondents: 
Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, ASC 
 
For State:  
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. PG (Pb) 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
18.02.2014 
 
JUDGMENT 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— This single judgment 
shall decide both the above titled appeals because the same have 
arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.202/1996, Criminal Revision 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
2
No.245/1996 and Murder Reference No.379/1996; also because the 
same are the result of a single judgment given by the learned trial 
Judge, thus, the exercise of re-appraisal of the same evidence is to 
be carried out to reach at a proper conclusion.  
 
2. 
  
Precise but relevant facts leading to the present tragedy 
are that on 25.08.1994 at about 8:00 pm, complainant Muhammad 
Sadiq (PW-6) was present in his sugarcane crushing machine, 
installed in his shop, opposite thereof was the shop of Muhammad 
Ayub, deceased, who along with his brother Abid Hussain deceased, 
was present there and were busy in chatting, when in the 
meanwhile appellants (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu, (ii) Ahmad 
@ Muhammad Ahmad (iii) Amanat Ali, (iv) Liaqat Ali (v) Allau-ud-
Din and (vi) Nehal-ud-Din and (vii) Amin-ud-Din, armed with 
daggers, hatchets and butcher-knives reached there, raising 
‘Lalkara’ that Muhammad Ayub and Abid Hussain would not be 
spared. Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din appellant inflicted a dagger blow on 
the right shoulder of Muhammad Ayub deceased, repeating two 
more blows with dagger, landing on the right side of deceased’s 
chest. Appellant No.2, Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad also inflicted 
dagger blow on the posterior side of head of deceased Abid 
Hussain, causing him injury on the back of his neck and other on 
his shoulder. Similarly, Liaqat Ali (respondent No.4 in cross Criminal 
Appeal No.414 of 2003) inflicted two injuries with dagger on 
deceased Muhammad Ayub, one in the abdomen and other on his 
forehead, while third injury was caused to him on his buttock. 
Amanat Ali (respondent No.3 in cross appeal) gave hatchet blow on 
the left side of Muhammad Ayub deceased and left arm, while third 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
3
blow was given on the upper part of the back of his chest. Allau-ud-
Din, Nehal-ud-Din and Amin-ud-Din [respondents (v), (vi) and (vii) 
in cross appeal filed by the complainant], while brandishing butcher 
knives, warned the people not to come near them. All the accused 
then decamped from the spot. The complainant Haji Muhammad 
Sadiq (PW-6), Muhammad Yasin (PW-7) and Muhammad Rafique 
(not produced), witnessed the crime. The complainant with the help 
of PWs and others, took both the injured to Nishter Hospital, Multan 
but both succumbed to the injuries there.  
 
3. 
  
Motive, for the crime was alleged to be a dispute and 
litigation between the parties over a Khokha (wooden stall).  
 
4. 
  
Report of the crime was made in Police Station ‘Lohari 
Gate’ at 10:00 pm which was registered at serial No.200/94 under 
sections 302/148/149 PPC. During inspection of the crime site, 
blood of the two deceased was secured from two places vide Memos 
Ex.PD and Ex-PF.  
 
5. 
  
The three appellants, namely, (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din 
@ Babu, (ii) Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad and (iii) Amanat Ali were 
arrested on 02.09.1994, while the rest of the accused were arrested 
on 05.09.1994.  
 
6. 
  
While, under interrogation in police custody, the alleged 
crime daggers were respectively recovered from Ghulam Mohay-ud-
Din, [Ex.P.1, vide memo Ex. PB] and from Ahmad [Ex.P.2, vide 
memo Ex.PC], whereas crime hatchet, [Ex.P.3, vide memo Ex.PD] 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
4
was recovered from Amanat Ali on 06.09.1994. All these crime 
weapons were stated having blood stains.  
 
7. 
  
At the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was 
filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/trial Court, 
whereas, nine PWs, in all, were produced, including the two eye-
witnesses namely, Haji Muhammad Sadiq (PW-6) and Muhammad 
Yasin (PW-7).  
 
8. 
  
