30/05/2026
2025 S C M R 1367
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
AHSIN ALI and another ---Petitioners Versus The STATE ---Respondent Jail Petitions Nos. 389 and 549 of 2023, decided on 8th May, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 05.6.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in M.R. No. 43 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 1413 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2021).
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 393, 449 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, house trespass, abetment---Reappraisal of evidence---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the paternal brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that the role assigned to petitioner "R" alias "J" was merely that of a 'Jappah'---Not even a single witness had stated that petitioner "R" alias "J" inflicted any 'danda' blow on the deceased---No looted money or hens were recovered from his possession---Danda was not recovered on the pointation of the said petitioner rather the same was given to the prosecution side by the complainant himself---Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that petitioner "R" alias "J" would catch hold of the deceased when his co-accused was inflicting repeated hatchet blows on the body of the deceased because, in that case, there was every possibility to receive a fatal hatchet blow on his own body---Evidently, the role attributed to petitioner "R" alias "J" was that of 'Jappah' only, hence the other factors connecting him to the commission of the offence were obviously lacking---Hence, prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner "R" alias "J"---Thus, said petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him by extending the benefit of doubt---Petition of "R" alias "J" was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1981 SCMR 850; Ahmad Ali v. The State 2021 SCMR 470 and Zarin Shah and 2 others v. The State 1974 SCMR 376 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 302(b), 393, 449 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, house trespass, abetment---Reappraisal of evidence---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the paternal brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that the accusation levelled against petitioner "AA" was that he inflicted hatchet blows on the head of the deceased and that the hatchet recovered was bloodstained--Defence alleged that in the post-mortem report, which, although, attributed the cause of death to severe head injuries however, it did not specify the nature of the weapon used, as to whether it was a hatchet, a danda or any other incriminating object---Said report was not significant because the prosecution witnesses had not stated that petitioner "AA" used the right side of the hatchet---Lacerated wounds mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased could be caused with the wrong side of the hatchet and as such there was no material contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence of the prosecution---Petitioner "AA" was caught red handed at the spot by witnesses while carrying a bloodstained hatchet---Evidence of the prosecution eyewitnesses to his extent was confidence inspiring and trustworthy---Prosecution had proved its case to the extent of petitioner "AA" beyond the shadow of any doubt---Petition of said petitioner was converted into an appeal and was dismissed with modification in the sentence by commuting the death sentence into life imprisonment.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 393, 449 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, house trespass, abetment---Reappraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Sentence, quantum of---Mitigating circumstances---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the paternal brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that the accusation leveled against accused "AA" was that he inflicted hatchet blows on the head of the deceased---As per prosecution case the accused persons came to the farm house of the deceased for dacoity on the instigation of one "GN", but the same proved to be incorrect---No looted money, article or hens were recovered from the possession of accused "AA" or his coaccused---No witness had stated that he had seen the petitioners while attempting to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased--While awarding death sentence and convicting an accused motive had to be given prime importance since without there being an unshattered motive proved by the prosecution, death sentence could not be awarded, rather in such cases, death sentences were usually converted into sentences for life imprisonment---In the instant matter, the aspect of proving motive to the hilt was missing---Therefore, awarding death sentence or confirming the same would not only be harsh but also uncalled for, when admittedly no material had come on the record to prove the alleged motive---Moreover, it was not determinable in this case that as to what had actually happened immediately prior to the occurrence which resulted into present unfortunate incident---Likewise, if the motive of robbery punishable under Section 393, P.P.C., was not proved then offence of trespass punishable under Section 449, P.P.C., in order to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased was also not proved---Thus, the conviction and sentence of accused "AA" under Sections 393 & 449, P.P.C., were set-aside and he was acquitted of the said charges--However, the sentence awarded to the accused "AA" under Section 302(b), P.P.C., was modified from death sentence to life imprisonment--With said modification in sentence, petition was converted into an appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances. Arshad Beg v. The State 2017 SCMR 1727; Allah Wasaya and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1797 and Muhammad Yasin and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 128 rel....
