PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 311 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present:
Farooq Haider and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ.
MUHAMMAD
NADEEM KHAN and others--Appellants
versus
STATE
etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No.
82474-J, M.R No. 331 & P.S.L.A. No. 82858 of 2022,
heard on 21.1.2026.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S.
302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Ocular
account--Motive--Corroborative evidence--It is well established that principle
of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, false in one thing, false in
everything, is not applied in a strict or mechanical manner in our criminal
justice system--When witnesses are found to be untruthful or unreliable in
relation to some of accused, their statements cannot be accepted against remaining
accused unless there is strong, independent, and reliable corroboration to
support their version--In such cases, Courts are required to exercise greater
caution before placing reliance on their testimony--Credibility of ocular
account must be scrutinized to ascertain whether it is supported by independent
corroboration sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction, particularly when
other co-accused with similar role have been acquitted on same evidence--Insistence
on corroboration serves as a rule of caution, not of law--It is invoked to
ensure that reliance is not placed on untrustworthy or partially discredited
testimony without adequate support--Court now proceed to examine whether record
contains any strong and independent corroborative evidence to support ocular
account, which was disbelieved in relation to co-accused--The record lacks
strong and independent corroboration to lend credence to testimony of witnesses
already disbelieved regarding co-accused--It is evident that prosecution has
failed to provide compelling and coherent evidence to establish that appellant
committed alleged crime--Held: It is
a cardinal principle of criminal justice system that for extending benefit of doubt,
there doesn’t need to be several circumstances, rather one reasonable doubt is
sufficient to acquit an accused, not as a matter of grace but as of right--Appeal
allowed.
[Pp.
323 & 324] A, B & C
2024
SCMR 156 & 2024 SCMR 929.
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa,
Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Waqas Anwar,
Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Muhammad Azhar Kashif,
Advocate for Petitioner (in PSLA No. 82858/2022).
Date of hearing: 21.1.2026.
Judgment
Ali Zia Bajwa, J.--Through this single judgment, we intend to
decide Crl. Appeal No. 82474-J/2022 titled: ‘Muhammad Nadeem Khan vs.
The State’ against conviction and sentence, Murder Reference No.
331/2022 titled ‘The State vs Muhammad Nadeem Khan’ for confirmation
of death sentence and PSLA No. 82858/2022, titled: “Shah Baig vs.
Ansar, etc.” against acquittal of Ansar, Akram, Badar Nawaz and Allah
Ditta/respondents as these are arising out of one and the same judgment dated
30.11.2022 (hereinafter ‘the impugned judgment’), passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh (hereinafter ‘the trial Court’).
2. Muhammad Nadeem
Khan son of Jaffar Khan, caste Baloch, resident of Chak No. 188/GB, Tehsil
& District Toba Tek Singh [mentioned as Mouza Peer Wala, Tehsil & District
Jhang in the jail appeal] (hereinafter ‘the appellant’) along with
Ansar, Akram, Badar Nawaz and Allah Ditta (all since acquitted) was implicated
in a private complaint filed by Shah Baig under Sections 302, 148 & 149 of
Pakistan Penal code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘the, PPC’), arising out of case
FIR No. 412/2021, dated 10.05.2021, offenses under Sections 302, 148 & 149
of the, PPC, registered with Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh. He
was tried by the trial Court for the afore-mentioned offenses. The trial Court,
vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
follows:--
Ø Under Section 302(b), PPC, sentenced to
death as Ta’zir with direction to pay
Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased
in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to be recovered as arrears of land revenue
3. The prosecution’s version of the case, as
encapsulated in the impugned judgment, is reproduced hereinbelow verbatim for
the sake of clarity and completeness, so as to facilitate a proper appreciation
of the factual matrix forming the basis of the prosecution theory of the case.
