Zahir Hussain & another Vs The State & Musarat Ali

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

[JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT]

Cr. Appeal No. 951‐P/2025.

Zahir Hussain & Another Vs.

The State & Musarat Ali.

For appellant(s): Mr. Sami Ullah Khan, Advocate. For State: Mr. Khan Zeb, AAG.

For complainant(s): Mr. Haseeb Ullah Khan, Advocate, for respondent.

Date of hearing: 07.04.2026.

JUDGMENT

Inam Ullah Khan, J.

1.This single judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 951-P/2025, connected Criminal Appeal No. 1225- P/2025, and Criminal Revision No. 245-P/2025, as all these matters arise out of a common judgment. The principal appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 951-P/2025, was filed by the appellant, Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain, assailing the judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurram, in case FIR No. 284, dated 23.11.2021, registered under Sections 302, 324, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860, at Police Station Upper Kurram. The appellants Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain were convicted:

Under section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code

(PPC), 1860

Sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as Tazir with compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (two millions) each to the legal heirs of the deceased within the meaning of section 544-A Cr. PC., which shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. In case of default whereof, the convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months;

Under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code

(PPC), 1860

Sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default whereof, 1|Page

the convicts shall further undergo for three months simple imprisonment each: and

Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C given; all the sentences to run concurrently.

2.The connected Criminal Appeal No. 1225-P/2025 was preferred by Musarat Ali against the same impugned judgment, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.01 Jauhar Ali of the charges framed against him. In addition, respondent/complainant Musarat Ali also filed Criminal Revision No. 245-P/2025, impugning the same judgment of the learned trial Court and seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the appellants. Since all these matters originate from the same judgment and are interlinked in facts and law, they are being disposed of through this single consolidated judgment.

3.The unfortunate occurrence involving the murder of the deceased, Shabab Ali, real brother of the complainant (respondent), took place on 23.11.2021 at about 7:30 a.m. As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant, Musarat Hussain, appeared at DHQ Hospital, Parachinar, at about 8:00 a.m. along with the dead body of his brother and reported the matter to (ASI/PW-2) Jalil Hussain PPI Mali Killi to the effect that earlier that morning, he and his brother had left their house to go to the fields for easing themselves. When they reached near the house of the accused, they found the appellant/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain, along with co-accused Johar Ali (since acquitted) and absconding co-accused Sunaid Abbas, all already entrenched duly armed. Upon seeing them, Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain allegedly opened fire upon them with the intention to commit their Qatl‐e‐Amd, as a result of which Shabab Ali sustained firearm injuries and died on the spot, while the complainant escaped unhurt. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that the complainant party had restrained absconding co-accused Sunaid Abbas from engaging in narcotics trafficking. Inayat Hussain, Incharge Casualty, DHQ Hospital, prepared the injury sheet and inquest report of the deceased, and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination through Constable Arif Hussain. The statement of the complainant was reduced into writing in the shape of Murasila (Ex.P.W-2/1), duly signed by 2|Page

him, and was sent to the police station through Constable Wajid Hussain, whereupon FIR (Ex.PW-10/1) was registered. The complainant nominated the appellant/accused, the acquitted co-accused, and the absconding co-accused for the murder of his brother.

4.The matter was investigated into, during which the appellant/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain, along with co-accused Johar Ali and absconding co-accused Sunaid Abbas, were arrested. Upon completion of the investigation and commencement of trial proceedings, the accused on bail were summoned, while those in custody were produced through Zamima “Bey.” In compliance with Section 265-C, Cr.P.C., copies of all relevant documents were supplied to all the accused. Formal charge was framed against all the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses. During the trial, absconding co-accused Sunaid Abbas failed to appear despite repeated notices and warrants; consequently, proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him, and proceedings under Section 514 Cr.P.C. were initiated against his sureties while the prosecution was permitted to adduce its evidence in his absence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellant/accused and acquitted co- accused were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., affording them an opportunity to produce defence evidence or to make statements on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.; however, they declined to avail either option. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as referred to in paragraph 01, acquitted co-accused Johar Ali, and declared the absconding co-accused Sunaid Abbas as proclaimed offender by issuing perpetual warrants of arrest against him.

