Muhammad Ashraf . Vs State Etc

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.76339-J/2021 Muhammad Ashraf vs The State

Criminal Revision No.12466/2022 Parveen Akhtar vs The State, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 07.10.2026

Mr. Saad Mehmood Anwar, Advocate/Defence Appellant by:

counsel (appointed at State expense).

Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, District Public State by:

Prosecutor.

Mr. Muhammad Asif Bhatti, Advocate for Complainant by: complainant in Appeal and for the petitioner in Revision Petition.

Farooq Haider, J:- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.76339-J/2021 filed by Muhammad Ashraf (appellant/ convict) against his “conviction & sentence” and Criminal Revision No.12466/2022 filed by Parveen Akhtar (complainant) for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Ashraf, as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same impugned judgment dated: 25.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin/trial court.

2.Muhammad Ashraf (appellant) alongwith his co-accused namely Muhammad Walayat (since proclaimed offender) being involved in case arising out of F.I.R. No.407/2019 dated: 01.12.2019 registered under Sections: 302, 34 PPC (offence under Section: 34 PPC was deleted during investigation of the case) at Police Station: Saddar Mandi Bahauddin was tried and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 25.09.2021 has convicted and sentenced the appellant; in this regard, relevant portion from paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment is as under: -

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

“Hence, this court convict accused person viz. Muhammad Ashraf s/o Muhammad Khan u/s 302 (b) PPC for the murder of deceased Sikandar Firdous and as the mitigating circumstances are available to him in shape that i) he is and old man of about 68/70 years & ii) there is no repetition of injury on his part. So, I sentenced him with life imprisonment. He has to give Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased u/s 544-A Cr.P.C. as a compensation. In default of it, he will further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Benefit of section 382 (b) Cr.P.C. is also given to the convict.”

3.Machinery of law was set into motion by Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) while moving application (Ex.PE) for registration of the case to Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) on 01.12.2019 at 06:15 p.m. in DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin regarding raising lalkara by Muhammad Walayat (co-accused, since proclaimed offender) and making fire shots with rifle .12-bore by Muhammad Ahraf (accused/appellant) hitting at chest, neck and face of Sikandar Firdous (son of the complainant), who fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On the basis of said application (Ex.PE), case vide F.I.R (Ex.PD) was chalked out by Qalab Abbas, ASI (PW-5); for ready reference, relevant portion of the same is hereby scanned below: - After completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court against the appellant by placing his name in column No.3 whereas by placing name of Muhammad Walayat (co-accused since P.O.) in column No.2 of the same; appellant was

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

formally charge sheeted, however, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; prosecution during trial examined eleven witnesses whereas after giving up Muhammad Akram (witness) being dead, Muhammad Asif (witness) being won over, Farooq Ahmad (witness) being unnecessary and tendering report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore regarding Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis as Ex.PR and report of PFSA qua Firearms & Toolmarks Examination as Ex.PS closed its evidence, however, statement of Muhammad Asif was recorded as CW-1; appellant was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him; though he did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section: 340 (2) Cr.P.C. yet produced copies of some documents as Ex.DB and Ex.DC in his defence.

Trial Court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through the impugned judgment.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the ‘law and facts’ of the case; ocular account is neither trustworthy nor corroborated/supported by any other independent evidence; prosecution has remained unable to prove its case. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

5.Conversely, learned District Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In support of revision petition for enhancement of sentence, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since prosecution has proved its case against Muhamad Ashraf (appellant) up to hilt, therefore, sentence of death may be awarded to him and amount of compensation may also be enhanced.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.It has been noticed that as per case of the prosecution contained in the application for registration of the case (Ex.PE), occurrence took place at about 03:30 p.m. on 01.12.2019 in the house of Muhammad Ashraf (accused/now appellant) situated in Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala and Sikandar Firdous (now deceased of the case) died at the spot; occurrence was reported by

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

Parveen Akhtar (complainant of the case/PW-6) while producing written application (Ex.PE) to Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) in DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin, who after recording his proceedings on the same at 06:15 p.m., sent the application to the Police Station: Saddar Mandi Bahauddin where FIR (Ex.PD) was recorded at 06:30 p.m. on 01.12.2019. As per application for registration of the case (Ex.PE), complainant party was having two motorcycles with them but even then none of them went to the Police Station for reporting the matter as well as registration of the case rather it was reported to the Police after the delay of about two hours and forty-five minutes of the occurrence, at DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin and FIR (Ex.PD) was recorded after the delay of three hours of the occurrence. So, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, matter has not been promptly reported to the Police rather case has been registered with considerable delay, for which any plausible, valid, convincing and cogent reason has not been brought on the record by the prosecution.