“05. Facts
in brief as unfolded from the above titled complaint Exh.PC instituted by Shah
Baig complainant are that complainant is resident of Chak No. 188/G.B Tehsil
& District Toba Tek Singh; on 10.05.2021 at about 06:00 P.M, his son Imran
deceased was working in Killa No. 11 Square No. 61 of Chak No. 188/G.B, then
suddenly accused persons Nadeem armed with Pistol, Ansar armed with Pistol, Akram
armed with Pistol, Badar Nawaz armed with Pistol alongwith accused Allah Ditta
with empty handed with their common object came there and encircled his son
Imran; accused Allah Ditta raised lalkara to commit murder of Imran and taught
him a lesson to oppose them in investigation upon which Ansar accused made a
fire shot which hit on the upper arm above the left elbow of Imran deceased,
accused Nadeem also made a fire shot of Pistol which hit to left rib of Imran
deceased who fell down on the ground; accused Akram made a fire shot which hit
on the upper right arm above the elbow in the inner side of right arm towards
the ribs; accused Badar made a fire shot which hit on front of abdomen of Imran
deceased; upon hearing the noise of firing, complainant and PWs Noor Khan and
Ali Sher attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence; accused persons
ran away from the spot while raising lalkara and making Aerial firing.
Motive behind the occurrence was that Imran
deceased used to join investigation of case FIR No. 348/21 registered at Police
Station Pir Mahal in favour of his maternal uncle Rab Nawaz and due to their
personal grudge i.e. father of accused persons Nadeem and Ansar who was
murdered in 2015 and allegation of that murder was levelled against complainant,
his son Muhammad Shabban and others; complainant was acquitted while his son
Shabban and other co-accused were convicted in the said murder case for 10
years R.I against the said conviction, an appeal is still pending before the
Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore; due to this reason, accused persons
committed the occurrence. Shamshad Ali S.I/I.O of this case came at the place
of occurrence after receiving the information of the occurrence to whom
complainant narrated the whole occurrence, who got written his above said
version through police constable and got registered a case FIR No. 412/21 at
Police Station Rajana of his own and did not read over to complainant the above
said his version which was narrated to him and obtained signatures of
complainant on an application; postmortem of deceased was conducted in RHC
Rajana; after registration of FIR, it came into knowledge of the complainant
that Investigating Officer usually visits the accused persons and got
incorporated extra injuries regarding which, the complainant informed the
police high-ups that the Investigating Officer in order to give favour to the
accused persons did not effect recoveries of weapons and also damaged the case
by declaring the accused persons being not involved in this murder case except
accused Nadeem but in vain. Hence, this private complaint.”
4. After the
registration of the crime report, the Investigating Officer carried out the
investigation and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in terms
of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter ‘the
Code’). Upon culmination of the investigative process, a report under
Section 173 of the Code was duly compiled and submitted before the trial Court.
However, being dissatisfied with the manner and outcome of the investigation,
the complainant instituted a private complaint (Exh.PC). Upon recording of
cursory evidence therein, the learned trial Court issued process against the
accused. During the trial, the complainant produced four prosecution witnesses,
while the Court examined six Court witnesses. Upon conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and his co-accused were
recorded under Section 342 of the Code, wherein they refuted the allegations
and asserted their innocence. At the close of the trial, the learned trial
Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted and sentenced the appellant as
detailed above.
5. We have heard the
learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and with their able
assistance, have meticulously examined the record available on the file. The
submissions advanced on behalf of both sides have been given due consideration
in the light of the evidence brought on the record and the applicable law.
6. In order to
substantiate the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has relied upon
the ocular account, medical evidence, the alleged motive, and the recovery of
the purported weapon of offence, which was affected on the pointing out of the
appellant. For a just determination of the validity of the conviction and
sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, it is imperative to undertake a
thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence on record to assess whether it
meets the stringent standard of proof required in criminal law, namely, proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
7. According to the
prosecution, the occurrence took place on 10.05.2021 at approximately 06:00
p.m., and the FIR was subsequently registered at 08:15 p.m. The distance
between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned, being 16
kilometers, prima facie indicates that the matter was reported to the
police without any undue delay. As per the prosecution, the dead body was
received in the mortuary at 09:00 p.m., the police documents were provided to
the Medical Officer by 10:00 p.m., and the post-mortem was conducted at 11:00
p.m., reflecting prompt and uninterrupted investigative steps. However, this
chronology does not align with the medical evidence. Dr. Muhammad Tasneem Nawaz
(PW-4) categorically stated in his deposition that the time of death, as
reported to him, was around 05:00 p.m. on the same day, and that rigor mortis
was fully developed at the time of the post-mortem examination.
