1. Muhammad Jaffar @ Pappi 2. Fazal Hussain @ Fazli vs State etc.

Stereo H C J D A 38 Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Murder Reference No.95 of 2024 (The State versus Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu, etc.)

Crl. Appeal No. 1202 of 2024 (Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu etc. versus The State etc.)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 28.09.2026 Appellants by: M/s Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Rana Nadeem Ahmad Kanju, Abdul Rehman Zouq, Muhammad Ali Butt, Shakil ul Hasnain Bhatti, Syed Sajjad Haider Kazmi, Advocates.

State by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, DPG.

Complainant by: Mr. Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate.

MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, J.:- Through this single judgment, we intend to decide Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2024, filed by Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu and Fazal Hussain alias Fazil, appellants against their convictions and sentences as well as Murder Reference No.95 of 2024, transmitted by the trial court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentences of the appellants being originated from the same judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh in case FIR No.285 dated 02.05.2021, under Sections 302, 392/511, 34 PPC alongwith sections 13(2)(a) of The Punjab Arms Amendment Ordinance 2015 and 20 of The Punjab Arms Ordinance 1965, registered at Police Station Rohillanwali, District Muzaffargarh whereby, the trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu Appellant:-

Under Section 302(b) PPC to death for committing murder of Muhammad Javed alias Mithu, deceased with direction to pay compensation u/s 544-A Cr.P.C. of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue or in default thereof to further undergo 06 months S.I.

Under Section 392 PPC to undergo 06-years R.I. with fine of Rs.200,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for 06 months. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convict.

Fazal Hussain alias Fazli Appellant:-

Under Section 302(b) PPC to death for committing murder of Muhammad Javed alias Mithu deceased with direction to pay compensation u/s 544-A Cr.P.C. of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue or in default thereof to further undergo 06 months S.I.

Under Section 392 PPC to undergo 06-years R.I. with fine of Rs.200,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for 06 months. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the convict.

2.The prosecution story, as detailed in the judgment of the trial court and FIR (Exh.PX) is that on 02.05.2021 at about 04:50 p.m. the complainant Bashir Ahmad (PW.1) along with his brother Muhammad Akram (PW.2) and Tanvir Hussain (jettisoned PW) was returning to Adda Lohar Wala after delivering wheat to their fraternal niece Sobia at Chahy Sarwar Wala. At about 05:00 p.m. when they reached at Chah Phulae Wala rough patch, the brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Javed alias Mithu was also returning home on his Phatta rickshaw after supplying ice blocks in the course of his business. Near the lands of one Hafeez Khan, Muhammad Javed alias Mithu was intercepted by three robbers who grappled with him. Upon raising a hue and cry for help, the complainant party attempted to come forward for his rescue, but the accused persons warned them not to advance while pointing weapons. One accused was firmly caught hold of by Muhammad

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

Javed alias Mithu and he was not set free despite repeated warnings given by other co-accused. Consequent thereupon, one unknown accused fired two shots at Muhammad Javed alias Mithu hitting him on his left gluteal region and left hip joint. Simultaneously, another co-accused also fired two shots at Muhammad Javed alias Mithu near his left hip joint and right gluteal region. Due to these firearm injuries, Muhammad Javed alias Mithu fell down on the ground. Resultantly, the third co-accused became free from his grip. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the spot while resorting to aerial firing and leaving behind a motorcycle, a 30-bore pistol, one shoe and a mobile phone at the place of occurrence. The complainant made an emergency call on 15 and through the Rescue 1122 service shifted his injured brother Muhammad Javed alias Mithu to the DHQ Hospital, Muzaffargarh in a critical condition. However, upon reaching the hospital, Muhammad Javed alias Mithu succumbed to his injuries. It is also relevant to highlight here that subsequently, the complainant PW.1 and eye-witness PW.2 implicated the accused standing trial in this case by correctly identifying the present appellants Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu and Fazal Hussain alias Fazil during the identification parades held on 10.06.2021 and 04.09.2021 respectively. Meanwhile, the other accused Muhammad Naveed (since proclaimed offender) was nominated through application Mark-DA and a supplementary statement dated 05.08.2021 recorded through zimni No.35. It was explained during the investigation that the present appellants each fired two shots at the deceased, whereas the third accused Muhammad Naveed (since proclaimed offender) was the one who was caught hold of during the grappling by the deceased.