Apart from above, as per case of the prosecution mentioned in the application for registration of the case (Ex.PE), Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) reached at DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin and received application for registration of the case there and in his statement before the Court, he (PW-10) stated that he received application for registration of case (Ex.PE) in DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin, and inspected the dead body of the deceased there and then proceeded to the place of occurrence; relevant portion of his statement, in this regard, is under: - “At about 05:45 pm, I received information about the instant occurrence. Upon which, I proceeded to the DHQ hospital Mandi Bahauddin. The complainant of this case Parveen Akhtar presented written application Exh.PE before me for the registration of the case. I endorsed my proceeding upon the same and sent the same to police station through constable Nazir Hussain 706/C for registration of the case. I inspected the dead body of deceased Sikander Firdous and prepared injury statement Exh.PK, inquest report Exh.PL/1-2 and application for postmortem examination Exh.PM. I handed over the relevant documents to Muhammad Aslam constable for postmortem along with identification witnesses namely Farooq Ahmad and Firdous Ahmad. In the meanwhile, Nazir Hussain constable returned back and handed over to me FIR along with original complaint of the instant case for the purpose of investigation. Upon entrustment of the investigation, I proceeded to the place of occurrence village Chailianwala along with the witnesses namely Parveen Akhtar, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akram.”

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

It means that dead body was available at that time in DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin and in such circumstances, postmortem examination must have been performed immediately but it was conducted there at 12:15 a.m. (night) on 02.12.2019 with much delay after the occurrence as well as recording of the FIR, for which no plausible reason is available on the record. There is another aspect that on the one hand, dead body was available at DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin where Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) produced application for registration of the case to Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) at 06:15 p.m. whereas on the other hand, as per postmortem examination report (Ex.PA/1-6) as well as statement of Dr. Azeem-ud-Din (Medical Officer/PW-2), who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of Sikandar Firdous (deceased), dead body of deceased of the case was received in the dead house of the hospital at 10:00 p.m. on 01.12.2019, which also raises eyebrows that when dead body was present in DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin at 06:15 p.m. on 01.12.2019, then why it was not immediately shifted to the dead house and why autopsy was not got conducted immediately thereafter; statement of Dr. Azeem-ud-Din (PW-2) further reflects that documents from the Police were received at 11:30 p.m. on 01.12.2019 and as soon as he received the relevant papers, after perusing the papers, he (PW-2) conducted the postmortem examination over dead body of the deceased; in this regard, relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under: - “It is correct that time of death of the deceased in the instant case according to record is 03:30 pm on 01.12.2019 and the time of receiving of the dead body in the mortuary is 10:00 pm on 01.12.2019 and time of the receiving of relevant papers in the hospital is 11:30 pm on 01.12.2019. As soon as I received the relevant papers, after perusing the papers, I conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased.”

In above scenario, it is crystal clear that delay in conducting postmortem examination was for the reason that police papers were submitted with delay i.e. 11:30 p.m. on 01.12.2019, which ultimately caused delay in conducting postmortem examination over dead body of the deceased. Above state of affairs reflects that none of the cited eyewitnesses including the complainant were present at the time of occurrence, at the crime

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

scene rather they were subsequently called, time was spent on this process as well as in concocting story and thereafter case was registered in its present form with much delay showing anti-time and it is of course fatal to the case of prosecution, in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “SUFYAN NAWAZ and another versus The STATE and others” (2020 SCMR 192) and relevant portion from Paragraph No. 4 (Page 194) of the same is being reproduced as under: - “The unexplained delay of about ten hours in autopsy of Kabeer Ahmad (deceased) alone creates dent in the prosecution story so far as presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is concerned.”

Resume of the above discussion is that F.I.R. which is always considered as “cornerstone” of the case has lost its efficacy in the case; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “GHULAM ABBAS and another versus The STATE and another” (2021 SCMR 23), “PERVAIZ KHAN and another versus The STATE” (2022 SCMR 393) and “ABDUL GHAFOOR versus The STATE” (2022 SCMR Ocular account produced by the prosecution comprises Parveen Akhtar/complainant (mother of deceased of the case/PW-6) and Muhammad Asif (nephew of the complainant/CW-1). Undoubtedly, they both were residents of village Chailianwala whereas occurrence took place in Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala, which was situated at a distance of 31⁄2 kilometers from village Chailianwala; in this regard, relevant portions of the statement of Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) are hereby reproduced as under:

“The inter-se distance in between my village and Dera Topa is 31⁄2 kms.”