5.We heard learned counsels for the parties at great length and perused the record.

6.The question for determination is that whether the learned trial Court has properly appraised the evidence on the record while recording conviction of the appellant/accused and acquittal of the acquitted co-accused.

3|Page

We are obligated to reappraise the prosecution evidence on the record.

7.The prosecution’s narrative is that on the day of occurrence, the respondent/complainant, accompanied by his brother Shabab Ali, had left home for the fields to ease themselves and when reached to the house of accused, the appellant/accused, acquitted and absconding co-accused already holding the trenches, duly armed. Appellant/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain started firing upon the complainant and his brother Shabab Ali, resultantly, Shabab Ali sustained injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the spot, whereas, the complainant Musarat Ali remained unhurt. The prosecution attributed motive to a dispute regarding restraining the absconding co‐accused from business of narcotic trafficking. In order to discharge its burden, the prosecution relied principally on the ocular account of the respondent/complainant Musarat Ali, who entered the witness box as P.W‐09. His evidence was supplemented by corroborative material including the site plan, medico-legal reports, recovery of blood and spent cartridges of two different bore/weapon from the spot.

8.With regard to the promptitude of the FIR, the Murasila (Ex.PW-2/1) clearly reflects that the occurrence took place on 23.11.2021 at about 7:30 a.m., and the report was lodged at 8:00 a.m. at DHQ Hospital, Parachinar, within a short span of approximately 30 minutes. During this interval, the deceased was shifted to the hospital, which reasonably explains the promptness of the report. This sequence is further reinforced by the testimony of Nasrat Hussain (PW-11), who, upon hearing gunfire while taking his children to school, promptly reached the place of occurrence, shifted the dead body of deceased to the hospital, and subsequently identified the dead body before both the police and the medical officer. Similarly, on receipt of information, PPI Jalil Hussain reached the hospital, found the complainant present with the body of deceased, and recorded his report at 8:00 a.m., in shape of Murasila (Ex.PW-2/1) and thereafter incorporated into the FIR. The prompt lodging of the report, in close proximity to the time of occurrence and in harmony with the medical evidence, effectively rules out the possibility of deliberation, consultation, or false implication.

4|Page

Despite thorough cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited from the report-receiving officer (P.W-02), the eyewitness (P.W-09), or PW-11 to cast any doubt upon the authenticity or timing of the report. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a report is recorded promptly, in broad daylight, with specific roles attributed to the accused and in consonance with medical evidence, the likelihood of false implication is significantly diminished. The present case squarely falls within this established principle, and the defence has failed to create any dent in the prosecution’s version on this aspect.

9.Similarly, the ocular account of the occurrence, having taken place in village Khat Killi/Mali Killi near the house of the accused, stands fully corroborated by the site plan (Ex.PW-6/1), as well as by the recovery of blood-stained pebbles and spent crime empties comprising eleven (11) cartridges of 7.62 bore and one (01) cartridge of 9 mm weapons from the spot. Notably, no alternative place of occurrence was suggested to the prosecution witnesses. The unchallenged identification of the scene, coupled with the physical evidence collected therefrom, lends strong support to the prosecution’s case. The defence questioned the presence of the complainant/eyewitness at the scene. However, the complainant (PW-09), while appearing in the witness box, fully substantiated the version set forth in the Murasila and FIR. He deposed that on the day of occurrence, he and his deceased brother had left their home for the fields to ease themselves when, near the house of the accused, they were subjected to a sudden and murderous assault. In the socio-cultural context of the area, it is neither unusual nor improbable for individuals to visit nearby fields for such purposes, even where household facilities exist. The complainant/eye witness sufficiently explained his presence at the spot through consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony, which remained unshaken during cross- examination. Much emphasis was placed by the defence on the fact that the complainant did not sustain any firearm injury despite the alleged indiscriminate firing. This contention is devoid of legal substance, as there exists no presumption that every individual present at the scene of an armed assault must necessarily sustain injuries. The mere absence of injury does not render the presence of an 5|Page

eyewitness doubtful, particularly when the complainant consistently maintained that he was walking behind the deceased at some distance—a fact also reflected in the site plan—and that he managed to take cover behind nearby trees, thereby escaping unhurt.