3.After formal investigation, a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was submitted before the trial court. The trial court after taking cognizance of the matter, framed the charge against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 13 witnesses, detail of which has been mentioned in the judgment passed by

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

the trial court, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here to avoid unnecessary repetition. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. whereby they refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. The appellants neither opted to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C., nor produced defence evidence.

4.The trial court vide judgment dated 12.12.2024 found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, hence, the appeal and connected murder reference before us.

5.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance.

6.The ocular account of the prosecution’s case was furnished by Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) and Muhammad Akram (PW.2) who are stated to be the real brothers of Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased). Although, it was incumbent upon these prosecution witnesses to satisfactorily establish and explain their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time by furnishing a plausible and convincing reason, but they failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence. Rather, their own evidence suggests that they happened to reach there by chance. It is also significant that their residence is situated at a distance of approximately 02/03 kilometers from the place of occurrence. In this regard, the following portion of the cross-examination of Bashir Ahmad, complainant (PW.1) is relevant:- “The inter se distance between my house and the place of occurrence is about 2/3 kilometers.”

We have further noticed a material discrepancy regarding the place where the statement (Exh.PA) of Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) was recorded under the relevant provision of law by the Investigating Officer. According to the contents of the said statement (Exh.PA), the Investigating Officer had recorded it at DHQ Hospital, Muzaffargarh.

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

However, during cross-examination, Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) stated to the contrary in the following words:-

“Investigation Officer recorded my statement Exh.PA at the place of occurrence.”

The aforesaid contradiction relates to a material aspect of the investigation and further creates doubt regarding the presence and conduct of the witness in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

7.The matter, however, did not end here. It was the stance of Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) that prior to the unfortunate incident, at about 04:50 p.m. he along with Muhammad Akram (PW.2) had gone to the house of his fraternal niece namely Sobia on a motorcycle rickshaw carrying wheat and after unloading the same at her house, they were coming back when they witnessed the occurrence in the way. However, an equally significant omission on the part of the prosecution is that the Investigating Officer neither associated the fraternal niece of the complainant with the investigation nor recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Her evidence assumed particular significance in the circumstances of the case, as she was a natural witness who could potentially corroborate the prosecution’s assertion that the alleged eyewitnesses had gone to her house immediately prior to the occurrence and, consequently, were present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The recording of her statement and, if necessary, her production as a witness could have furnished material corroboration regarding the presence, movements and whereabouts of the alleged eyewitnesses and could have lent assurance to the prosecution version on this crucial aspect. The Investigating Officer, being under a legal obligation to conduct a fair, impartial and meaningful investigation and to collect all material evidence, could not selectively associate only those witnesses who supported the prosecution case while ignoring a natural witness having potential evidentiary value. The unexplained failure to examine or even associate such a material witness, who could reasonably have thrown light upon a disputed and material circumstance, gives rise

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

to an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, particularly where the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses itself is a matter of controversy. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to produce the best available evidence and cannot withhold a material witness without offering a plausible and satisfactory explanation for such omission. Where a natural witness is deliberately or inexplicably withheld, and the evidence of the witnesses actually produced is otherwise open to doubt, the omission assumes greater significance and may legitimately be taken into consideration while assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution case. Thus, the unexplained non-association and non-examination of the complainant’s fraternal niece constitutes another material investigative lapse and further weakens the prosecution’s assertion regarding the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at or near the place of occurrence, thereby creating an additional circumstance which inures to the benefit of the accused.