8. Upon death, the
human body undergoes a definite and recognizable sequence of post-mortem
changes. These changes are of medico-legal importance and assist medical and
forensic experts in forming an opinion regarding the probable time since death.
For ease of understanding and assessment, such changes are generally classified
into immediate, early, and late post-mortem stages. A brief description along
with the approximate timeline of each post-mortem change is set out below, to
facilitate a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of their medico-legal
significance.
|
STAGE |
POST-
MORTEM CHANGE |
SALIENT FEATURES |
APPROXI-MATE
TIME |
|
I |
Cessation of Life |
Permanent
cessation
of blood circulation and respiratory functions resulting in
death |
Immediate |
|
II |
Pallor Mortis |
Paleness of skin due to stoppage of
blood circulation;
of limited value for time
estimation |
Immediate |
|
III |
Algor Mortis(Cooling of body) |
Gradual
fall in body temperature; average
decrease of about 1–1.5°C
per hour, subject to variation |
Begins
immediately |
|
IV |
Livor
Mortis (Post-Mortem
Hypostasis) |
Bluish-purple
discoloration of dependent parts due to gravitational settling
of blood; indicates body position. |
Appears within 30 minutes to 2 hours; fixed by 8–12 hours subject
to surrounding conditions. |
|
V |
Rigor Mortis |
Post-mortem stiffening
of muscles due to chemical
changes; follows Nysten‟s Rule
(head to toe) |
Onset 1–2
hours; complete by ~12 hours; passes off within 24–36
hours |
|
VI |
Putrefaction |
Decomposition of tissues
by bacterial action; first
sign is greenish discoloration
of abdomen, followed by bloating
and foul odour |
Usually begins
after 24–36 hours. |
|
VII |
Adipocere Formation |
Conversion
of body fat into a
wax-like substance
in moist, airless conditions; preserves
body features |
Develops
over weeks to months |
|
VIII |
Mummification |
Drying and
shrinking of the body in hot, dry, well-ventilated conditions |
Develops over weeks to
months |
|
IX |
Skeletonization |
Complete loss of soft tissues,
leaving only the bony framework |
Months to years depends
upon environment. |
9. For the proper and
effective adjudication of the present case, the aspect of rigor mortis assumes
substantial importance, as it has a direct bearing on the determination of the
matter in controversy. It is, therefore, both appropriate and necessary to
explain this post-mortem phenomenon in some detail to arrive at a just and
reasoned conclusion. Rigor mortis is a post-mortem stiffening of the muscles
that occurs after death due to biochemical changes in muscle tissue,
particularly the depletion of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which causes muscle
fibers to become rigid and fixed. In simple terms, after death the muscles
first relax, a stage known as primary flaccidity, and then gradually become
stiff, beginning with the smaller muscles of the jaw and neck and later
spreading to the entire body, before finally relaxing once again as decomposition
sets in. Nysten’s Rule, laid down by Pierre Nysten[1]
explains that rigor mortis develops in a definite head-to-toe sequence,
beginning with the small muscles of the face and jaw, then spreading to the
neck, upper limbs, trunk, and finally the lower limbs, and it disappears in the
same order. This sequence helps in making an approximate assessment of the time
since death but must always be evaluated alongside other post-mortem findings
and surrounding circumstances. Rigor mortis is a variable post-mortem change
whose onset, progression, and duration depend mainly on temperature, the age
and physique of the deceased, muscular activity prior to death, the cause and
mode of death, and environmental conditions such as humidity, ventilation,
immersion, and body covering. Since these factors substantially influence its
course, rigor mortis by itself does not provide a reliable or conclusive basis
for determining the exact time since death and must always be evaluated in
conjunction with other post-mortem findings and the surrounding circumstances.