“My brother Akram and nephew Asif are residing in the southern side of village Chailainwala. They are residing in my back.”

So, they both were not residents of the place of occurrence. Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) categorically stated that she did not mention any specific reason for coming into the house of her daughter (Dera Topa) on the fateful day from village Chailianwala; relevant portion of her statement, in this regard, is hereby reproduced as under: -

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

“I have not mentioned any specific reason for coming into the house of my daughter (Dera Topa) on the fateful day from Chailianwala.”

Similarly, relevant portion of the statement of another cited eyewitness namely Muhammad Asif (CW-1) is also hereby reproduced as follows for ready reference: - “It is correct that there is no any special occasion or special reason for my visiting along with my father at Dera Topa as the daughter of my Phuphoo and sister of deceased was married there. My house is situated at Chalianwala near Jamia Masjid Ghousia.”

So much so in site plan of place of occurrence prepared by police (Ex.PN) as well as in site plan of place of occurrence prepared by draftsman (Ex.PJ), house of daughter of the complainant or her husband namely Muhammad Inayat is not available at or near the place of occurrence. Therefore, both the cited eyewitnesses were chance witnesses and thus required to explain and establish plausible as well as valid reason regarding their presence at the “time & place” of occurrence but they remained unable to provide and prove any such plausible reason; so, evidence of both said chance witnesses who could not explain/establish any valid reason/ cause regarding their presence at the “time and place” of occurrence, is “suspect” evidence and cannot be accepted without pinch of salt; guidance in this regard has been sought from the case of “Mst. Sughra Begum and another Vs. Qaiser Pervez and others.” (2015 SCMR 1142) and relevant portion from paragraph No.14 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - “14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot. True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt.”

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

Further guidance on the subject has been sought from the cases of “IMRAN versus The STATE” (2026 SCMR 47), “MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another Versus The STATE and others” (2026 SCMR 783), “RASHEED AHMAD alias Sheeda Versus The STATE” (2026 SCMR 798) and “MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and another versus The STATE and others” (2026 SCMR 1193).

As per application for registration of the case (Ex.PE) as well as statement of Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) and Muhammad Asif (CW-1), complainant party went to the place of occurrence on two motorcycles but said motorcycles were neither taken into possession during investigation of the case nor produced during trial of the case.

Another important factor of this case is that though according to Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10), he after receiving application for registration of case (Ex.PE) at DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin, inspected dead body which was available there and prepared inquest report also there yet in column No.1 of the inquest report (Ex.PL/1-2), “Chailianwala” has been mentioned and in this regard, scribe of said inquest report i.e. Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) clearly stated in his statement during cross-examination before the Court that according to column No.1 of the inquest report (Ex.PL), the murder was happened and dead body was recovered from “Chailianwala”; relevant portion of the statement of Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) reads as follows: - “According to column No.1 of the inquest report Exh.PL, the murder was happened and dead body was recovered from “Chailianwala.”

It is noteworthy here that “Chailianwala” is situated at a distance of 31⁄2 kilometers from Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala (as mentioned earlier). And it is relevant to quote that in column No.1 of the inquest report, neither DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin nor Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala has been mentioned, which negates the case of prosecution qua place of death/place of availability of dead body in Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala or DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin.

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

Perusal of column No.8 of the inquest report (Ex.PL/1-2) reflects that “eyes and mouth” of the deceased were open and, in this regard, relevant portion of the statement of Armoghan Maqsit, S.I. (PW-10) is reproduced as follows: - “According to column NO.8 of inquest report, the eyes and mouth of the dead body were opened.”

(emphasis added)

This fact raises question mark regarding presence of Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6, who is mother of deceased of the case) as well as Muhammad Asif (CW-1, who is nephew of the complainant) at the time and place of occurrence for the reason that had they been present at the place of occurrence, at the relevant time, then they would have definitely closed the eyes and mouth of the deceased; while observing so, guidance has been sought from the case of “MUHAMMAD ASIF versus The STATE” (2017 SCMR 486) and relevant portion from the same is reproduced as under: -

“14. In column No.8 of the inquest report, the eyes and mouth of the deceased were found open, thus, if the parents, witnesses, and the two close friends were present then, at least after the death as is a consistent practice of such close relatives, they would have closed eyes and mouth of the deceased on his expiry. This fact by itself indicates that none was present with the deceased till his death and why his eyes and mouth remained open and were not set right by any one and his dead body was discovered late in the night.”