During the autopsy, conducted by Dr. Shahid Hussain 
Magasi (PW-8) on the dead-body of Abid Hussain, he found 
following injuries on the body:- 
(i) 
An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm on the right scapular 
region, penetrating into thorax. 
(ii) 
Incised wound 7 cm x ½ cm on the back in the mid 
line and on left scapular region. The wound was skin 
deep. 
(iii) 
An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the upper part of 
left buttock. The wound was 8 cm deep cutting the 
major blood vessels. 
(iv) 
Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm in “L” shape, skin deep 
on left palm. 
  
 
In the opinion of Medical Officer, all the injuries were ante-mortem, 
having been caused with sharp edged weapon, while cause of death 
was shown haemorrhage.  
 
9. 
  
During autopsy on the dead-body of Muhammad Ayub 
deceased, the Medical Officer noted the following injuries:- 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
5
(i) 
An incised wound 3 ½ cm x 1 ½ cm on the front of 
right chest, 2 cm from right nipple. The wound was 
muscle deep. 
(ii) 
An incised wound 2 ½ cm x 1 cm on the front of 
right chest 1 ½ cm from right nipple. 
(iii) 
A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the right side of 
forehead, wound was scalp deep, 2 cm from right 
eyebrow. 
(iv) 
An incised wound 5 cm x 1 ½ cm on right forearm 
10 cm from right wrist. The wound was muscle 
deep. 
(v) 
An incised wound 4 cm x 1 ½ cm on left groin 4 cm 
deep major blood vessels were cut underneath. 
(vi) 
An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm on back of left 
forearm cutting underlying bone (Ulna) just above 
wrist joint. 
(vii) 
An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on left forearm, 3 
cm from left wrist joint. The wound was muscle 
deep. 
(viii) 
An incised wound 5 cm x 3 cm on the inner side of 
left leg just below left knee joint, with partial 
cutting of under lying bone (tibia). 
 
All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injury No.3 was caused with 
blunt weapon whereas rest of the wounds were caused by sharp 
edged weapon. All the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause 
death in ordinary course of nature.  
 
10. 
  
The rest of the witnesses are either formal in nature or 
have played no vital role, therefore, their testimony need not to be 
discussed or re-appraised.  
 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
6
11.    
The two eye-witnesses, namely, Haji Muhammad Sadiq 
(PW-6) and Muhammad Yasin (PW-7) have given ocular testimony. 
Both are shopkeepers of the close vicinity to the crime spot. To 
great extent, they have justified their presence at the crime site, on 
the fateful day albeit. Judged from different angles, it appears to us 
that they have not told the whole truth and have exaggerated the 
account of occurrence to some extent. For this reason, both, the 
learned trial Court and the Lahore High Court in succession, have 
made efforts to remove the chaff from the grains. Learned trial 
Judge, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the appellants (i) 
Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu, (ii) Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad, 
(iii) Liaqat Ali and (iv) Amanat Ali under section 302(b)/34 PPC on 
two counts for committing murder of Muhammad Ayub and Abid 
Hussain and each one was sentenced to death as Ta’zir on two 
counts. All the four convicts were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- each, 
to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof, to suffer six 
months R.I each, while rest of the three co-accused namely, Allau-
ud-Din, Nehal-ud-Din and Amin-ud-Din were acquitted, extending 
them benefit of doubt.  
 
12. 
  
On appeal, after re-appraisal of the evidence, a Division 
Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore confirmed the death 
sentence of appellants Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu and Ahmad 
@ Muhammad Ahmad, along with the Murder Reference. However, 
death sentence awarded to Amanat Ali and Liaqat Ali was not 
confirmed, instead, Amanat Ali co-accused was sentenced to 
undergo 14 years R.I on two counts and to pay Diyat on two counts 
to the legal heirs of both the deceased, mentioned above. Whereas, 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
7
to the extent of Liaqat Ali convict, appeal was allowed and he was 
acquitted of the charge.  
 
13. 
  
Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore, appellants (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu (ii) 
Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad and (iii) Amanat Ali have questioned 
the legality of their conviction and sentences through Criminal 
Appeal No. 413 of 2003 with leave of the Court, while Criminal 
Appeal No.414 of 2003 has been filed by Haji Muhammad Sadiq, 
complainant, with leave of the Court, with the prayer to set aside 
the acquittal of Liaqat Ali, respondent No.1; to set aside the order 
of reduction of sentence of Amanat Ali, respondent No.2, from 
death to 14 years R.I and to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the two 
deceased and to convert the same into death penalty on two 
counts, by restoring the judgment of the learned trial Judge.  
 
