IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
 
Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 27.2.2018  of 
the Peshawar High Court Abbottabad Bench 
passed in Criminal Appeal No.86-A/2015) 
 
 
Muhammad Mumtaz 
   
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Mehtab and another 
 …Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Qari Abdul Rasheed , ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (s) 
Mr. Naveed Hayat Malik, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, AAG KPK 
 
Date of hearing: 
2.12.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
 
      Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Mehtab s/o Ayub, 
respondent herein, was tried as a juvenile for committing Qatl-i-
Amd of his schoolmate Muhammad Azhar in the dormitory during 
wee hours of 17.9.2013. The incident was reported without 
nomination; weapon of offence spotted outside the room, turned 
out as a lead to the respondent who was eventually tried on the 
basis of various pieces of circumstantial evidence, his retracted 
judicial confession being most prominent. A learned Additional 
Sessions Judge at Abbotabad returned a guilty verdict vide 
judgment dated 5.6.2015; convicted under clause (b) of Section 
302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the respondent was 
sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction to pay 
Rs.50,000/- as compensation or undergo six months SI in default 
thereof with pre-trial commutation. A learned Judge-in-Chamber 
of the Peshawar High Court altered respondent’s conviction into 
clause (c) of the Section ibid and reduced sentence to 10-years RI 
Cr.A. No.359-2018 
2
vide impugned judgment dated 27.2.2018; complainant seeks 
enhancement thereof, by leave of the Court.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant while conceding that 
the respondent has since served out the sentence, nonetheless, 
contends that sentence of 10-years is not a conscionable wage for 
the crime and, thus, merits enhancement in the interest of 
justice, albeit without support from the State.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Respondent’s confessional statement, though retracted 
subsequently, is prosecution’s mainstay; going by his words, he 
was carnally assaulted by the deceased for more than once; 
despite resistance, the deceased insistingly treaded the lusty 
course and it is in this backdrop, according to the prosecution 
itself, that the respondent exasperatingly embarrassed, took the 
most drastic step in the face of no other possible motive. In the 
absence of any other evidence, the respondent made his breast 
clean and as such his narrative is to be received in its totality. 
Incident though most unfortunate, nonetheless, the deceased 
cannot be credited as being entirely blameless and as such 
interference by this Court at this point of time, particularly when 
the respondent had already served out the sentence would be far 
from being expedient. Appeal fails. Dismissed.   
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad  
2nd  December, 2019 
Not approved for reporting 
 Azmat* 
