PLJ 2025 SC (Cr.C.) 145
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Athar Minallah,
Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ.
KHAIR MUHAMMAD etc.--Petitioners
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. P. No. 132 of 2018 and J.P. No. 120 of 2023, decided on
30.4.2025.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10.01.2018 of the High
Court of Balochistan, Turbat Bench in Cr. Appeal Nos. (T) 32 & 34/2017),
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV
of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/34--Qatl-i-amd--Light of bulb--FSL
report--Call Date Record (CDR)--Acquittal of--PWs saw petitioners running away
from street, as described above, in light being emitted by a bulb--FIR is also
silent about any other source of light--No recovery has been made in regards a
supposed alternate source of light and site map again does not mention any
source of light or place from where such source may have been recovered--The
light source being mentioned as a bulb at one place and torch at other, is
self-contradictory--The petitioner disclosed that he had hidden away weapon of
offence, a pistol, in a pile of garbage outside his home and that he could
guide police to its recovery--Empties recovered from place of occurrence and weapon
of offence, a pistol, recovered from petitioner--Both articles were sent to FSL
together on same day--No reliance can be placed upon result of an FSL
report--Record does not disclose whether mobile phones purportedly recovered
were in use of deceased or accused as acknowledged by I.O--The prosecution has
not ascribed any motive to petitioners as would motivate them to commit crime--The
petitioners are entitled to benefit--Acquit petitioners of all charges.
[Pp.
149, 150 & 155] A, B, C, D, K, L
2023
SCMR 781 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV
of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/34--Qatl-i-amd--Recovery--Empties recovered
from place of occurrence and weapon of offence, a pistol, recovered from petitioner--Both
articles were sent to FSL together on same day--No reliance can be placed upon result
of an FSL report.
[Pp.
151] E, F & G
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/34--Qatl-i-amd--Call
Date Record (CDR)--The record does not mention which SIMs were taken from recovered
mobile phones and in whose name corresponding mobile number was issued--The
instant CDR is in form of a standard computerized document which can be printed
and prepared with help of any computer--The Call Data Record (CDR) must bear endorsement/authentication
of cellular/telecom company--CDR without any signature of concerned officer of cellular/
telecom company issuing CDR cannot be considered for purposes of trial and
relied upon until and unless it bears company’s seal or a letter of its
authentication.
[Pp.
152 & 154] I & J
PLD 2024 SC 1119; 2016
SCMR 274; 2021 SCMR 522; PLD 2019 SC 675; 2019 SCMR 1982; 2016 SCMR 274; 2024
SCMR 1782 ref.
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Iqbal
Qureshi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioners (in both
cases).
Nemo for Complainant.
Syed Pervez Bokhari, State
Counsel for State.
Date of hearing: 30.4.2025.
Judgment
Irfan Saadat Khan, J.--Khair Muhammad and Zahoor Ahmed
(the “petitioners”) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Panjgur (“trial
Court”) in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 179/2015 dated
07.12.2015, registered at Police Station City Panjgur under Sections 302/34 of
the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”). Upon conclusion of the trial, the
learned trial Court convicted the petitioners under Sections 302 and 34, PPC,
sentencing them to imprisonment for life in addition to holding them liable to
pay
Rs. 100,000/- each, 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 further undergo SI for six months vide: judgment dated
25.02.2017. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the
petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by the
above conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred appeals before High
Court of Balochistan (“High Court”). The learned High Court dismissed
the appeals and upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court through its
judgment dated 10.01. 018 in the following terms:
“The re-appraisal of
oral, circumstantial and medical evidences coupled with the minute
consideration of all the circumstances, in the light of law declared by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the recoveries articles on the pointation of
the appellant and receipt of FSL report in affirmative regarding blood stained
soil that had been taken into possession from the house of appellant Khair
Muhammad and blood stained clothes of the deceased, we are of the considered
view that the appellants are responsible for the pturder of the deceased and
has rightly been convicted by the trial Court. The counsel for appellant has
failed to point out any single circumstances giving dent or creating reasonable
doubt in the case of the prosecution. The defence has absolutely failed to
point out any material illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the case of
prosecution, warranting interference by this Court.