8.We have noted that from the contents of FIR and depositions of eye witnesses, it is evident that the eye witnesses reached at the time and place of occurrence per chance, however, they have failed to furnish any convincing and plausible explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Their testimony, being filled with material discrepancies, does not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon without independent and reliable corroboration. Consequently, the ocular account furnished by the said witnesses is not free from reasonable doubt and, therefore, cannot constitute a safe basis for maintaining conviction on the capital charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others” (2015 SCMR 1142) at para No.14, observed regarding the chance witnesses as under:- “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 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

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

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..”

Similar view was reiterated in the cases of “Fateh Khan v. The State” (2025 SCMR 1408), “Muhammad Siddique & another v. The State” (2026 SCMR 683) and “Iftikhar Ahmad alias Meena v. The State” (2026 SCMR 674).

9.Another important aspect of the case, which cannot be lost sight of is that the witnesses of ocular account, Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) and Muhammad Akram (PW.2), are not the witnesses of inquest report (Exh.PS) as well as post mortem report (Exh.PW) pertaining to Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased). As per the prosecution story, the complainant and the PWs shifted Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased), in injured condition, to DHQ Hospital, Muzaffargarh through Rescue 1122 service. If they had shifted the deceased to DHQ Hospital, then there was no reason for not identifying the deceased at the time of autopsy. Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) has stated in his cross- examination that he was not present at the time of post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased. If the eye witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time and had also taken the deceased to the hospital as claimed by them, they must have been the witnesses of inquest report. Similarly, being the close relatives of the deceased, their names should have been incorporated in the post mortem report in the column of identification of the dead body. This fact has constrained us to hold that supra-mentioned PWs were not present at the time and place of occurrence. Reliance is placed upon the case laws titled as “Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others” (2021 SCMR

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

780)and “Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State” (2024 SCMR

10.During the course of arguments, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant laid considerable emphasis on the fact that the appellants were identified by the eye- witnesses during identification parades conducted under the supervision of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rasheed Qamar, Area Magistrate (PW.12), who prepared the identification parade proceedings (Exh.PAB and Exh.PAC) in respect of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli and Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu, appellants, respectively.

11.The record reflects that Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu appellant was arrested by the police under Section 54 Cr.P.C. on 25.05.2021, whereas Fazal Hussain alias Fazli appellant was arrested on 28.08.2021 while he was already in police custody in connection with another case. Both the appellants were thereafter sent to judicial lock-up for the purpose of conducting test identification parades, which were subsequently held under the supervision of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rasheed Qamar, Area Magistrate (PW.12). The identification parade of Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu, appellant, was conducted on 10.06.2021, whereas that of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant, was conducted on 04.09.2021.

12.While it remains undisputed that in FIR (Exh.PX), no accused was nominated and the assailants were described as unidentified, however, Bashir Ahmad complainant (PW.1) has stated in the said FIR that one young person, having a tall stature, active physique and curly hair, fired two shots with a 30-bore pistol, which hit Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased) on backside of his left buttock and left hip. Another unknown accused, having an active physique, tall stature and wheatish complexion, also fired shots at the deceased, which struck him on the left buttock and right hip. As a result of the firearm injuries, Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased) fell on the ground and the unknown accused who was allegedly apprehended by the deceased was described as having brown

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

complexion, an active physique and a height of approximately 5 feet 6 inches was rescued. We may observe here that tall, whitish complexion, strong/active physique and curly hair, might be a physical description, but ordinarily it cannot be described as a complete description of the facial features of the accused. The descriptions recorded in the instant FIR are mainly general physical characteristics and do not contain distinguishing facial or other identifying features capable of meaningfully differentiating the unknown assailants from other persons of similar appearance.

13.We have noticed that both the identification parades referred above are conspicuously silent with regard to the complete facial features, complexion, height, age and other distinguishing characteristics of the unknown accused persons vis-à-vis the dummies. This omission materially diminishes the evidentiary value and probative force of the identification parades.

Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rasheed Qamar, Area Magistrate (PW.12), who supervised both identification parades, admitted during cross- examination that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses during the identification parade of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant, however, the specific role attributed to the said appellant was not mentioned in the relevant statements of the witnesses. He (PW.12) further admitted that the suspect had raised an objection that the witnesses had seen him at the police station while he was under arrest and that his photographs and videos had also been made there. Significantly, PW.12 did not record any finding regarding the said objection in the identification parade proceedings.

14.Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rasheed Qamar, Area Magistrate (PW.12) further admitted that the physique of the dummies participating in the identification parade had not been mentioned in the proceedings. He also admitted that the physique of the dummies was not recorded in the identification parade proceedings relating to Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu, appellant. He further admitted that the specific role attributed

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

to the accused and the locale of the injuries was not mentioned in the statement of Bashir Ahmad, complainant (PW.1). Although, in response to a subsequent question, he stated that Witness No.1 had described the role of the suspect/accused, he nevertheless admitted that during the question-and-answer proceedings, none of the two witnesses participating in the identification parade had mentioned the seat of the injuries, although they had described the ultimate result of the occurrence.

Another noticeable circumstance is that Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rasheed Qamar, Area Magistrate (PW.12) has neither certified nor stated that the persons amongst whom the appellants were placed were of similar age, height, physique and complexion. Such safeguards were essential to ensure that the witnesses identified the accused on the basis of his actual recollection of the occurrence and not merely on the basis of general physical features. It is also noteworthy that Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu appellant was arrested on 25.05.2021 and his identification parade was held on 10.06.2021 i.e. after 16 days of his arrest. In case titled as “State through Advocate General Sindh Karachi vs. Farman Hussain and others” (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 1), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that identification parade of accused after 10 days of his arrest was not reliable.

15.We have also observed another material dent in the prosecution case with regard to the evidentiary worth of the identification parade conducted in respect of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant that Bashir Ahmad, complainant (PW.1), during the course of his cross-examination, categorically stated that he had moved an application (Mark-DA) before the SHO, Police Station Rohillanwali, on 05.08.2021, wherein the names of both appellants had specifically been mentioned. He further admitted in clear terms that on 05.08.2021, he was already certain regarding the involvement of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant, in the occurrence. He also admitted that the names of the witnesses had not been mentioned in the said application (Mark-DA). Relevant lines of his cross- examination are reproduced as infra:

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

“...I had moved application Mark-DA to SHO P.S Rohillanwali on 05.08.2021. it is correct that the name of accused Jafir alias Pappi and Fazal alais Fazli is mentioned in Mark-DA. It is correct that on 05.08.2021. It was sure about the involvement of accused Fazal alias Fazli in the occurrence. It is correct that I have not mentioned the name of witnesses Mark-DA. The identification parade of the accused Fazal alais Fazli was conducted on 04.09.2021 after his nomination by me. It is correct that the identification parade of the accused Fazal alias Fazli was conducted after one month of filing application Mark-DA by me....”

It is significant that the identification parade of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant, was subsequently conducted on 04.09.2021, i.e. about one month after the complainant’s disclosure and attribution of his involvement by name. Thus, by the time this appellant was subjected to the identification parade, his identity was no longer unknown to the complainant rather the complainant had already professed certainty regarding his identity and involvement in the occurrence.

This circumstance assumes further significance because an identification parade is intended to exclude the possibility of the witness being tutored, prompted or influenced by prior knowledge of the identity of the suspect. Where the witness has already named the suspect before holding of the parade, the possibility that the subsequent identification merely amounts to confirmation of an already disclosed identity cannot be safely excluded. Consequently, the parade ceases to retain the character of an independent test of identification and its corroborative value is substantially impaired.

Viewed in this backdrop, the identification parade of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli, appellant, suffers from a fundamental infirmity which goes to the root of its evidentiary value. The prosecution has failed to establish that, at the time of the parade, the appellant's identity was unknown to the identifying witness. On the contrary, the complainant's own admission demonstrates that he had already named the appellant and professed

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

certainty regarding his involvement nearly one month before the parade was conducted.