14. 
  
We have heard the learned ASCs and the learned 
Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and have gone through the 
judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court as well as the 
evidence available on record.  
 
15. 
  
After briefly arguing the case on merits, learned ASC for 
the appellants, Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din, etc., laid considerable stress 
on reduction of the death sentence, awarded to the two appellants 
on the following grounds:- 
(i) 
That the motive alleged/set up in the FIR was 
never established at any stage through any 
convincing and cogent evidence, which must serve 
as mitigating circumstance; 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
8
(ii) 
that the appellants were arrested on 02.09.1994 
and were finally sentenced to death along with two 
co-accused 
by 
the 
learned 
trial 
Court 
vide 
judgment dated 30.06.1996 and for the last almost 
18 years, they are lying in the Death-Cells; 
(iii)  
that once the motive part of the incident has 
disappeared/not proved, the possibility that the 
incident was the result of sudden flare-up, could 
not be excluded altogether from consideration; and 
(iv)  
that the implication of three co-accused in the 
crime was found to be false, both by the trial Court 
and the High Court, in addition to the 4th co-
accused, who was acquitted at appeal stage, 
therefore, as was contended, the benefit of doubt 
shall go to the appellants, even in the matter of 
quantum of sentence. 
 
16. 
  
The learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab was 
candid in conceding that the death sentence awarded to the two 
appellants was not warranted in law, keeping in view the facts and 
circumstances of the case, thus, he was of the view that the 
sentence is liable to be reduced. 
 
17. 
  
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
learned 
ASC 
for 
the 
complainant/respondent 
[appellant 
in 
cross 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No.414/2003], 
however, 
vehemently 
contested 
the 
above 
arguments. He was of the view that once the guilt of the appellants 
has been established and believed by the trial Court as well as by 
the High Court, after proper appraisal and re-appraisal of the 
evidence, then there was no occasion or room, left out for the 
reduction of the two appellants’ sentence from death to life 
imprisonment. He further argued with vehemence that all the 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
9
accused had come to the spot duly armed with lethal weapons and 
jointly attacked the two deceased with common intention, causing 
both of them fatal injuries through daggers, hatchet and butcher 
knives, therefore, the case of one or other accused could not be 
sliced away, nor it can be distinguished on any factual and legal 
premises from that of the three appellants. Thus, he further 
contended that the acquittal of Liaqat Ali respondent and 
altering/reducing the sentence of Amanat Ali respondent from death 
to 14 years R.I. have got no sanction of law in view of the well 
settled principle that liability of each one of the accuse for the 
purpose of awarding sentences was one and the same, hence, the 
impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court is liable to be 
reversed to that extent, as in his view, the same suffers from 
patent error of law.  
 
18. 
  
As the learned ASC has confined his submission to 
reduction of the sentence of the two appellants, on the grounds 
mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, therefore, we have 
to determine this question of vital importance as on merits of the 
case, besides the conceding statement by him at the bar, we after 
careful re-appraisal of the evidence have no legitimate cause to 
take exception to the view held by the High Court. 
19. 
  
Even in the un-amended provision of S.302 PPC, the 
punishment, provided for murder was death or imprisonment for life 
and the offender shall also be liable to fine. The change introduced 
by the law, commonly known as Qisas and Diyat Laws, amending 
S.302 PPC, the same has been divided into three parts i.e. (a), (b) 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
10 
and (c). In clause (b) the Legislature in its wisdom has added 
qualified words to clause (b) of S.302 PPC, which reads as follows:- 
 
“(b) 
(shall 
be) 
punished 
with 
death 
or 
imprisonment for life as ta’zir having regard to the 
facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in 
either of the forms specified in S.304 is not 
available;” 
After careful reading of the above penal clause of section 302, it 
becomes debatable as to whether the normal penalty is death for 
offence of murder and be given preference invariably or the 
sentence of death and the life imprisonment are two alternative 
sentences as provided in the amended clause (b) preceded by 
qualifying phrase “…..as ta’zir having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms 
specified in section 304 is not available”. This aspect of the matter 
has already been commented upon by this Court in the recent case 
of Hassan and others v. The State and others (PLD 2013 SC 793). 
 