For the above reasons, the appeals
being devoid of merit are dismissed accordingly.”
3. Still aggrieved,
the petitioners have impugned the High Court’s judgment through these
petitions.
4. Briefly, the
facts of the case are that the complainant/PW-1, Musa Khan son of Muhammad
Umer, a resident of Mohallah Chitkan, Panjgoor, and a vegetable merchant by
profession, lodged the FIR supra against the petitioners at 12:45 a.m.
According to him, approximately an hour earlier at 11:48 p.m. he was
present at his home along with his son Abdul Hameed, and two others i.e.
Muhammad Hashim[1]
(“PW-2”) and Habib-ur-Rehman. At that time, Abdul Hameed was engaged in
a telephone conversation who thereafter stood up to leave the house. Upon being
questioned by his father where he was going, Abdul Hameed replied that his
neighbours Zahoor Ahmed and Khair Muhammad were calling him, and he was going
to meet them. Shortly after Abdul Hameed had left, the complainant/PW-1 heard
gunfire coming from the direction of Khair Muhammad’s house. Alarmed, he, along
with Muhammad Hashim (PW-2) and Habib-ur-Rehman, rushed outside. In the light
of the bulb, they observed both accused -Zahoor Ahmed holding a pistol and
Khair Muhammad empty-handed-running away from the street. The complainant/PW-1
and the others then entered the house of Khair Muhammad, where they discovered
Abdul Hameed lying in a pool of blood, having already succumbed to his
injuries. These events were then promptly reported, leading to the registration
of FIR supra under Sections 302 and 34 of the, PPC, naming Zahoor Ahmed and Khair
Muhammad as the persons responsible for the intentional and brutal murder of
Abdul Hameed (“deceased”). The medico legal examination as well as
inquest report recorded firearm injuries as the cause of Abdul Hameed’s death.
5. Mr. Muhammad
Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR have appeared on
behalf of the petitioners and contended that the impugned judgment was a result
of misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of the evidences available on
the record. They argued that the occurrence was unseen and was founded entirely
on circumstantial evidence, with no direct witness to the murder. The
prosecution relied only on related witnesses, while an independent witness,
Habib-ur-Rehman, though admittedly present, was not produced. This omission,
coupled with inconsistencies in the site-plans and unclear identification based
on disputed source of light rendered the ocular account unreliable. The learned
counsel further contended that the recovery of the pistol was made after a
delay of nearly two weeks from a public location not shown to be in the
petitioner’s possession and lacked evidentiary value particularly in absence of
any independent recovery witness, in violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C.. The
forensic and medical evidence was also disputed as incongruent with the
prosecution’s version and unsupported by established credentials. No motive was
alleged or proved. It was thus prayed that the convictions be set aside and the
petitioners acquitted.
6. Mr. Syed Pervez
Bokhari has appeared on behalf of the State and stated, at the very outset,
that the impugned judgments suffer from no legal infrrmity and are the result
of a thorough and well-reasoned appraisal of the evidences brought on record.
It was contended that the prosecution case stood firmly established through a
combination of prompt reporting, consistent ocular testimony, corroborated
recoveries and unimpeached forensic and medical evidences. The learned counsel
further submitted that the murder weapon was recovered on the pointation of the
petitioner Zahoor Ahmed, and the same was duly forwarded for the forensic
analysis. The Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) report confirmed that
the spent bullet casings (empties) recovered from the scene had been fired from
the recovered pistol. In addition, the prosecution placed reliance on call data
records which, it was argued, established communication between the deceased
and the petitioners immediately prior to the occurrence, thereby corroborating
the claim that the deceased had been lured from his home by the
accused-petitioners. It was also argued that the medical evidence was in full
consonance with the ocular account, with the medico-legal examination
confirming firearm injuries as the cause of death. The cumulative effect of the
above, it was submitted, leaves no room for reasonable doubt that the learned
Trial Court as well as the High Court had rightly reached to the conclusion
that the petitioners, acting in concert, committed the murder of Abdul Hameed.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the convictions and sentences awarded to the
petitioners be maintained and the instant petitions be dismissed.
7. No one has
entered appearance on behalf of the complainant.
