MUHAMMAD SAFDAR Versus State

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.--- At the very outset it is stated that Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1091/2024 has been filed stating that a compromise has been affected between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner on the basis of such compromise has been prayed for after verification thereof. In this regard, a verification report was sought from the Trial Court on 06.02.2026. The report has been received, whereby the Trial Court has reported that the compromise has been found to be voluntary, genuine and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

2.The petitioner, Muhammad Safdar, and his co-accused, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ajmal, were put to trial for the murder Ghulam Qadir (deceased) and upon its conclusion the petitioner was found guilty by the Trial Court, convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ( "P.P.C." ) and sentenced to death with direction to pay Rs. 100,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( "Cr.P.C." ) and in default thereof to undergo six months S.I., whereas the co-accused were acquitted from the case. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2022 and his conviction was maintained, however, only his sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life. It is against this judgment the petitioner has filed the instant jail petition.

3.The prosecution story, as narrated in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment, is as follows:

4.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the entire record with their able assistance, we have incorporated and addressed the submissions and contentions raised during the course of arguments throughout the ensuing discussion and analysis within this judgment, thereby avoiding unnecessary repetition.

5.After scrutiny of the entire record, we have no hesitation to uphold the conviction of the petitioner as the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular account has been furnished by the complainant/real brother of the petitioner and son of the deceased, namely, Muhammad Akbar who appeared as PW-10. His deposition remained unshaken despite a grueling cross-examination. His presence at the crime scene seems natural given the place of occurrence being just outside their residence. The parties are well known to each other and there is no probability of misidentification. The promptitude with which the FIR was lodged effectively precludes the possibility of fabrication, deliberation, or the substitution of a real culprit with the petitioner. Furthermore, the medical evidence provided by Dr. Muhammad Arshad Ali Sahu (PW-9) corroborates the ocular account regarding the locale of the injury (left lower chest and adjacent to lower abdomen) and the nature of the weapon used. The primary contention of the petitioner remains the non-production of two out of the three eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR. It appears from the record that the prosecution abandoned the eyewitness, namely, Muhammad Asghar, as he had proceeded abroad and the other eyewitness, namely, Mumtaz Hussain, who had connived with the petitioner. Due to such position, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly argued that solitary ocular account furnished by the complainant cannot be relied upon to uphold the conviction. We do not see a way to agree with such a contention of the learned counsel as it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that evidence is weighed, not counted. The testimony of a solitary witness, if found to be confidence-inspiring, intrinsically consistent, and corroborated adequately, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Having undertaken a thorough review of the record, we observe that the courts below conducted an exhaustive analysis of the evidence, arriving at a concurrent determination of the guilt of the petitioner. Our independent evaluation of the same material provides no ground for reaching a divergent conclusion.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Zahid Rehman 1 , has also prayed for acquittal of the petitioner on the ground of compromise duly affected before the Trial Court. He further submitted that since the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced under section 302(b) of P.P.C. to death as ta'zir by the Trial Court, which was later converted to imprisonment for life by the High Court, therefore, the provisions of section 311, P.P.C. are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned APG contended that after the amendments introduced by Act No. XLIII of 2016 2 ( "the Amendment Act" ), the provisions of section 311 of P.P.C. are attracted regardless of the punishment being qisas or ta'zir . In this regard, we deem it appropriate to dilate upon this matter in detail. Prior to the promulgation of the Amendment Act, the legal position was clarified by this Court in the case of Zahid Rehman (supra) and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

After promulgation of the Amendment Act, the position has changed significantly whereby certain amendments have been made in sections 299, 302, 309, 310, 311 and 338E of P.P.C., and section 345 and Schedule-II of Cr.P.C. in order to give substantial effect to the doctrine of fasad-fil-arz as provided in section 311 of P.P.C. Through the Amendment Act, the term fasad-fil-arz has been defined in section 299(ee) of P.P.C. as under:

Similarly, section 311 of P.P.C. has been amended as under:

Likewise, section 338E of P.P.C. was also amended as it now reads as under:

7.The holistic reading of all the amended sections shows that the legislature has changed the scheme of punishment in order to give effect to the principle of fasad-fil-arz and the provisions of section 311 of P.P.C. are to be given effect regardless of punishment being qisas or ta'zir . However, the said amended position is not applicable to the instant case as the occurrence took place on 10.12.2013 and the Amendment Act came into force on 22.10.2016 and such amendment cannot be given retrospective effect as per settled jurisprudence in the light of legal maxims nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) and nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without a law).

8.For the reasons recorded above, in the light of the compromise affected between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1091/2024 is accepted and, consequently, the jail petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner is acquitted on the basis of the said compromise and he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

JK/M-10/SC Application allowed.

1 Zahid Rehman v. State (PLD 2015 SC 77).

2 Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on pretext of Honour) Act, 2016.