20. 
  
Albeit, in a chain of case law the view held is that 
normal penalty is death sentence for murder, however, once the 
Legislature has provided for awarding alternative sentence of life 
imprisonment, it would be difficult to hold that in all the cases of 
murder, the death penalty is a normal one and shall ordinarily be 
awarded. If the intent of the Legislature was to take away the 
discretion of the Court, then it would have omitted from clause (b) 
of section 302 PPC the alternative sentence of life imprisonment. In 
this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the two 
sentences are alternative to one another, however, awarding one or 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
11 
the other sentence shall essentially depend upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case. There may be multiple factors to award 
the death sentence for the offence of murder and equal number of 
factors would be there not to award the same but instead a life 
imprisonment. It is a fundamental principle of Islamic Jurisprudence 
on criminal law to do justice with mercy, being the attribute of Allah 
Almighty but on the earth the same has been delegated and 
bestowed upon the Judges, administering justice in criminal cases, 
therefore, extra degree of care and caution is required to be 
observed by the Judges while determining the quantum of 
sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of particular 
case/cases.  
 
21. 
  
A 
single 
mitigating 
circumstance, available in 
a 
particular case, would be sufficient to put on guard the Judge not to 
award the penalty of death but life imprisonment. No clear 
guideline, in this regard can be laid down because facts and 
circumstances of one case differ from the other, however, it 
becomes the essential obligation of the Judge in awarding one or 
the other sentence to apply his judicial mind with a deep thought to 
the facts of a particular case. If the Judge/Judges entertain some 
doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be 
exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment, 
lest an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows. So it is 
better to respect the human life, as far as possible, rather to put it 
at end, by assessing the evidence, facts and circumstances of a 
particular murder case, under which it was committed. 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
12 
Albeit, 
there 
are 
multiple 
factors 
and 
redeeming 
circumstances, which may be quoted, where awarding of death 
penalty would be unwarranted and instead life imprisonment would 
be appropriate sentence but we would avoid to lay down specific 
guidelines because facts and circumstances of each case differ from 
one another and also the redeeming features, benefiting an accused 
person in the matter of reduced sentence would also differ from one 
another, therefore, we would deal with this matter in any other 
appropriate case, where, if proper assistance is given and extensive 
research is made.  
In any case, if a single doubt or ground is available, creating 
reasonable doubt in the mind of Court/Judge to award death 
penalty or life imprisonment, it would be sufficient circumstance to 
adopt alternative course by awarding life imprisonment instead of 
death sentence.  
 
22. 
  
In the present case a specific motive was set up in the 
FIR at the time of reporting the crime by the complainant. He had 
alleged that there was a dispute between the parties over a 
‘Khokha’ (wooden stall), however, no independent corroboratory 
evidence on this point was furnished. Thus, the version, repeating 
the same stance at the trial, without any independent corroboratory 
evidence in this respect, would have no legal worth and judicial 
efficacy. It has been claimed that the dispute had led to civil 
litigation over the ‘Khokha’ but no document from judicial record 
was furnished to the trial Court to show even to a little extent that 
indeed the dispute over a ‘Khokha’ was a burning issue between the 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
13 
parties and they had already been battling for the same in the Civil 
Court. Thus, the motive part of the incident has remained 
absolutely unproved.  
 
23. 
  
In the case of Mawaz Khan v. Ghulam Shabbir and the 
State (NLR 1995 Criminal 17), while determining the proper 
quantum of sentence, this Court in para-9 of the judgment held as 
follows:- 
“9. Adverting to the question of sentence raised by the 
learned counsel for Mawaz Khan, we find that Abdullah Khan 
(PW-9) and Muhammad Akhtar (PW-10) have deposed about 
the motive but they were not present when the incident of 
motive took place. The circumstance of chopping of nose and 
cutting the ear of the deceased will show that the act of the 
accused of killing the deceased was somewhat provoked. So 
the real motive for the crime remains shrouded in mystery. 
The question of benefit of reasonable doubt is necessarily to 
be determined not only while deciding the question of guilt of 
an accused person but also while considering the question of 
sentence, particularly in a murder case, because there is a 
wide difference between the two alternative sentences-death 
or imprisonment for life. Benefit of reasonable doubt in 
respect of the real cause of the occurrence was thus 
available to the accused. Needless to add that whenever the 
real cause of murder is shrouded in mystery, is unknown or 
is concealed, the Courts have normally awarded the lesser 
punishments under section 302, PPC as a matter of abundant 
caution. (Underlining is ours).  
 