8. We have heard
both the learned counsel and have re-examined the record with their able
assistance.
9. It is important
to highlight that the occurrence took place in the night of 07.12.2015 at 11:48
p.m. and although the incident was unseen, the PWs claim to have seen the
petitioners fleeing from the scene, one of them armed and the other
empty-handed. The absence of any substantial moonlight on that fateful night
necessitates a discussion into the source of light which could have made the
identification of the petitioners by the PWs possible. The complainant/PW-1
stated in his complaint to the police and again in his examination-in-chief
that he saw the petitioners running away from the street, as described above,
in light being emitted by a bulb. The witness accompanying the complainant,
Muhammad Hasim/PW-2, stated in his examination-in-chief that he also saw the
petitioners fleeing in the same way, one armed and the other unarmed, in some
light. He later clarifies during cross-examination that it was certainly in the
light of a bulb that he saw the petitioners fleeing and not in light being
emitted from some torch. Both witnesses have also accentuated during their
respective cross-examinations that there was certainly some bulb installed at
the scene of occurrence. It is then increasingly alarming, especially in view
of above, that the complainant/PW-1 stated during his cross-examination as
follows:
"یہ
غلط ہے کہ
موقع پر حاضر
عدالت ملزمان
پسٹل ہاتھ میں
لئے بھاگ رہے
تھے اور میں
نے بلب کی
روشنی میں
اُنکو شناخت
کیا۔"
This express statement by the
complainant/PW-1 has two effects; firstly, it becomes clear that the
petitioners were not identified in the light of a bulb, which clearly
contradicts the complainant/PW-1’s statement recorded under Section 161,
Cr.P.C. as well as the FIR. The FIR supra is also silent about any other source
of light. Furthermore, no recovery has been made in regards a supposed
alternate source of light and the site map again does not mention any source of
light or place from where such source may have been recovered. The
identification of the petitioners is thus not free from doubt.
10. Here, it may be
pertinent to note that the investigating officer (“I.O.”), Muhammad
Ramzan (PW-7) stated during cross-examination that in the FIR supra a bulb has
been mentioned as the source of light and then corrected himself by stating
that the light source was a torch. In the same breath, the I.O. sought to
explain the apparent contradiction by stating that there is no difference
between the two. He then stated there is a difference between a bulb and a
torch but argued that the witnesses were illiterate and did not know the
difference between the two. At the very outset, the I.O.’s explanation in
regards the light source being mentioned as a bulb at one place and a torch at
the other, is self-contradictory. Highlighting this contradiction further,
Muhammad Hashim (PW-2) has mentioned a bulb as the light source, as noted
above, despite having earlier stated before the police that it was a torch.
This is evidenced by the fact that during cross-examination he denied that he
mentioned a torch as the light source in his statement to the police but when
the record was referred to, it was shown to be otherwise. These facts
constitute yet another doubt in regards the identification of the petitioners.
Still, if we assess the possibility of a torch being the source of light, it
becomes apparent that this was not the case since the complainant/PW-1 was
completely silent about a torch and just as in the case of the bulb, no
recovery was made to that effect nor was there any mention of a torch in the
site map.
11. The complainant/PW-1’s
express statement also introduces a second doubt in our minds. The
prosecution’s claim that the petitioner Zahoor Ahmed was seen fleeing with a
pistol in his hand is now also undermined significantly. The complainant/PW-1’s
earlier statements in his complaint to the police and examination-. in-chief
both mention that Zahoor Ahmed was armed when he was fleeing. During the
rigours of cross-examination, however, the complainant/ PW-1 belies his own
claim by stating categorically that he did not see the petitioner Zahoor Ahmed
armed, while he was running. Similarly, the witness Habib-ur-Rehman, statedly
accompanying the complainant/PW-1 and PW-2 as they all saw the petitioners run
away from street, was not arrayed as a witness despite his crucial presence at
the scene.