Accordingly, the identification parade cannot safely be relied upon as a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. Rather, the admitted prior nomination of the appellant substantially undermines the sanctity, independence and probative value of the subsequent identification proceeding. In the absence of independent and confidence- inspiring corroboration, such an identification parade cannot legitimately be made the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant.

16.The aforementioned circumstances adversely affect the sanctity and reliability of the identification parades conducted in the present case. Consequently, no safe reliance can be placed upon the same. The proceedings do not adequately record the relevant identifying particulars of the appellants or the dummies, including complete facial features, physique, complexion, height and age. Furthermore, the specific capacity or role in which the appellants allegedly participated in the occurrence was not properly recorded, nor was the description of the suspected accused persons and the participating dummies adequately incorporated in the identification parade proceedings. In these circumstances, the evidence of identification parade is not worthy of reliance and cannot safely be used as corroborative evidence against the appellants.

It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where an assailant is completely unknown to the eye-witnesses, the evidentiary value and credibility of any later identification rely fundamentally on the primary details supplied at the very outset. A fleeting glimpse or a generalized assertion of culpability can never substitute for concrete physical realities, for human memory naturally tends to blur unless anchored to distinct physiological markers. Therefore, it is incumbent upon an identifying witness to have consciously absorbed and subsequently articulated specific, individualized characteristics of the perpetrator. A comprehensive description must go beyond imprecise generalizations and meticulously incorporate precise attributes such as

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

the exact height, apparent age, skin complexion and physical build or stature of the culprit. Beyond these broad contours, the evaluation must extend to vital micro-features, including distinct facial configurations or hulia, the presence, cut or styling of a beard or moustache, the texture and length of hair, the specific description of clothing worn during the fateful encounter and any other anomalous or conspicuous traits which would set the offender prominent and distinguished from ordinary humanity. In the absence of such meticulous details recorded at the earliest opportunity, any later exercise of test identification or dock recognition is reduced to a hollow formality, rendering it an unsafe instrument for founding a capital conviction. The Supreme Court has also emphasized in so many case- laws that an identification parade is essentially a test of the memory of eye witnesses and their ability to identify the person and that it should be conducted promptly and fairly.

17.It would also be advantageous to elucidate the purpose, nature and scope of a Test Identification Parade in criminal cases. Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, deals with the identification of a person. Where the Court is required to determine the identity of any person, any fact which establishes such identity is relevant. The identity of a person may be established through the testimony of persons who know him. Evidence relating to an identification parade is relevant and is receivable under Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The procedure governing identification parades is regulated by the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume II, Part-C, Rule 26.32 of the Police Rules, 1934, as well as the judicial principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court from time to time.

The primary purpose of an identification parade is to ascertain whether the accused brought before the witnesses is the actual perpetrator of the crime in question. Such a parade assumes particular significance where the name of the offender is not known to the persons claiming to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence, but they assert that, although they did not know the offender previously, they were able to observe and retain

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

sufficient particulars regarding his facial features, physique, age and other identifying characteristics and would, therefore, be capable of identifying him if produced before them subsequently. A prior test identification parade is intended to test and strengthen the veracity and capacity of the eye-witnesses to identify the offender. Such a procedure serves the interests of both the accused and the investigating agency. It enables the Investigating Officer to ascertain whether the witnesses had, in fact, observed the perpetrator of the crime and whether they possess the requisite capacity to identify him. It may consequently assist in either exonerating an accused person or implicating him on the basis of reliable incriminating evidence in the form of identification. The substantive evidence is the identification of the accused by the witnesses before the Court, whereas the identification parade constitutes corroborative evidence in support of such identification. The identification parade, by itself, is not substantive evidence of the commission of the offence. Although holding of an identification parade may not constitute substantive evidence, nonetheless such a parade serves the purpose of corroboration and assists the Court in determining whether reliance can safely be placed upon the identification of the persons produced before it in connection with the commission of the crime.