Another fatal blow for the prosecution is that place of preparing inquest report (Ex.PL/1-2) has been mentioned in it as Chailianwala; relevant portion of inquest report (Ex.PL/1-2) is hereby scanned below: - Which further negates the claim of the prosecution that dead body was available at DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin, where application for registration of the case (Ex.PE) was moved. The “Inquest Report” is a

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

necessary preliminary document containing the detail of place of presence of dead body along with its physical state, the apparent cause of death, visible injuries and the relevant circumstances. It acts as a crucial filter/ shield as well as check and balance tool for corroborating or contradicting testimony of witnesses and uncovering the tampering/manipulation made by police and delayed crime report (FIR). It is the safeguard which prevents the police or/and complainant from fabricating/adjusting statements of the witnesses and timing of crime report (FIR) after conducting of autopsy. It is also worth mentioning here that it was not mentioned by the complainant in the application for registration of case (Ex.PE) that her deceased son was shifted to the DHQ Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin from the alleged scene of occurrence.

It was case of the prosecution as per application for registration of case (Ex.PE) that complainant along with cited eye witnesses went on two motorcycles to Dera Topa Dakhli Chailianwala to see Mst. Firdous (daughter of the complainant) and when reached in front of the house of the accused, they (accused persons) stopped and asked them for listening their conversation ( )بات سننے کا کہاand they (complainant and cited eyewitnesses) deboarded from motorcycles and went with the accused to the house of Muhammad Ashraf (accused/now appellant), sat on cots; Sikandar Firdous (son of the complainant/deceased of the case) had already got registered case of theft against Muhammad Ashraf, regarding which chat/talk started; accused persons started altercation, Muhammad Walayat raised lalkara for getting taste to Sikandar Firdous regarding litigation and Muhammad Ashraf (present appellant) fired shots with .12-bore rifle at Sikandar Firdous, which hit him on his chest, neck and face, who fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Now question does arise that if deceased had already got registered case against Muhammad Ashraf (present appellant) regarding theft, then why they went in the house of said accused persons and it does not appeal to a common prudent man that in such state of affairs, complainant party would go to the house of appellant. It is also relevant to mention here that on the one hand house of the daughter of complainant is not available in the site plan of place of occurrence (as discussed above) whereas on the other hand as per own

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

statement of Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6), while going to the house of accused, house of aforesaid daughter of the complainant comes first; relevant portion of the statement of Parveen Akhtar (complainant/PW-6) is hereby reproduced as under: - “The above said soling road was used by us on the fateful day while coming to the house of my daughter. When one cross the bridge of above said Nala, the house of my daughter comes first and then comes the house of accused Ashraf.”

Now if house of daughter of the complainant was coming first and they (complainant party) had come to meet her, then why they did not enter into her house and why after crossing their intended destination i.e. house of the daughter, they went in front of house of the accused and why on the asking of the accused (with whom they had already litigation), they went into the house of accused (now appellant), is the question mark, and raises eyebrows and on the one hand not appealing to the common prudent man whereas on the other hand this story/version would not find any buyer.

When all the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration in totality, then ocular account has not been found as trustworthy, confidence inspiring, truthful or reliable therefore cannot be believed hence discarded.

So far as medical evidence is concerned, it is trite law that medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence; it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same is of no help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in this regard guidance has been sought from the cases of “MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus The State” (2025 SCMR 762) and “IMRAN versus The STATE” (2026 SCMR 47); relevant portion from the latter case law is hereby reproduced as under: - “8. Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, it is by now well settled that the medical evidence is only supportive evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of "Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 53), "Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another" (2008 SCMR 1103) and "Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State" (2009 SCMR 1410).”

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

As far as recovery of gun .12-bore (P-6) from the appellant is concerned, it is important to mention here that as per recovery memo (Ex.PP), gun .12-bore was recovered from the house of the appellant and Muhammad Asif (CW-1), who was one of the recovery witnesses and had attested said recovery memo, though stated during cross-examination conducted by learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor that he signed the recovery memo and according to which, weapon of offence was recovered from the house of accused; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is as follows: - “It is correct that I signed recovery memo Exh.PP and according to it weapon of offence was recovered from the house of accused Muhammad Ashraf.”

Yet he categorically stated during his examination-in-chief that said gun was got recovered by the accused from a Kamaad/ ;کمادrelevant portion of his statement, in this regard, is reproduced as under: - “During interrogation of accused Ashraf, bandooq 12 bore was recovered from the accused from a Kamaad/ کمادwhich was taken into possession vide recovery memo which was attested by me.”