12. A discussion of
the manner in which the alleged weapon of offence was recovered also merits our
attention. Statedly, on 21.12.2015, the petitioner-Zahoor Ahmed disclosed that
on the night of the occurrence before dawn, he had hidden away the weapon of
offence, a pistol, in a pile of garbage outside his home and that he could
guide the police to its recovery. The recovery witness, Abdul Mannan (PW-5),
explained during his cross-examination that the petitioner-Zahoor Ahmed led
him, another recovery witness and police officers from the police station to
outside Zahoor’s house. Here, the recovery witness’ (PW-5) account begins to
vary; he stated firstly that the place of recovery/pile of garbage was outside
the petitioner-Zahoor’s home, he however stated immediately after that the
petitioner-Zahoor entered his home and that the garbage was inside Zahoor’s
home. Again surprisingly, the site-map for the recovery proceeding indicates
that the pistol was recovered from outside the petitioner-Zahoor’s home. This
contradiction thus, in our view, cannot be reconciled, rendering the recovery
witness’ account quite doubtful.
13. The prosecution
has also relied on the results of the chemical testing conducted in order to
match the empties recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon of
offence, a pistol, recovered from the petitioner-Zahoor’s home. Two crime
empties were statedly recovered from the scene on 08.12.2015. The weapon of
offence, a pistol, was allegedly recovered on 21.12.2015. The record however
shows that both the articles were sent to the FSL together on the same day, i.e.
12.02.2016, pursuant to which the FSL report recorded a positive result-that
the empties had been fired from the pistol. Not only was there a proven
inordinate delay in dispatching the articles but the police’s failure to send
the empties to the FSL before the recovery of the weapon of offence also stands
established. The law in this regard is well settled that no reliance can be
placed upon the result of an FSL report where the crime empties were sent for
FSL testing after the recovery of the weapon of offence.
14. The prosecution
had also invited our attention to the Call Data Record (“CDR”) to
showcase that it was Zahoor Ahmed, who was on the other line with the deceased
before he headed towards Khair Muhammad’s home where he was allegedly killed.
It appears the prosecution’s claim is that the petitioners lured the deceased
to their home and then killed him. In this respect the I.O. stated that he
recovered the deceased’s personal mobile phone through parcel No. 3 and
recovered the petitioner-Khair Muhammad’s mobile phone through parcel No. 5. He
stated that subsequently, on 11.12.2015, he sent a letter to the crime agency requesting
the Call Data Record for the mobile numbers of the deceased-Abdul Hameed and
the petitioner-Zahoor Ahmed. It is pertinent to highlight here that the mobile
phone was stated to have been recovered from the petitioner-Khair Muhmmad
whereas the I.O. made a request for the CDR pertaining to the petitioner-Zahoor
Ahmed’s mobile numper. It is also apparent that the record does not disclose
whether the mobile phones purportedly recovered were in the use of the deceased
or accused as acknowledged by the I.O. during the cross-examination. Moreover,
the complainant Musa Khan (PW-1) has also stated during his
examination-in-chief that he had not mentioned the cell number of the mobile
phone from which his son, the deceased-Abdul Hameed, received the call following
which his son left home whereas in his statement recorded under Section 161 of
the, Cr.P.C. he has mentioned the number from which his son received the call.
15. There
is another telling revelation, which the I.O. made during his
cross-examination, i.e. the record does not mention which SIMs were
taken from the recovered mobile phones and in whose name the corresponding
mobile number was issued. In reply to the I.O.’s letter requesting the CDR
concerning the mobile phones, the crime agency delivered a report allegedly
from “the franchise” on 16.12.2015 which was duly recovered by Javed Ahmed S.l.