As a matter of principle, an identification parade is ordinarily required to be conducted after the arrest of suspects whose physical features and other identifying particulars correspond with the description of the unknown offenders furnished in the crime report or in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Such description constitutes the foundational basis for proceeding towards the identification of an unknown accused. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the appellants were selected and placed in the identification parade without the learned Magistrate’s first undertaking an appropriate comparison between their physical features and the description of the offenders furnished by the complainant. The selection of suspects without establishing any meaningful correlation with the

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

description of the accused persons contained in the FIR or otherwise furnished by the witnesses creates a serious doubt regarding the fairness and reliability of the identification proceedings. In such circumstances, the identification parade becomes unsafe and its evidentiary worth is materially compromised.

To ensure the integrity of such proceedings, strict physical parity among the participants is vital; if the persons intermingled in the parade are materially disparate in age, height, build or complexion, the identifying witnesses may end up selecting the suspect merely through comparison or a process of elimination rather than relying on an independent recollection of the incident. Consequently, in the absence of these essential procedural safeguards, identification proceedings fail to constitute a reliable test and cannot safely be relied upon. We respectfully fortify our above views from the dictum laid down in case-law titled as “Subha Sadiq v. The State” (2025 SCMR 50).

18.Having found the ocular account untrustworthy, we now turn to examine the medical evidence, which regrettably fails to lend any support to the prosecution’s narrative as according to the ocular version of the prosecution, Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased) sustained three firearm injuries on the left side of the buttock region and one firearm injury on the right side. However, the post-mortem report (Exh.PW) and the statement of Dr. Muhammad Huzefa (PW.7) reveal a materially different position. During post-mortem examination, only one injury on left side (injury No.7) and one on right side (injury No.8) of buttock were noted whereas rest of two entry wounds were admittedly not on the alleged parts of the dead body of deceased. For better clarity of this aspect of the case, we would like to reproduce the injuries mentioned in the autopsy report (Exh.PW) of Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased), which are reproduced infra: -

i. 2 c.m. diameter penetrating wound present on right of front of chest, 4 c.m., lateral to midline, 11 c.m.

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

below right nipple. This wound was exit wound of wound 5.

ii. 2 c.m. diameter penetrating wound present on lower abdomen, 2 c.m. left lateral to pubic symphysis. This wound was exit of wound 6. iii. 2 c.m. diameter penetrating wound upper part of anterolateral aspect of left thigh, 3 c.m. below the fold between thigh and abdomen. This wound was exit wound of wound 7.

iv. 2 c.m. diameter penetrating wound in lower part of antermedial aspect of right thigh 5 to 7 c.m. above right knee. This wound was exit wound of wound 8. v. 1 c.m. diameter penetrating wound 5-7 c.m. right lateral to midline on posterior to chest the level of L2-L3 vertebrae. This wound was entry wound of wound 1.

vi. 1 c.m. diameter penetrating wound on right lateral side of lower trunk 3 c.m. above the middle of iliac crust. This wound was entry wound of wound 2. vii. 1 c.m. diameter penetrating on left buttock 4 c.m. above gluteal line, 4 c.m. left lateral to intergrluteal cleft. This wound was entry wound of wound 3. viii. 1 c.m. diameter penetrating wound on right buttock, 4 c.m. right lateral to intergulteal cleft 6 c.m. above the gluteal line. This wound was entry wound of wound.

As per post mortem report (Exh.PW) of Muhammad Javed alias Mithu (deceased) and in the light of statement of Doctor Muhammad Huzaifa (PW.7), injuries No.1 to 4 are exit wounds whereas injuries No.5 and 6 do not tally with the ocular account.

The aforesaid discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence is material in nature and cannot be brushed aside as a mere minor inconsistency. The medical evidence, instead of corroborating the ocular account, materially contradicts the version advanced by the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner and site of the firearm injuries. Such a contradiction casts a serious doubt upon the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence and, consequently, upon the reliability of their testimony.