10.In addition, the prosecution produced Nasrat Hussain (P.W-11), who further corroborate the presence of the complainant at both the place of occurrence and in the hospital. P.W-11, who acted as an identifier of the deceased before both the police and the medical officer—as reflected in the inquest and post-mortem reports—deposed that both parties were his cousins and that, on the day of occurrence, he was taking his children to school when he heard gunshots. He immediately proceeded to the scene, where he found the complainant present with the dead body of Shabab Ali, and thereafter shifted the deceased to the hospital. He categorically stated that he did not have any ill-will against the accused party and had no personal interest in the matter. He further affirmed the presence of the complainant at both the scene and the hospital at the relevant time. His testimony remained consistent, natural, and unimpeached, as nothing adverse could be elicited during cross-examination. His presence at the hospital is not only supported by his own statement but is also independently corroborated by the inquest and post-mortem reports, wherein his name appears in the relevant column of identifiers. The argument that the complainant did not sustain any injury loses significance in light of the fact that the accused had already inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased, which could reasonably have been perceived as sufficient to achieve their objective. The ocular account furnished by the complainant (PW-09) finds substantial corroboration from PW-11 as well as from the circumstantial and medical evidence, including the recovery of different types of crime empties, blood-stained pebbles from the place of occurrence, and the post-mortem report indicating multiple firearm injuries on the person of the deceased. The medical evidence thus fully aligns with the ocular account and the attributed roles of the accused. Importantly, in a case where the report was lodged with remarkable promptitude, it is inconceivable that the police could have fabricated the presence of the complainant or procured him from elsewhere for false implication. The 6|Page

accounts rendered by both the eyewitness and the corroborating witness are straightforward, natural, and bear the hallmarks of truth, particularly with respect to the immediate post-occurrence events, including the arrival of PW-11 at the scene, the shifting of the deceased to the hospital, the prompt reporting of the occurrence, and the identification of the deceased before the relevant authorities. The prosecution witnesses remained consistent on all material particulars—identity of accused, time, place, manner of firing, death at the spot, and post-occurrence conduct. Thus, the ocular account is natural, confidence- inspiring, and fully supported by circumstantial and medical evidence. Even on this ground, too, the august Apex Court in Muhammad Sharif (SC: 2002)1, maintained the death penalty of the accused by holding that:

Resultantly, keeping in view the promptly lodged F. I. R. of a broad daylight occurrence with specific role assigned to the appellant and the medical evidence, which is completely in line with the ocular version as well as recovery of incriminating weapon, amply supports the case of the prosecution. [...].

Thus, the prosecution has successfully established the mode and manner of the occurrence.

11.As regards the objection of the appellants’ counsel that the complainant/eye witness being brother of deceased is an interested witness, although the respondent / complainant is the real brother of the deceased, however, such relationship of eye-witness with the deceased was no ground to discredit him, when firstly, his presence at the crime scene was natural; secondly, he had stood firm during cross-examination and sufficient corroboratory material was available to support his testimony. The settled law is that the worth of evidence depends on its intrinsic quality, not the witness's relationship with the deceased. Indeed, Courts frequently observe that related witness, motivated by a desire for justice, are less likely to falsely implicate someone other than the actual perpetrator. Likewise, the mere relationship of an eye/prosecution witness with the the deceased does not by itself render his testimony unreliable, unless it is demonstrated that he had a Muhammad Sharif v. The State (2002 SCMR 1255).