(PW-4) and Abdul Waris S.I.. The I.O. further acknowledged during
examination-in-chief that on the same date, i.e. 16.12.2015, he also
sent a letter requesting a more detailed record from the crime agency, which
received no reply. The purported copies of the CDR, labelled Art/ 11 and Art/
12, appear to be typed/ computerized documents containing the details of calls
dialed and received from the mobile number 03151032799, as well as the date,
duration and location of the calls etc. Firstly, the alleged CDR has
handwriting over it; above the number 03151032799, the petitioner-Zahoor’s name
is written by hand, and above the number 03362100565, the deceased’s name is written
by hand. The witness to the recovery/receipt of the CDR, Javed Ahmed (PW-4),
stated during the cross-examination that it was the I.O. (PW.7) who
interpolated this detail whereas the I.O. stated that he did not know who wrote
over the CDR but that it was not the franchise which wrote over it -regardless,
the handwritten text cannot be considered a part of the CDR. The foregoing does
however raise doubt that even if there were clear recovery proceedings in
respect of the CDR, it may not have been safely transmitted. Importantly, the
I.O. and PW-4, both mention that the names of the deceased and
petitioner-Zahoor Ahmed cannot be found anywhere on the alleged CDR. While the
alleged CDR depicts continuous communication between the number 03151032799 and
what is ostensibly the number of the deceased i.e. 03362100565 on the
night of the occurrence, the law in this regard is clear and a portion of this
Court’s judgment in Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) is
relevant:
“The cell phone
call data collected is of no help to the prosecution for the reasons that
numerous calls have been made indicating continuous interaction between the two
cell phones, contrary to the evidence given by Muhammad Wali (PW-3), who has
stated at the trial that the unknown caller made calls on his cell phone four
time. No competent witness was produced at the trial, who provided the call
data, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. No voice record transcript has been brought on record.
Similarly from which area the caller made the calls, is also not shown in it. Above
all, the most crucial and conclusive proof that the cell phone was owned by the
accused and SIM allotted was in his name is also missing. In this view of the
matter, this piece of evidence is absolutely inconclusive and of no benefit to
the prosecution nor it connects the accused with the crime in any matter.”
[underlining is ours]
Whilst referencing the case supra this
Court has also explained in the case Khalid Perviz v. State (2021 SCMR
522) that:
“6. Some of the documentary evidence in
defence produced by the Appellant was recorded by automated information system
which according to law is admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984 (P.O. No. 10 of 1984) but in case of denial, law requires that such
evidence generated through the system ibid must be proved in accordance with
law. The Courts have been empowered to receive and make use of such evidence
collected through modern technologies. Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Order ibid
as well as the provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002)
provide procedure to receive and prove such evidence. Reference in this regard
can also be made to the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2019 SC 675) and Ali Raza v. State (2019 SCMR 1982).
7. The defence evidence recorded by Najam
Riaz (DW-1) and Nouman Khan Bangash (DW-2), pertains to calls data of Appellant’s
mobile phones and that of the cell phones of Investigating Officer (I.O.) (Ex.
DB to DE and DJ). A perusal of these documents would reveal that these were
general in nature. Neither relevant entries were pointed out in the data nor
the voice record transcripts were produced which, if available, could have made
a point. There is nothing on the record in this regard to help out the Appellant
in support of his allegations made in defence. Mere production of CDR DATA
without transcripts of the calls or end to end audio recording cannot be
considered/ used as evidence worth reliance. Besides the call transcripts.
it should also be established on the record that callers on both the ends were
the same persons whose calls data is being used in evidence. While
considering such type of evidence extra care is required to be taken by the
Courts as advancement of science and technology, on the other hand, has also
made it very convenient and easy to edit and make changes of one’s choice as
highlighted and discussed in the case of Ishtiaq Abmad Mirza supra. We also can
lay hand on the case of Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) in this
regard. So, the CDR DATA produced by the said witnesses is of no help to the
Appellant and cannot be termed as an evidence worth reliance to shatter the direct
evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
[underlining is ours]
Admittedly, it has not
been proved whether the mobile phones allegedly recovered from the deceased and
the petitioners were in their personal use, nor has it been proved which SIMs
were recovered from the mobile phones and to whom they were issued. Again, the
names of the deceased and petitioners were absent from purported CDR except in
the form of handwriting subsequently interpolated into the document. Reference
in this regard may also be made to the case of Rehmatullah and others v. The
State (2024 SCMR 1782).
