| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1581 2026 SLD 1581 = 2026 SCP 112 = 2026 SCMR 1344 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 92 of 2022 (Against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court Islamabad dated 19.03.2020 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 19 of 2018)
Presented By: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan
Mr. Waseem Anwer Bhatti, ASC
Jail Petition No. 92 of 2022 (Against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court Islamabad dated 19.03.2020 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 19 of 2018)
Presented By: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan
Mr. Waseem Anwer Bhatti, ASC
Khan Afzaal .. .Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
The State .. .Respondent(s)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b),302(c),337-D
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 382-B
Summary The petitioner, Khan Afzaal (juvenile at the time), was originally convicted under section 302(b) PPG for murdering Shahzad and under section 337-D PPC for causing grievous injury to Muhammad Asnan. On reappraisal the court found the incident was a sudden scuffle/free fight with mutual resistance, inadequate proof of premeditation, and gaps in the investigation; it converted the conviction to section 302(c) PPG (lesser mens rea), set sentence equal to time already served, upheld the 337-D conviction and compensation, and ordered concurrent sentences with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Core points FIR No. 90/2016 filed 09.03.2016 at P.S. Bhara Kahu, Islamabad; alleged knife (churri) attack in bazaar, victim Shahzad died, Muhammad Asnan injured. Trial court convicted petitioner under 302(b) PPG (life imprisonment) and 337-D PPC (7 years RI + Arsh Rs.6,45,198); appellate court upheld convictions. Prosecution relied mainly on three eyewitnesses: PW-7 (complainant Sajjad), PW-8 (Javed), and PW-9 (injured Asnan). PW-9 corroborated presence and injury but gave a narrative consistent with a struggle and did not fully identify premeditation. Post-mortem: death due to hemorrhagic shock from multiple ante-mortem injuries; injuries from different directions and possibly different sharp weapons. Defence raised prior hostility and an alternative plea (sodomy allegation and claims petitioner was assaulted); petitioner filed Ex.DA reporting earlier incidents. Investigation failed to probe key aspects (route to complainant’s house, how petitioner could predict arrival), and did not adequately examine defence assertions. Court concluded the event was a sudden encounter/free fight, lacking proof of prior planning required for 302(b); reduced conviction to 302(c) PPG. Juvenility of appellant and time already served (about 18 years) influenced sentence: petitioner is considered convicted for term already undergone. Conviction and sentence under 337-D PPC, compensation and default sentence maintained; sentences to run concurrently; benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. allowed. Law and sections Offence / Issue Statute / Section Key elements required Court’s…