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

In the backdrop of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is not confidence-inspiring and is fraught with material infirmities. The inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, coupled with other circumstances discussed hereinabove, renders the prosecution version doubtful and unsafe for reliance. The possibility that the ocular account was subsequently developed after due deliberation and consultation cannot, therefore, be safely ruled out. Consequently, the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence and cannot be accorded the requisite legal credence for sustaining a conviction. Reliance is placed upon the case laws titled as “Chetan v. The State” (2025 SCMR 944) “Muhammad Nawaz v. The State” (2025 SCMR 1053), “Iftikhar Ahmad alias Meena v. The State” (2026 SCMR 674) and “Amjad Ali v. The State” (2026 SCMR 729),

19.As far as recovery of 30 bore pistol (P.1) vide seizure memo (Exh.PB) at the instance of Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu appellant from his residential house as well as recovery of pistol 30 bore (P.3) vide recovery memo (Exh.PC) at the spot left by the accused persons and the positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PAD) are concerned, the same are not helpful to the prosecution, because, when we have already disbelieved the evidence of eye witnesses, then conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of weapons of offence. Reference in this respect may be made to the cases of “Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali and another v. The State and others” (2025 SCMR 281) and “Muhammad Siddique and another v. The State and another” (2026 SCMR 783).

20.As regards the recovery of one shoe (P-9), allegedly left behind by the accused at the place of occurrence vide memo (Exh.PL), and the mobile phone (P-10) allegedly recovered from the spot vide seizure memo (Exh.PM), we have noticed that the prosecution has failed to place on record any cogent, independent or convincing evidence establishing that the said articles actually belonged to the appellants. In particular, no

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

call data record, SIM ownership or any other reliable documentary material regarding mobile phone (P-10) was produced during the trial to connect the recovered mobile phone with any of the appellants.

Similarly, no convincing evidence was brought on record to establish any nexus of the recovered shoe with any appellant. In the absence of such connecting evidence, the mere recovery of these articles from the place of occurrence does not constitute incriminating evidence against the appellants. Consequently, the alleged recoveries of the shoe (P-9) and mobile phone (P-10) do not provide any meaningful corroboration to the prosecution case and fail to connect the appellants with the commission of alleged offence.

21.So far as the recovery of motorcycle vide seizure memo (Exh.PP) at the instance of Fazal Hussain alias Fazli appellant as well as motorcycle (P.11) allegedly left by the accused persons at the spot vide seizure memo (Exh.PN) are concerned, no registration number, colour and manufacturing company’s name has been described in the FIR. In this way, recovery of motorcycles is also not helpful to the prosecution case. We fortify our view from the dictum laid down in the case titled as “Naveed Asghar Vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court

22.We have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt. It is by now a well-established principle of law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs, but in this case the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its responsibility. It is also well established principle of law that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with a number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story. Reliance is placed upon the case laws titled as “Yousaf Khan v. The State” (2026

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2024

SCMR 686) and “Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda v. The State” (2026

SCMR 798).

23.We also feel constrained to observe that the investigation conducted in this high-profile capital case fell far short of the standards expected of a professional law enforcement agency. Routine slip-shops, failure to record primary identification markers and the selective suppression of natural witnesses not only prejudice the administration of justice but also inflict grave agony on all stakeholders. A criminal trial is an earnest search for truth; it cannot be permitted to rest on shaky foundations of flawed police work and perfunctory magisterial inquiries.

24.For the foregoing reasons, instant criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Jafir alias Pappi and Fazal Hussain alias Fazli appellants is accepted, convictions and sentences awarded to them through the impugned judgment passed by the trial court are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them while extending the benefit of doubt in their favour. They shall be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

25.Murder Reference is answered in negative and death sentences passed by the trial court against Muhammad Jafir alias Papi/Papu and Fazal Hussain alias Fazli appellants are not confirmed.

(Ghulam Sarwar Nihung) (Muhammad Tariq Nadeem) Judge Judge

Approved for reporting

Judge Judge

Announced, dictated on 28.09.2026 prepared and signed on 01.10.2026 anjum