The factors affecting the development of rigor mortis are briefly discussed
hereinafter:
• Ambient and
climatic temperature:
Temperature has
a direct bearing on post-mortem muscular changes. In hot or summer conditions,
rigor mortis ordinarily sets in at an earlier stage and also passes off
earlier. In contrast, in cold or winter conditions, post-mortem chemical
processes proceed at a slower pace, with the result that rigor mortis tends to
appear later and persist for a longer duration.
• Age of the
deceased:
The development
of rigor mortis varies with the age of the deceased. In children, it is usually
less pronounced and of shorter duration. In healthy adults, rigor mortis is
generally well developed and more clearly appreciable. In elderly people,
variations are commonly observed owing to age-related degenerative changes in
muscle tissue, which may influence both the time of onset and the duration of
its persistence.
• Physical
build and muscle mass:
The degree of
muscular development has a direct influence on the manifestation of rigor
mortis. Bodies with well-developed musculature generally exhibit more
pronounced and sustained muscular stiffening, whereas in persons with poorly
developed or wasted muscles, rigidity may be less marked or may persist for an
altered duration.
• Muscular
activity prior to death:
Physical
exertion, struggle, convulsions, or exhaustion prior to death materially affect
the physiological condition of the muscles at the time of death. Where such
activity has occurred, the muscles are often already fatigued or depleted of
their normal energy reserves, with the consequence that rigor mortis may set in
earlier and pass off earlier and may exhibit variations in its usual pattern as
compared to cases where death occurs without any preceding exertion.
• Cause and
mode of death:
The manner in
which death occurs, whether due to natural disease, poisoning, asphyxia,
trauma, or sudden collapse, has a recognized effect on post-mortem muscular
changes. Different causes of death may either hasten or delay the onset and
disappearance of rigor mortis, depending upon their impact on the muscular and
metabolic condition of the body at the time of death.
• Environmental
conditions:
External
circumstances surrounding the body, such as humidity, ventilation, immersion in
water, and whether the body is clothed or covered, influence heat loss and
moisture retention. These conditions, in turn, affect the rate at which rigor
mortis develops and subsides and thereby contribute to variation from case to
case.
In support of the aforementioned
findings, due reliance may appropriately be placed on authoritative texts in
the fields of medical and forensic sciences. These include Modi’s Textbook
of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P. Modi (27th edition,
LexisNexis), Knight ‘s Forensic Pathology by Pekka Saukko and Bernard Knight
(4th edition, CRC Press), Parikh‘s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology by C.K. Parikh, edited by B.V. Subrahmanyam (9th
edition, CBS Publishers & Distributors), Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology (Practice & Procedure) by Sanjiv Gupta (Premier Publishing
Company), and Di Maio’s Forensic Pathology by Vincent J.M. DiMaio and D.
Kimberley Molina (3rd edition, CRC Press). These works are widely
recognized as standard reference texts in the domain of forensic medicine and
medico-legal practice and carry considerable authoritative value in matters
requiring expert medical and forensic opinion.
10. Adverting to the
merits of the case, the Medical Officer observed full rigor mortis at the time
of autopsy, conducted five hours after the alleged time of death. This raises
serious doubt about the prosecution’s timeline, as in the month of May, it is
implausible for rigor mortis to be fully developed within such a short span,
indicating that death likely occurred much earlier than stated in the FIR. Such
a glaring inconsistency between the ocular account and the medical findings
delivers a significant blow to the prosecution’s case, as it challenges the
credibility of the alleged timeline and casts serious doubt on the reliability
of the witnesses.
11. We
have also thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the seminal discharge observed on the body of deceased during
the post-mortem examination indicates that the deceased was engaged in sexual
activity at the time of death. This argument, however, does not withstand
medical or legal scrutiny. The mere presence of seminal discharge on the body
of the deceased, who sustained a fatal gunshot injury and collapsed immediately
thereafter, is a medically recognized involuntary reflex phenomenon. Such
discharge is known as post-mortem seminal emission and can occur due to
neurogenic shock, muscular contractions, hypostasis, rigor mortis, or
decomposition-related changes. Such discharge, by itself, is not considered
diagnostic of ante-mortem sexual activity and has been described in
authoritative medical literature as a finding of neutral medico-legal
significance. For clearer appreciation and proper understanding, the recognized
reasons for seminal discharge are delineated hereinafter.