7|Page

plausible justification to falsely implicate the accused. In Zakir Khan (SC: 1995)2, the august Apex Court held that:

12.[...]. However, mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the complainant or other prosecution witness cannot render his evidence unreliable unless it is established that he had motive to implicate the accused falsely in the case. Nothing can be spelt out from the evidence of the witnesses to indicate that anyone of them had motive to implicate the accused falsely. The abduction itself had not been questioned by the defence. The only question was whether the evidence as to the accused's involvement in the crime or the role assigned to each one of them was to be believed. However, in the present case, neither the accused had pleaded any enmity with the prosecution witnesses nor the police. Consequently, no justification can be found to doubt the testimony of the prosecution witness on account of their mere relationship with each other.

Here, the eyewitness convincingly proved his presence at the spot and furnished a coherent account consistent with the probabilities of the case. His testimony gains further support from the testimonies of other witnesses, prompt FIR, recoveries, the site plan, and medical evidence. The present ocular account meets the legal criteria of reliability.

12.The medical evidence, as furnished by Dr. Wajid Hussain (PW-05), reveals that the deceased sustained six (06) firearm injuries of different dimensions on different parts of his body. The multiplicity of injuries, coupled with their differing sizes and the instantaneous nature of death, strongly indicates the use of weapons of different calibers. This medical opinion finds full corroboration from the recovery of crime empties at the scene, comprising eleven (11) cartridges of 7.62 bore and one (01) cartridge of 9 m.m pistol. Further support is drawn from the forensic/FSL report (Ex.PW-6/8), which confirms that the 7.62 bore empties were discharged from one weapon, while the 9 m.m empty was a local made. This scientific evidence is in complete harmony with the ocular account furnished by the complainant/eyewitness (P.W-09), who attributed the act of firing to the appellants/two accused persons. The medical and forensic evidence, thus, lends strong and independent corroboration to the prosecution’s version, establishing beyond doubt the presence of the appellants/accused being Zakir Khan and others v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793).

8|Page

armed and their active participation in the commission of the offence. It is a settled principle of law that minor variations or lack of exact precision in eyewitness testimony do not detract from its evidentiary value, so long as the core of the prosecution case remains intact and is supported by reliable corroborative evidence.

13.The investigation in the present case was conducted by Muhammad Anwar, S.I. (PW-06), who carried out all essential investigative steps in accordance with law. He prepared the site plan at the pointation of the complainant/eyewitness and effected recovery of blood- stained pebbles as well as crime empties—comprising eleven (11) cartridges of 7.62 bore and one (01) cartridge of 9 mm—which were secured during inspection vide recovery memo (Ex.PW-6/2). The recovered empties, duly sealed, were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. As per the FSL report (Ex.PW-6/8), all eleven (11) 7.62 bore empties were fired from one and the same weapon, while the 9 mm empty was local made. This scientific evidence is in complete accord with the ocular account of the complainant, who attributed the role of firing to two accused persons, thereby lending strong corroboration to his testimony. Similarly, the blood-stained pebbles recovered from the place of occurrence and the blood found on the garments of the deceased were analyzed, and as per FSL report (Ex.PW-6/9), both were found to be of the same blood group. This not only firmly establishes the place of occurrence but also reinforces the prosecution’s version.

14.As regards the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants concerning a delay of approximately ten days in dispatching the recovered empties to the FSL, it is settled law that mere delay, in the absence of any allegation of tampering or manipulation, is not sufficient to discard the evidentiary value of a positive forensic report. It has consistently been held in judicial precedents, that delay in sending crime empties for examination is of no consequence where no ill-will or enmity is alleged against the prosecution witnesses. In this regard, reliance is rightly placed upon Shoukat Hayat (LHC: 2001)3. Similarly, the defence did not Shoutkat Hayat VS the State (2001 PCr.LJ-746).

