IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.104-L of 2017  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
12.01.2015 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.1119 of 
2012 and Capital Sentence Reference 
No.30-T of 2012). 
 
Muhammad Bilal 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
The State, etc 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Rai Bashir Ahmad, ASC 
 
 
 
For the Respondent No.2 
: Mr. Muhammad Irfan Malik, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan,  
Additional Prosecutor General, 
Punjab 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 15.05.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Adnan Aslam,  
deceased  was being tried for committing qatl-e-amd of one Mehtab;  
on fateful day i.e. 11.03.2011 at about 09:30 a.m. he alongside co-
accused appeared before a learned Additional Sessions Judge at 
Gujranwala; after hearing he was being escorted back when 
Muhammad Bilal, appellant, brother of Mehtab deceased, armed 
with .30 caliber pistol, confronted him to avenge the earlier 
incident; he targeted three fire shots on different parts of his body 
as a result whereof, he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 
Present in the precincts, Mukhatar Ahmad, S.I. PW-13, with 
assistance of his colleagues subdued the appellant at the spot. 
Incident was reported on the complaint of the deceased’s father 
Muhammad Aslam, PW-9 wherein he arrayed, besides the 
appellant, Manzoor Ahmad and Shahzad Ahmad, alongside two 
unknown companions as accused for the crime; they were indicted 
Criminal Appeal No.104-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
before an Anti-Terrorism Court at Gujranwala; learned trial Judge 
while extending benefit of the doubt to Manzoor Ahmad and 
Shahzad Ahmad, co-accused, convicted the appellant under clause 
(b) of  Section 302  of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with 
clause (a) of Section 7 of the  Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and 
sentenced him to death on both counts along with compensation 
and fine in the sum of Rs.100,000/- respectively vide judgment 
dated 12.06.2012; his appeal met with no better fate; a  learned 
Division Bench of the Lahore High Court affirmed the Capital 
Sentence Reference vide impugned judgment dated 12.01.2015 
vires whereof are being disputed through leave of the Court.  
2. 
 
Previous bad blood in the aftermaths of murder of 
appellant’s brother at deceased’s hands and fixation of case before 
the Court on the fateful day are common grounds. However, 
according to the defence the deceased was shot while attempting to 
flee by a police contingent. In this backdrop, prosecution has 
primarily relied upon the statements of Ghanafar Khalid, PW-8, 
Muhammad Aslam, PW-9, Muhammad Zaman, PW-10 and 
Mukhtar Ahmad, SI, PW-13; of them Ghanafar Khalid, PW-8, 
escorted the deceased in custody after court hearing. Muhammad 
Aslam, PW was a co-accused required to appear in the same case; 
Mukhtar Ahmad, SI, was also present in the premises. Presence of 
these witnesses cannot be doubted at the spot; they are in a 
comfortable unison on all the details of the occurrence, salient as 
well as collateral. Embarrassingly lengthy cross examination 
remained 
inconsequential 
throughout. 
Defence’s 
edifice 
is 
structured upon bald suggestions alone, denied by the witnesses 
with vehemence. Appellant’s arrest at the crime scene shortly after 
the occurrence with a .30 caliber pistol subsequently found 
wedded with two out of three casings secured form the spot goes a 
long way to exclude hypothesis of his innocence. Acquittal of co-
accused, tried for being in the community of intention, out of 
abundant caution, does not adversely impact upon prosecution’s 
case. Responsibility for the crime, unambiguously, revolves around 
the appellant alone. A most stringent and cautious analysis 
irresistibly leads to the conclusion of appellant’s guilt; he has been 
rightly returned a guilty verdict, however in so far as his conviction 
Criminal Appeal No.104-L of 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
under clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act ibid is concerned, it is 
found by us as inconsistent with the law declared by this Court in 
the cases of Amjad Ali and others vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 661) 
and Farooq Ahmed vs. State and another (PLJ 2017 SC 408). 
Clause (iii) of Section 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act ibid 
provides an Anti Terrorism Court as a forum for trial of offences 
involving, inter alia, “firing or use of explosives by any device, 
including bomb blast in the Court premises”. Therefore the learned 
Special Judge was well within remit of law to try the appellant, 
however his conviction under Section 7(a) of the Act ibid has to be 
essentially consequent upon a nexus between his act and 
situations provided in Section 6 thereof. Aftermaths of appellant’s 
conduct were certainly far from being benign; he choose a venue 
most guarded by law to settle the score, nonetheless, he was 
undoubtedly actuated to quench a personal vendetta. Every act of 
violence triggers fear and panic with collateral impact on the 
surroundings; this by itself would not bring even a most violent act 
to fall within the mischief of terrorism as contemplated by law. 
Therefore, appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 7(a) 
of the Act ibid is set aside, however his conviction under clause (b) 
of Section 302 of the Code ibid and sentence consequent 
thereupon is upheld. With the above modification, Criminal Appeal 
104-L/2017 is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Lahore, the 
15th of May, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