16. Importantly,
the instant CDR is in the form of a standard computerized document which,
according to PW-4’s own admission can be printed and prepared with the help of
any computer. Thus, it is also of foremost importance that the Call Data Record
(CDR) must bear the endorsement/ authentication of the cellular/ telecom
company which has issued it. A bare document such as the CDR without any
signature of the concerned officer of the cellular/ telecom company issuing the
CDR cannot be considered for the purposes of trial and relied upon until and
unless it bears the company’s seal or a letter of its authentication.’ This
Court’s judgment rendered in the case of Asmat Ullah Khan v. The State(2024
PLD 1119 SUPREME COURT) crystallizes the legal position with respect to CDRs
and is reproduced below:
“We have
carefully examined the said C.D.R. and found that it neither bears the name nor
the signature of any authorized officer, nor does it carry the seal of the
issuing company. Moreover, the witness (PW-1) acknowledged that the C.D.R. was
not sealed and was not accompanied by any covering letter even from the RPO’s
office. Thus, it cannot be safely relied upon in any manner. It can be doubted
that the I.O. has himself generated such C.D.R. or the same has been issued by
the Company concerned. It is further noted with considerable importance
that neither were the relevant entries indicated in the data, nor were the
voice record transcripts produced, which, if available, could have
substantiated the point of the prosecution. No doubt, the mere production of
C.D.R., without transcripts of the calls or complete audio recordings, cannot
be deemed reliable evidence. In addition to call transcripts, it must also be
established on record that the individuals at both ends of the call are the
same as those whose call data is produced as evidence. The Courts must exercise
heightened caution when evaluating such evidence, as advancements in science
and technology have greatly facilitated the editing and alteration of
recordings to suit one’s preferences. Reference in this regard may be made to
the cases of Azeem Khan and another versus Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR
274) and Mian Khalid Perviz versus the State through Special Prosecutor ANF and
another(2021 SCMR 522). Being so, the C.D.R. is of no help to the prosecution
in supporting its allegations against the petitioners.”
[underlining is ours]
17. The
motive for the crime also merits appraisal. The complainant/ PW-1 clearly
mentioned during cross-examination that the petitioners had no enmity with the
complainant and his son, the deceased. After gleaning the entire record, we are
also satisfied that the prosecution has not ascribed any motive to the
petitioners as would motivate them to commit the crime. This fact has duly been
noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
18. The
foregoing paragraphs have highlighted material flaws in the prosecution’s case,
rendering it doubtful. We are thus ultimately of the view that the prosecution
has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since reasonable
doubts abound and these would accrue as right to the petitioners, we are
sanguine that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the same. The
judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ahmed Ali and another v. The
State (2023 SCMR 781) is of relevance in this regard and is reproduced
below:
“12. Even otherwise, it is well settled that for
the purposes of extending the benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not
necessary that there be multiple infirmities in the prosecution case or several
circumstances creating doubt. A single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable,
in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its
benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.
Reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as Tajamal Hussain
v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567), Sajjad Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1540),
Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (2022 SCMR 1527 SC), Kashif Ali v. The State (2022
SCMR 1515), Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2022 SCMR 1328), Khalid Mehmood v.
The State (2022 SCMR 1148), Muhammad Sami Ullah v. The State (2022 SCMR 998),
Bashir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 986), The State v. Ahmed Orner
Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873), Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736), Muhammad Imran
v. The State (2020 SCMR 857), Abdul Jabbar v. The State (2019 SCMR 129), Mst.
Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Hashim Qasim v. The State (2017 SCMR
986), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), Muhammad Zaman v. The State
(2014 SCMR 749 SC), Khalid Mehmood v. The State (2011 SCMR 664}, Muhammad Akram
v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v. The State (2008 SCMR
1572), Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The
State (1995 SCMR.1345).”
19. In view of the
above and by extending the petitioners the benefit of doubt in this case rife
with contradictions and controversies, we acquit the petitioners of all the
charges levelled against them. The decisions of the Trial Court as well as of
the High Court are therefore set aside and the petitioners are directed to be
released forthwith if not required to be incarcerated in any other matter.
20. These are the
reasons for our short order dated 30.04.2025 which is reproduced below for the
facility of reference:
“For reasons to be
recorded later, the petitions i.e. Criminal Petition No. 132/2018 and Jail
Petition No. 120/2023 are converted into appeals and allowed. The appellants
Khair Muhammad and Zahoor Ahmed are acquitted from the charges framed against
them by extending the benefit of doubt. The judgments of the Trial Court and
the High Court are set aside. In case the appellants are not required to be
incarcerated in any other matter then they shall be released forthwith.”
(K.Q.B.) Petition allowed