• Neurogenic
shock: Sudden trauma or fatal injury may cause acute nervous system
shock, resulting in involuntary discharge of seminal fluid at the time of
death.
• Spinal
reflex mechanism: A sudden injury or trauma involving the spinal cord
may trigger a reflexive release of seminal fluid, even in the absence of any
sexual activity, and such discharge is medically recognized as a possible
involuntary physiological response.
• Agonal
muscular contractions: At the time of death, the body may have muscle
spasms, which can squeeze the prostate and seminal vesicles and cause semen to
be released.
• Rigor
mortis: Post-mortem stiffening of muscles, particularly involving the
dartos muscle of the scrotum and pelvic musculature, may cause extrusion of
semen.
• Hypostasis
(Gravitational pooling of body fluids): Post-mortem settling of
blood and fluids under gravity may result in passive seepage of seminal fluid
at the urethral meatus.
• Decomposition
changes: Putrefactive gas pressure during decomposition may expel semen
or genital secretions, creating a false appearance of sexual activity.
• Mechanical
violence: Mechanical violence means physical injury to the body caused
by external force, leading to damage of tissues or organs. It includes blunt
force injuries, sharp force injuries, and firearm or explosive trauma. Death
due to mechanical violence is often associated with reflex or shock-related
seminal discharge.
• Death by
Strangulation: Seminal emission observed in death by strangulation is a
recognized post-mortem phenomenon and, standing alone, carries no evidentiary
value suggestive of sexual activity.
• Autonomic
nervous system failure: Terminal failure of inhibitory autonomic
control may lead to involuntary release of genital secretions. It means that at
the time of death, the body’s automatic nerve control stops working properly,
normal control is lost, and semen may be released without any sexual cause.
In view of the foregoing, it is
manifestly clear that the presence of seminal discharge on the body of the
deceased, in and of itself, cannot be construed as conclusive evidence of the
deceased having engaged in any sexual activity prior to death. Reliance may
appropriately be placed on the following leading authoritative texts in the
fields of medical and forensic sciences, as well as the relevant judicial
precedents. Pekka Saukko & Bernard Knight, Knight’s Forensic
Pathology, 4th ed. (CRC Press, 2016), Ch. ‘The Forensic Autopsy’,
Jaising P. Modi, Modi A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 27th
ed (Lexis Nexis), Chapter ‘Death from Asphyxia, Nageshkumar G. Rao, Textbook of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 2nd edition. Saee Muhammad v. The State, 1985
P Cr. L J 2993 (Lahore High Court), Karam Khan v. The State, 1988 P Cr. L J 94
(Lahore High Court), Kanubbai Virjibhai v. State of Gujarat [2014(1) GLR 655]
(Gujarat High Court), Ranjit Urang v. State of Tripura [2013(3) GLD 92]
(Gauhati High Court).
12. The ocular account
is furnished by the complainant, Shah Baig (PW-1), father of the deceased, and
Noor Khan (PW-2), his first cousin. As per the crime report, co-accused Ansar
initially fired two shots, hitting the deceased on the upper left arm above the
elbow. The appellant then allegedly fired three shots, striking the left side
of the deceased’s ribs. Ansar fired again, hitting the right rib, causing the
deceased to fall. Co-accused Akram followed with a shot to the right rib, and
co-accused Badar fired the final shot, which struck the front of the abdomen.
However, the private complaint presents a materially different version of
events. It alleges that co-accused Ansar fired a single shot, hitting the deceased
on the upper left arm above the elbow. The appellant is said to have fired one
shot with a pistol, striking the deceased on the left rib, causing him to fall.
Co-accused Akram allegedly fired a shot that hit the deceased on the upper
right arm, above the elbow on the inner side, extending towards the ribs.