In the present case too, the motive set up in the FIR was not of 
that degree and magnitude, if at all it did lay with the appellants, to 
take lives of two persons, more so, when the same has shrouded in 
mystery.  
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
14 
 
24. 
  
In the given circumstances, we are of the firm view that 
learned Courts below, particularly, the Lahore High Court did not 
adhere to this vital aspect of the case, rather the same went 
unnoticed, hence, the sentence of death awarded to the two 
appellants, mentioned above, was not warranted in law as the 
motive, beside being too feeble, has not been established. This fact 
certainly serves as a mitigating circumstance, where normal penalty 
of death was not to be awarded but proper legal sentence of life 
imprisonment was more appropriate, thus, omission on the part of 
the Lahore High Court and the trial Court has caused miscarriage of 
justice, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the two 
appellants, in our view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.   
 
25. 
  
Apart from the above, it is a matter of record that the 
two appellants have remained behind the bars as under-trial 
prisoners for about two years and they have also spent almost 16 
years in Death-Cells of the prison in highly restless & painful 
condition and mental torture because the sword of death was 
hanging over their heads day and night during such a long period. 
On this account too, it is highly desirable and legally deemed 
appropriate 
to 
reduce 
their 
sentence 
from 
death 
to 
life 
imprisonment.  
 
26. 
  
In the case of Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCMR 
1582) similar view was held and even a Review Petition of the 
condemned prisoner was allowed on the ground that he had spent 
18 years in the prison, both as an under-trial prisoner as well as 
after conviction when death sentence was awarded, which was even 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
15 
upheld by this Court. The consideration, which prevailed with this 
Court by reducing the sentence,  was almost the same as held 
above, albeit the scope of review before the Supreme Court is too 
narrow as compared to appeal filed with the leave of the Court. 
Majority view is in favour of reduction of sentence while in some 
rare cases contrary view has been taken by this Court and that too 
where cruelty or brutality was the attending element in committing 
the murder or where element of terrorism was visible or proved in 
perpetrating the crime. Thus, the view held in Dilawar Hussain’s 
case (ibid) being very close and nearer to judicial reasons, must 
prevail and shall hold the field, particularly in the circumstances of 
the present case.  
 
This Court in the case of Hassan and others v. The State and 
others (PLD 2013 SC 793) held somewhat similar view founded on 
the principle that when a convict sentenced to death, undergoes a 
period of custody equal to or more than a term of imprisonment for 
life during pendency of his legal remedy against his conviction and 
sentence of death, then keeping in view the principle of expectancy 
of life, it would be appropriate to reduce his sentence from death to 
life imprisonment. This view was based on the principle laid down in 
Dilawar Hussain’s case (supra). It was further held that S.302(b), 
PPC provides only two sentences, one death sentence and the other 
imprisonment for life for the offence of murder. Both the sentences 
are alternative to each other, therefore, to impose death or to 
maintain it, after the convict had undergone imprisonment for life 
or equal to it, would defeat the clear intent of the Legislature, as for 
one and the same crime the convict would suffer twin sentences i.e. 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
16 
death and life imprisonment. Thus, considering the long detention 
of the convict as extenuating circumstance, the sentence of death 
was reduced to life imprisonment. It was further held that contrary 
view, expressed by a Bench of less numerical strength, albeit given 
later, shall not prevail but the larger Bench’s decision on this law 
point, given earlier, shall hold the field.  
27. 
  
Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down 
through a sweeping opinion however, it has been judicially noticed 
that in majority of cases, a tendency is gaining momentum on the 
part of the complainant party of implicating innocent person or 
innocents are implicated along with the real culprits by throwing the 
net wider to put the other side to maximum loss, pain and torture. 
Not only this but also the manner and mode of occurrence is 
exaggerated making it difficult for the court of law to reach at just 
and correct conclusion that who is guilty and who is innocent in a 
particular case. This phenomenon is consistently prevalent in 
certain parts of the country. The witnesses at the trial while under 
oath to tell the truth do not respect the oath so taken and repeat 
the same story, set up in the FIR or during the course of 
investigation. The declining credentials, values and virtues of the 
society in this regard is indeed a disturbing point for proper 
administration of justice by the Judges, as ordinarily they are 
confronted with such a complexed situation. It was in this backdrop 
that the theory of ‘sifting of grains from the chaff’ was introduced 
by the Judges to extend benefit to those about whom they were 
doubtful of being involved in the crime. This duty of the courts is 
becoming onerous day by day due to the above phenomenon. The 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
17 
courts do not posses magical powers to transform the mindset of 
the society and to put them on the right path to tell the truth at all 
phases of criminal investigation, inquiry and trial, particularly in 
heinous crimes like murder. However, if a uniform yardstick is 
adopted by the courts discouraging such charge where innocent 
persons are involved or mixed up with the guilty one, it will soon 
bear the fruit and people would be made to re-think about their 
approach and mind set not to level false and exaggerated charge 
against innocent persons. In this backdrop, the obligation of the 
Judges while administering justice has become manifold because 
they are supposed not to let free those who are established guilty 
for a crime/crimes and to let free those whose involvement therein 
is not well established according to the well defined and well 
embedded standards of legal proof and per law of evidence. In this 
regard, this Court has since long laid down certain parameters and 
guiding principles, wherein in a given case, the witnesses are found 
to have falsely implicated one or the other accused, then they are 
ordinarily not to be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused, 
unless their testimony/evidence is amply corroborated through 
strong independent corroboratory evidence of unimpeachable 
nature qua the other co-accused.  
 
28. 
  
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we partly 
allow Criminal Appeal No.413/2013 titled Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. 
the State and others, while maintaining conviction of appellants 
Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din @ Haji Babu and Ahmad @ Muhammad 
Ahmad 
under 
section 
302(b) 
PPC, 
however, 
their 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
18 
sentence/sentences of death are reduced to life imprisonment. They 
are also extended the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. The said 
appeal is, however, dismissed to the extent of Amanat Ali appellant 
as having not been pressed.  
 
29. 
  
So far as cross Criminal Appeal No.414/2003, filed by 
Haji Muhammad Sadiq (complainant) for the enhancement of 
sentence of Amanat Ali respondent No.2 therein is concerned, as on 
account of undergoing the sentence, he has been released from the 
prison and when we have already held in the preceding paragraph 
that appeal to the extent of his conviction and sentence has become 
infructuous, therefore, at this stage, we have no legitimate reason 
to enhance his sentence, as it will in no manner secure the ends of 
justice. Moreover, the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the impugned 
judgment has given very sound, cogent and plausible reasons while 
awarding 
respondent 
Amanat 
Ali, 
the 
lessor 
sentence, 
distinguishing his role attributed to him in the crime, which is not 
open to exception on any legal and factual premises.  
 
30. 
  
Similarly, the impugned judgment of the Lahore High 
Court, acquitting Liaqat Ali, respondent is upheld as in support of 
the acquittal judgment with his regard, sound, convincing and 
cogent reasons have been given, which are not open to exception, 
as he has been extended the benefit of doubt by way of abundant 
caution, not only because he surrendered to the police without any 
delay and at the very outset had pleaded innocence but also 
because no recovery of alleged crime weapon was effected from 
him and once he has earned the benefit of acquittal, after passing 
Crl.As.No.413-414/2003 
19 
of such a long time, is not liable to be sent back to prison after a 
period of 18 years has passed, as such a course would defeat the 
ends of justice. More over, he has not been attributed of causing 
fatal injuries to any one of the two deceased. As such, Criminal 
Appeal No.414/2003 is dismissed.  
 
31. 
  
Accordingly, the above titled appeals are decided in the 
above terms.  
32. 
  
The surety bonds, if any, executed by the private 
respondents namely Amanat Ali and Liaqat Ali as well as their 
sureties, have come to an end and they are discharged from such 
liability.  
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the 
18th February, 2014  
Nisar/* 
Approved For Reporting 