9|Page

take the plea that the crime empties recovered from the spot were tampered with or manipulated. Therefore, the delay in sending the incriminating articles to the concerned authority for expert opinion cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution’s case in the absence of any such allegation. In this regard, reliance is rightly placed on Muhammad Akram (SC: 2006)4. Furthermore, the prosecution has successfully established the chain of safe custody. The Investigating Officer (PW-06) testified that the crime empties were properly sealed into parcels in the presence of marginal witnesses. Sharif Hussain (PW-07), a marginal witness to the recovery memo (Ex.PW-6/3), corroborated the recovery proceedings. The sealed parcels were handed over to Moharrir Abid Hussain (PW-03), who confirmed receipt and subsequently entrusted them to Muhammad Ali (PW-01), the focal person, who transmitted the parcels to the FSL through a proper route certificate. Thus, the safe custody of the case property remained intact and free from any doubt.

15.Likewise, it is also a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence, consistently upheld by the superior courts, that once the ocular account is found credible and is duly corroborated by medical and other circumstantial evidence, minor lapses or omissions in the investigative process do not impair the prosecution case. Likewise, defective investigation or procedural flaws on the part of the Investigating Agency cannot be allowed to prejudice otherwise substantive and reliable evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sahar Gul (PHC: 2025)5, wherein the conviction of the accused was upheld despite the fact that no site plan had been prepared, no blood had been secured from the place of the occurrence, the blood-stained clothes of the deceased had not been taken into possession, and even the post-mortem report had not been placed on the record. Similarly, the august Supreme Court in Mst. Sughra Begum (SC: 2015)6, reaffirmed that once the ocular testimony is trustworthy, lapses of an investigative or corroborative nature cannot outweigh substantive evidence. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

Muhammad Akram VS the State (2006 SCMR 664).

Sahar Gul v. The State and others (2025 YLR 5).

Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaisar Parvez (2015 SCMR 1142).

10 | P a g e

Ocular account plays a decisive and vital role in murder cases, once its intrinsic worth is accepted and believed then the rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroborative in nature, would be require as a matter of caution; to the contrary, once the ocular account is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge.

Defects in investigation, especially in districts such as Kurram, which is a newly merged district where many police officials are former Khasadar personnel still familiarizing themselves with modern investigative procedures, cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution. Thus, a minor delay in sending the parcels to the FSL, especially when it remained in safe custody and the chain of custody was neither disturbed nor impeached, does not prejudice the prosecution’s case.

16.With regard to motive, the complainant/eyewitness alleged in his initial report that the accused party committed the murder of his brother/deceased due to their having restrained absconding accused Sunaid Abbas from engaging in narcotics trafficking. However, the Investigating Officer admitted that no evidence in this regard was collected during the investigation. Moreover, the complainant failed to specify the date, time, and place of the alleged incident of restraint. The complainant / eyewitness (PW-09), during cross-examination, also admitted that there is no material available on the judicial record to establish the involvement of the absconding co-accused in narcotics business. Consequently, the motive set up by the prosecution remains doubtful. However, it is a settled principle of law that the absence or failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case; at the most, it may be considered while determining the quantum of sentence.

17.Upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidentiary record, this Court reaches the definitive conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of qatl‐e‐amd against both the appellants. The allegation was made directly and by name; the ocular account furnished by the prosecution witness is trustworthy and consistent; and it stands firmly corroborated by the recovery of incriminating articles, the medico-legal reports, 11 | P a g e

and other circumstantial evidence on record. Collectively, these materials satisfied what is known as the “legal or persuasive burden” under Article 117 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. Now the moot question is what should be the quantum of sentence to be awarded to both the appellants, so as to meet the ends of justice. Although death is the normal penalty for the offence of qatl‐e‐amd, the learned trial Court awarded the appellants the sentence of imprisonment for life. The record reveals that the motive which was alleged by the prosecution has not been proved by the prosecution during the investigation as well as during the trial. In our view, the motive has not been proved and that would, of course, having bearing on the quantum of sentence in the circumstances of the case. Wisdom is derived from judgment of the Apex Court in Mazhar Abbas (SC: 2017)7, wherein it was held:

“It is well settled by now that once the prosecution alleges a motive and fails to prove the same during the trial, the same can be taken as a mitigating circumstance while deciding the quantum of sentence of a convict.”

Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Qurban Hussain (SC: 2017)8 and Zahoor Ahmad (SC: 2017)9. The evidence led by the prosecution was having certain inconsistencies and shortcomings regarding motive and delay in sending samples to the FSL, which in our view are not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution evidence. In other words, the same are not sufficient enough for the acquittal of the appellant, however, the same can be taken as mitigating circumstance in the matter of sentence in light of ratio of judgment in Falak Sher (SC: 2000)10, wherein it was held that:

Inconsistencies of a minor dimension in prosecution evidence throw up doubts about prosecution version but do not qualify for acquittal. They present merely a mitigating circumstance capable of affecting no more than quantum of sentence. Such inconsistencies may create dilution of prosecution version but not its complete negation.

Mazhar Abbas alias Baddi vs The State (2017 S C M R 1884).

Qurban Hussain vs The State (2017 S C M R 880).

Zahoor Ahmad vs The State (2017 S C M R 1662).

Falak Sher v. The State (NLR 2000 Criminal 188 Supreme Court).

12 | P a g e

Similarly, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki (SC: 1993)11 has also held that minor inconsistencies, though capable of creating a degree of dilution in the prosecution case, do not amount to its negation; rather, they may merely affect the quantum of sentence. Guided by these principles, we find no legal or factual basis to enhance the punishment to the death penalty.

18.Adverting to the role attributed to the acquitted co- accused, Jauhar Ali, the record reflects that the prosecution has assigned the specific and effective role of firing to the appellants/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain. In contrast, no such role has been attributed to acquitted co- accused Jauhar Ali, who is merely shown to have been present at the scene of occurrence. Notably, neither any act of firing nor any overt act in furtherance of the alleged offence has been ascribed to him. Furthermore, the complainant/eye-witness, both in the Murasila and in his deposition before the Court, failed to assign any specific role to accused Jauhar Ali. There is no allegation that he was armed with any particular weapon or bore, nor is any instigation (lalkara) attributed to him. This absence of specific evidence creates reasonable doubt regarding his participation in the commission of the offence. It is a settled principle of criminal law that the mere presence of an accused at the scene of occurrence, without any act of participation, assistance, or instigation, does not attract the mischief of Section 34 PPC unless a common intention is established through independent and credible corroborative evidence. In the present case, the prosecution material so far does not disclose any such evidence against the accused Jauhar Ali. Likewise, a general allegation of presence, unaccompanied by any corresponding injury or overt act, cannot by itself entail liability under the said provision unless supported by reliable and corroborative material demonstrating that the accused shared a common intention with the principal assailant. Reference may be made to the case of Bashir Ahmed (SC: 2022)12, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that:

Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki v. The State (1993 SCMR 1660).

Bashir Ahmed and others v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 1187).

13 | P a g e

The alleged criminal act should be in furtherance of common intention and not the common intention simpliciter. Mere presence of an accused with an accused who commits the crime would not constitute his common intention unless there is an evidence referring to the criminal act of that accused committed in furtherance of common intention with the other accused”.

The overall circumstances of the case indicate that it was the appellants/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain who resorted to firing upon the complainant/eye-witness and the deceased, Shabab Ali, thereby causing the occurrence in question. In this evidentiary context, the learned trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the co-accused, Jauhar Ali by making his ultimate acquittal.

19.Accordingly, we uphold the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellants/accused Zahir Hussain and Sabir Hussain. The point for determination is answered in the affirmative. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a proper conclusion. Consequently, the criminal appeal against conviction, the connected appeal against acquittal, and the criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence are dismissed.

Announced Dt: 07.04.2026 (Shahid Ali, *JSS*)

JUDGE

JUDGE

(D.B.)

Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, Justice Inam Ullah Khan.

14 | P a g e