Lastly, co-accused Badar is stated to have fired a shot that struck the
deceased on the front of his abdomen. The complainant’s version in the private
complaint materially departs from the initial crime report by reducing the
number of fire shots and reattributing the injuries among the accused,
evidently in an attempt to reconcile the ocular account with the medical
evidence. This deviation assumes material significance in light of the
post-mortem report, wherein Dr. Muhammad Tasneem Nawaz (PW-4) noted only four
entry wounds on the body of the deceased, whereas the version set out in the
crime report attributed as many as eight firearm shots. The improvements
introduced in the private complaint to bridge the discrepancy between the
ocular account and the medical evidence render the prosecution’s case highly
doubtful.
13. The Investigating
Officer testified that the complainant and PW-2 were not residents of the
vicinity of the occurrence. He further admitted that Ramzan son of Mahamand,
Imdad Hussain son of Lal Khan, and Noor Khan son of Murad, all residents of
Chak No. 188/GB, appeared before him and stated that they had witnessed the
incident, while the complainant and PW-2 were not present at the scene at the
relevant time. Relevant portion of his statement has been reproduced as infra:
“On 18.05.2021, I
visited the Chak No. 188 GB wehre (sic) Ramzan s/o Mahamand, Imdad Hussain s/o
Lal Khan and Noor Khan s/o Murad, all Bloch by caste, r/o Chak No. 188 GB
appeared before me and I recorded statements on Bar-daryfat in which they claim
themselves being eye-witness of the occurrence. In their above said statements
they did not mention the presence of complainant Shah Baig, Noor Khan and Ali
Sher PWs at the spot at the time of occurrence.”
14. It further appears
highly improbable that, despite the presence of eye-witnesses who were close
relatives of the deceased and admittedly available at the scene at the relevant
time, the accused persons made no attempt whatsoever to cause them any harm,
not even a single scratch, and instead left them completely unharmed, thereby
affording them a free and unhindered opportunity to survive and subsequently
depose against the accused at the trial. In this respect, reliance can be
placed on the dictums of the Supreme Court reported in cases titled “Riasat
Ali and another versus The State and another” (2024 SCMR 1224) and “Rafaqat
Ali alias FOJI and another versus The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1579).
15. The foregoing discussion
pulls the rug out from under the prosecution’s case, shaking its core structure
and raising grave concerns about the reliability of its story, thereby
rendering the presence of eye-witnesses at the alleged scene highly doubtful.
16. One of the most
crucial aspects of the case is the acquittal of co-accused Ansar, Akram, and
Badar Nawaz, who were also found not involved by the Investigating Officer
during the course of the investigation. These co-accused were specifically
blamed for causing firearm injuries to the deceased. Therefore, their acquittal
strikes at the very root of the prosecution’s case and raises serious questions
about the truthfulness of the eye-witnesses, as the core of their testimony
stands contradicted by the outcome of the investigation and the findings of the
trial Court. It is well established that the principle of falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus, false in one thing, false in everything, is not applied
in a strict or mechanical manner in our criminal justice system. However, when
witnesses are found to be untruthful or unreliable in relation to some of the
accused, their statements cannot be accepted against the remaining accused
unless there is strong, independent, and reliable corroboration to support
their version. In such cases, the Courts are required to exercise greater
caution before placing reliance on their testimony. In this context, the
credibility of the ocular account must be scrutinized to ascertain whether it
is supported by independent corroboration sufficient to sustain the appellant’s
conviction, particularly when other co-accused with similar role have been
acquitted on the same evidence. The insistence on corroboration serves as a
rule of caution, not of law. It is invoked to ensure that reliance is not placed
on untrustworthy or partially discredited testimony without adequate support.
We now proceed to examine whether the record contains any strong and
independent corroborative evidence to support the ocular account, which was
disbelieved in relation to the co-accused.
17. The first piece of
corroborative evidence is the recovery of pistol 30-bore (P-1) on the pointing
out of the appellant, which matched six crime empties (C-1 to C-6) collected
from the place of occurrence as reflected from the forensic report (Exh.PN).