(emphasis added)

So, these contradictory stances had made the recovery of gun doubtful. Furthermore, it goes without saying that Muhammad Yousaf, S.I. (PW-11) stated that appellant got recovered rifle .12-bore, upon unloading the same, two live bullets were found, he made sealed parcel of the same, and took into possession and handed over to Muharrar of the Police Station; relevant portion of his statement, in this regard, reads as follows: - “Upon reaching at his house, accused Muhammad Ashraf got recovered rifle 12 bore P-6 from the eastern wall of the eastern room of his house which was lying an iron tin box and told that this is the same weapon which he used during the occurrence. Upon unloading the same, two live bullets were found, I made sealed parcel of the same with the stamp of “MY” and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PP attested by Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Asif PWs.”

“Then I proceeded to the police station and handed over the case property to muharar and detained the accused in police lockup.”

But Qamar Abbas, 55/HC (Muharar of the Police Station) while appearing as PW-7 during trial clearly stated that Muhammad Yousaf S.I. handed over to him Bandooq 12-bore with two cartridges for keeping the same in safe custody and he

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

did not state that “sealed parcel” of aforementioned gun and cartridges were handed over to him or said gun and cartridges were in a sealed parcel; relevant portion of his statement in this regard is as under: - “Stated that on 01-12-2019, I was posted at P.S Saddar as Muharrar. On the same night, Armoghan Maqsat SI handed over to me two sealed parcel, one said to contain blood stained cotton and other said to contain crime empty, for keeping the same in safe custody of P.S Malkhana, which I kept the same in P.S Malkhana, intact. On 09-12-2019, I handed over two sealed parcels mentioned above to Armoghan Maqsat SI for their onward transmission to PFSA Gujranwala. After submission of the sample, IO handed over to me receipt road certificate. As long as parcels remain in my custody, it remain intact. IO recorded my statement.

On 16-12-2019, Muhammad Yousaf SI handed over to me Bandooq 12 Bore with two cartridges for keeping the same in safe custody of P.S Malkhana, which I kept the same in Malkhana intact. IO recorded my statement in this respect.”

(emphasis added)

Whereas report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PS) reflects that parcel received over there was having only one gun and any cartridge was not in it. This state of affairs reflects that safe custody and transmission of gun and cartridges has been compromised and not established in the case; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of “KAMAL DIN alias KAMALA versus The STATE” (2018 SCMR 577), “MUHAMMAD ADNAN and another versus The STATE and others” (2021 SCMR 16) and “MUNEER MALIK and others versus The STATE through P.G. Sindh” (2022 SCMR 1494). And in such circumstances, though as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PS), three empties received there were found as having been fired from said gun, yet conclusiveness of the report has been impaired, its sanctity has been eroded and it has become unreliable. Resultantly, recovery of gun .12-bore is of no avail to the case of prosecution.

As far as motive behind the occurrence is concerned; as per prosecution version, theft was statedly committed in the house of Mst. Firdous Bibi (daughter of the complainant lady) and Sikandar Firdous (now deceased of this case) got registered case vide FIR No.225/2015 dated: 21.06.2015 (Ex.PH/1) under Sections: 380, 457, 381-A PPC at Police Station: Saddar Mandi Bahauddin against present appellant; husband of said daughter of the complainant lady namely Inayat is younger brother of Muhammad Ashraf (appellant), as discussed supra and said case was registered in the year 2015 whereas instant occurrence took place on 01.12.2019 i.e. after about 41⁄2 years, therefore, now what exactly happened

Crl. Rev. No.12466/2022

that necessitated the talk between the parties regarding said case and ultimately resulted the occurrence is not discernible from the record. It is trite law that motive is a double-edged weapon, it cuts both the ways, it can also be a reason for false implication; even otherwise, when substantive evidence has been discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction.

8.It is well established principle of law that single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal; in this regard, cases of “ABDUL GHAFOOR versus The STATE” (2022 SCMR 1527) and “ALI IMRAN and others versus The STATE and another” (2026 SCMR 1370) can be safely referred.

9.In the instant case after examining the prosecution case from all corners and evaluating it on the touchstone of principle of “safe administration of criminal justice”, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant, therefore, there is no need to discuss defence version.

10.Thus, instant appeal filed by Muhammad Ashraf (appellant) is allowed; conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment dated: 25.09.2021 passed in aforementioned subject case, are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge, he shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. Criminal Revision No. 12466/2022

11.Since conviction recorded against and sentence awarded to Muhammad Ashraf (convict/respondent) through impugned judgment dated: 25.09.2021, have been set-aside, therefore, instant Criminal Revision No.12466/2022 has lost its relevance and same is dismissed.

(Farooq Haider) Judge “Approved for reporting.”

(Farooq Haider) Judge This judgment has been dictated, pronounced, prepared and signed on 07.10.2026.

*Asif*