IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
  
 
Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Lahore High 
Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Crl. Appeal No.728-J/2016 
with M.R. No.10/2017) 
 
 
Khalid Naseer 
(in Cr.P.534/2019) 
Khurram Attaullah 
(in Cr.P.513/2019) 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State 
(in Cr.P.534/2019) 
Khalid Naseer & another  
(in Cr.P.513/2019) 
 
 
….Respondent(s) 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Ch. Afrasiab Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr.P. No.534 of 2019) 
 
For the State: 
N.R. 
 
For the Complainant: 
 
Raja Ikram Amin Minhas, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Cr.P.513/2019) 
 
Date of hearing: 
17.09.2020. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Raja Saifullah Khan, 
60/65, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, accompanied by Khuram 
Attaullah (PW-13), Farrukh Atta and Hameed Ullah (PW-14) was returning 
home at about 7:25 p.m. on 24.06.2010; as he reached in front of the 
house of Khalid Naseer, petitioner herein, the latter emerged therefrom 
with a .30 caliber pistol and soon after exhortation repeatedly shot the 
deceased, targeting different parts of the body. Litigation, both criminal as 
well as civil, raging between the parties is cited as motive for the crime. 
Still gasping for life, the deceased was rushed to THQ Hospital Pind Dadan 
Khan where after a brief struggle he succumbed to the injuries. Khurram 
Attaullah, PW laid information with the police at 8:40 p.m. in the hospital. 
The Medical Officer noted three entry wounds on the locales mentioned in 
Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 
 
 2 
  
  
 
the crime report. The petitioner stayed away from law, however, was finally 
arrested on 16.3.2014; indicted before a learned Additional Sessions Judge 
at Pind Dadan Khan, he claimed trial that resulted into his conviction 
under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; he was 
sentenced to death vide judgment dated  29.10.2016. The High Court 
upheld the conviction, however, altered penalty of death into imprisonment 
for life vide impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019, being assailed both by 
the petitioner as well as the complainant through the captioned petitions, 
being decided by this single judgment.  
 2. 
 
Learned counsel for the convict contends that the deceased 
was done to death in an un-witnessed occurrence and that the petitioner 
had been arrayed on account of a misconceived and misplaced suspicion 
due to past bad blood between the parties. In order to qualify the argument, 
the learned counsel has referred to the statement of Khuram Attaullah  
(PW-13) admitting that he managed a Computer & Commerce Institution at 
Mian Channu, a place situated at a considerable distance. According to the 
learned counsel, being architect of the case, absence of the complainant 
from the scene casts away the entire case. It is next argued that given the 
admitted animosity between the two sides, prosecution evidence required a 
more cautious and careful scrutiny, an exercise omitted by the Courts 
below. Failure of motive and inconsequential recovery have also been 
highlighted as flaws inherent in the prosecution structure. It would be 
unsafe to maintain the conviction, concluded the learned counsel. Learned 
counsel for the complainant while defending the impugned judgment has 
prayed for reversal of death penalty; he argued that given the magnitude of 
violence, callously unleashed upon the deceased without any provocation, 
there was hardly an occasion for the High Court to alter the penalty of 
death after affirming the conviction. According to him, the death penalty 
was the only conscionable wage in circumstances.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Crime scene is located at a distance of 15 kilometers from the 
police station; occurrence statedly took place at 7:25 p.m. during the last 
week of June. Despite gun shots, including on the back of chest with a 
corresponding exit, the petitioner was brought to the hospital in semi 
unconscious condition where he was attended by the medical officer at 9:00 
p.m. under a police docket. Interregnum between the occurrence and 
deceased’s initial medical examination excludes possibility of any 
Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 
 
 3 
  
  
 
manipulation, consultation or deliberation in recording of complaint at 8:40 
p.m, 20 minutes before the conclusion of medical examination. Petitioner’s 
disappearance from the scene for about three years is a circumstance that 
cannot be viewed with favour. No serious challenge has been thrown to the 
motive, set up in the crime report, though disbelieved by the High Court for 
prosecution’s failure to establish the rancor through independent evidence. 
Dissimilarity of casings secured from the spot with the weapon shown to 
have been belatedly recovered is not of much consequence inasmuch as the 
petitioner was not expected to retain the pistol during the long period of his 
absconsion as a trophy of his crime. The fate of the case essentially hinges 
upon the ocular account furnished by Khuram Attaullah (PW-13) and 
Hameed Ullah (PW-14). Attack on former’s credentials as a chance witness, 
subsequently managed at the scene, is an argument structured on a half-
cooked cross-examination and, thus, fails to inspire confidence; the witness 
candidly admitted that though resident of the village, he was running a 
Computer & Commerce Institution at Mianchannu; this inconclusive probe, 
by itself, does not exclude his presence from the scene at 7:25 p.m; in an 
otherwise inordinate cross-examination, his presence in Mianchannu, on 
the fateful day, is not even suggested to him and it was merely alleged that 
he was not present at the spot and that in connivance with the police he 
maneuvered the crime report, a position vehemently denied. Given the 
timeframe wherein the deceased was initially medically examined under a 
police docket and recording of complaint Ex.PJ shortly preceding therefrom 
do not support the hypothesis of complainant’s absence from the scene; he 
has comfortably faced the cross-examination by sharing all the relevant 
details compatible with the salient features of the incident and events 
collateral therewith. The next witness is Hameed Ullah (PW-14); his 
statement is in a complete unison with Khurram Attaullah PW and the 
defence counsel opened cross-examination with a suicidal question, in 
response whereto, he stated as under: 
“My house is adjacent to the Baithak of Khalid 
Naseer accused towards its eastern side” 
 
Subsequent attempts by the defence through multiple bald suggestions, 
consistently denied, failed to neutralize the impact. A witness, resident next 
to the scene of occurrence, furnishing exhaustive details, found consistent 
with the testimony of other witness, in line with medical evidence is entitled 
to credence without demur. Despite three entry wounds, nomination of 
Criminal Petition Nos.534 & 513 of 2019 
 
 4 
  
  
 
single accused by the complainant in the backdrop of persisting bad blood 
reveals a truthful restraint from casting a wider net, confined to the actual 
offender alone, who could not have been possibly swapped through 
substitution in a small rural neighbourhood.  Criminal Petition No.534 of 
2019 fails. Leave declined. 
5. 
 
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned 
High Court preferred the alternate penalty of imprisonment for life upon 
prosecution’s failure to produce independent evidence to establish the 
motive though otherwise figuring as a common ground on the record, 
nonetheless, imprisonment for life, a legal sentence provided under the law, 
we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the quantum settled by the High 
Court. Criminal Petition No.513 of 2019 is dismissed. Leave declined. 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
           Judge 
Islamabad, the 
17th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