However, perusal of the record reflects that at the time of recovery of pistol,
five live bullets (P-2/1-5) were also taken into possession and secured through
recovery memo Exh.PB. According to the contents of the forensic report
(Exh.PN), only pistol (item P1) was recovered from the sealed bag, and the live
bullets were missing. This discrepancy raises serious doubts about the
integrity of the chain of custody and leads this Court to believe that the
parcel received by the forensic lab was not the same as the one sealed at the
time of the recovery or it was tampered. Hence, the alleged recovery of the
crime weapon from the appellant is not confidence inspiring, therefore,
inconsequential.
18. The motive set up in the crime report was
that the deceased used to join the investigation of FIR No. 348/21 in support
of his maternal uncle, Rab Nawaz, which was registered due to the personal
grudge of a murder of the father of the appellant in the year 2015, wherein
allegations of murder were levelled against the complainant, his son Muhammad
Shabban alias Shabo, and others. Although the complainant produced a
copy of the judgment as Ex.PK, reflecting his acquittal and the conviction of
his son Shabban alias Shabo with a sentence of ten years, the prosecution
failed to bring on record any material or independent evidence to substantiate
the alleged motive. During the course of investigation, no witness or
documentary evidence was collected to support the motive part. The
Investigating Officer, in his statement, categorically admitted that neither
the complainant nor the prosecution witnesses were able to produce any evidence
to prove the alleged motive and in his investigation motive part was found
incorrect. Relevant extracts of his statement have been reproduced hereunder:
“The complainant and PWs did not take the stance
of the murder of one Jaffar before me as motive.
During my investigation the motive alleged by the
complainant in Exh.PA and the PW Noor Khan in his statement in Exh.DB and in
the statement of Ali Sher was not proved as correct.”
In the foregoing, the record lacks strong and independent
corroboration to lend credence to the testimony of witnesses already
disbelieved regarding the co-accused. In the afore-stated facts and
circumstances and keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the Supreme
Court of Pakistan handed down in Maqsood Alam and another vs. The State and
others – 2024 SCMR 156 and Shaukat Hussain vs. The State through PG
Punjab and another – 2024 SCMR 929 the appellant is also entitled to be
acquitted on this score too.
19. Based on the facts and circumstances
presented, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to provide compelling
and coherent evidence to establish that the appellant committed the alleged
crime. It is a cardinal principle of the criminal justice system that for
extending the benefit of the doubt, there doesn’t need to be several
circumstances, rather one reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused,
not as a matter of grace but as of right.[2]
20. In sequence of the aforementioned
discussion, Crl. Appeal No. 82474-J/2022 filed by the
appellant is allowed, resultantly impugned conviction and
sentences passed by the trial Court are set-aside and the
appellant is acquitted of the charge. The
appellant is directed to be released forthwith
provided he is not required to be detained in any other case.
21. Murder
Reference No. 331/2022 forwarded by the trial Court is answered in
the negative. Death Sentence awarded to the convict is not
confirmed.
22. As
far as PSLA No. 82858/2022 filed by the complainant
seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of Ansar, Akram, Badar Nawaz and
Allah Ditta/respondents is concerned, as in the preceding paragraphs we have disbelieved
the prosecution story and presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence,
therefore, the same is devoid of any legal substance, which is accordingly dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal allowed
[1]. Pierre Nysten was a French physician and
physiologist who, in 1811, formulated Nysten‟s Rule, describing the
orderly head-to-toe progression of rigor mortis, a principle that continues to
serve as a basic guide in medico-legal death investigations. Ref:’Time since
Death from rigor Mortis: Forensic Prospective’ published in Journal of
Forensic Science on July 05, 2018. Available on
https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/JFSCI.MS.ID.555771.php#:~:text=Typically%20it%20starts%20first%2
0in,at%20the%20time%20of%20death.
[2]. MUHAMMAD HASSAN and another vs. The State
and others – 2024 SCMR 1427, NAJAF ALI SHAH vs. The STATE -2021 SCMR 736 and
The STATE through P.G. Sindh and others vs. AHMED OMAR SHEIKH and others -2021
SCMR 873.