Shah Room Vs Jehanzeb & others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Cr. A No. 307-P/2025 with Murder Reference No. 04-P/2025

Shah Room Vs Jehanzeb & others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 29.04.2026

Appellant by: Mr. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate

The State by: Mr. Ayub Zaman, AAG Complainant by: Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan, Advocate.

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Through this criminal appeal, appellant Shah Room has questioned the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Topi, District Swabi dated 13.03.2025 rendered in case FIR No. 240 dated 08.06.2023 under sections 302/201 PPC read with section 15 AA/13 KPK registered at Police Station Topi, District Swabi whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: -

“U/s 302 (b) PPC as Tazir and sentenced to death on three counts and to be hanged by his neck till he is declared dead subject to confirmation by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with payment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) to the legal heirs of each deceased within the meaning of section 544-A Cr.PC to be recovered as arrears of land revenue from his estate and in case of non-payment of compensation amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

U/s 201 PPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.100,000/- (rupees one lac) and in case of non-payment of the fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B CrPC is extended to the appellant.

2.According to the prosecution

narrative embodied in the FIR, on 08.06.2023, complainant, Jan Zeb reported the matter at Civil Hospital Topi to the effect that he was present in his house situated at Topi when he received information that his nephew Shah Room had fatally shot his parents inside their house situated at Stifa Morh; that upon receiving this information, the complainant immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence, where he found both deceased lying lifeless and drenched in blood;

that the accused had caused their deaths by firing upon them with a firearm; that motive behind the occurrence was stated to be longstanding domestic discord, asserting that the accused had been of wayward disposition, habitually quarrelling with his parents and extending threats to their lives; that the complainant charged the accused/petitioner for the commission of offence hence, the present FIR.

3.It is pertinent to mention that on the same day, i.e., 08.06.2023, another criminal case was set into motion when Mst. Dilshad, the mother of the deceased Mst. Zubaida and mother-

in-law of the accused Shah Room, lodged FIR No. 497 dated 08.06.2023 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Akora, District Nowshera, alleging that the accused had murdered her daughter, however, on 20.06.2023, Mst. Dilshad recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Court of competent jurisdiction, wherein she stated that her daughter had in fact been killed at Stifa Morh and that her dead body was thereafter, transported on a motorcycle and thrown at Shaidu Stop; that in view of this subsequent statement and the change in the stance of the prosecution, FIR No. 497 dated 08.06.2023 was ultimately cancelled by the prosecution.

4.After completion of investigation, complete challan was put in court. Provisions of section 265-C CrPC were complied with and the appellant was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its claim, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 26 witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under section 342 CrPC, wherein he posed innocence, however, neither he wished to

be examined on Oath as required under section 340 (2) CrPC, nor wanted to produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, after full-fledged trial convicted and sentenced the appellant vide the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal.

5.Arguments heard and available

record scanned through.

6.Initially, the unnatural deaths of Rawaiz Khan and Mst. Firasat were reported at Police Station Topi by the complainant, Jan Zeb, who is the brother of the deceased. In parallel, a separate occurrence concerning the murder of Mst. Zubaida, wife of the appellant, was reported at Police Station Akora, District Nowshera by Mst. Dilshad. Subsequently, upon inquiry, it transpired that both occurrences formed part of one continuous transaction and had been committed in the same chain of events;

consequently, the case bearing FIR No. 497 dated 08.06.2023 under section 302 PPC of Police Station Akora, District Nowshera was cancelled.

In the wake of the occurrence, the injury sheet and inquest reports were prepared, and the dead bodies were dispatched for post-mortem

examination. Initially, the investigating officer of Police Station Topi undertook investigation of the case registered within its jurisdiction, whereas the investigating officer of Police Station Akora Khattak proceeded with the investigation of the separate occurrence reported there. However, in due course, both matters were amalgamated and the investigation was entrusted to the police of Police Station Topi. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer obtained a copy of the FIR registered concerning the occurrence at the house of the deceased. Blood- stained earth was secured from the place of occurrence, and 10 empties of .30 bore were taken into possession through recovery memos.

Likewise, in the connected occurrence investigated at Police Station Akora Khattak, the investigating officer recorded the statement of Mst. Dilshad, mother of the deceased, who had lodged the report upon receiving information regarding the incident. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, blood-stained earth was collected, and statements of relevant witnesses were recorded under the law. During

investigation, it further surfaced that the appellant/accused had visited a petrol pump in the company of the deceased on his motorcycle shortly before the occurrence, where certain witnesses claimed to have seen the deceased in an injured condition. Their statements were accordingly reduced into writing and made part of the record. Upon transfer and consolidation of the investigation under the investigating officer of Police Station Topi, the police received credible information that the appellant had fled the country immediately after the occurrence. Acting upon such information, he was apprehended at the airport by officials of the Federal Investigation Agency and was thereafter handed over to the local police, who secured his physical custody and brought him back to Swabi after observance of all codal formalities. The prosecution case, in essence, was that the appellant of being involved in the murder of his mother and stepfather, and of extending threats to his real brother as well as to the mother of the deceased, and her mother-in-law, thereby furnishing the motive behind the crime.

Following his arrest, the appellant allegedly led the police party to the place of concealment and, in consequence of his disclosure, got recovered the weapon of offence. The recovered firearm was transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory, wherefrom the report was received confirming that the crime empties secured from the place of occurrence had been fired from the recovered weapon. Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was sent up to face trial before the learned trial Court and, upon conclusion thereof, was found guilty, convicted, and sentenced in accordance with law.

7.The learned trial Court, after

appraisal of the evidence brought on record, found the appellant culpable for the tragic occurrence and consequently convicted and sentenced him in the manner noted hereinabove.

The principal question now engaging the attention of this Court is whether the conclusion so recorded by the learned trial Court is borne out by the evidence and whether the material brought on record is of such quality and character as would legitimately connect the appellant with the

commission of the offence in issue. It is indeed an undeniable reality that three innocent lives were extinguished in the unfortunate occurrence.

Equally undeniable is the fact that among the deceased, one was the mother of the appellant, the other his stepfather, and the third his wife.

Yet, grave as these circumstances are, the law does not permit conviction to rest upon the tragedy of the occurrence or the closeness of relationship alone. The enormity of the crime and the relationship of the accused with the deceased, howsoever compelling in emotional content, cannot by themselves determine criminal liability unless supported by legally admissible and confidence-inspiring evidence. It is equally true that the appellant came to be nominated by his real uncle in one case and by his mother-in-law in the other, who attributed to him the murder of his wife. However, mere nomination by close relatives, without more, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt. The crucial inquiry remains whether such accusation finds corroboration from independent circumstances or substantive evidence sufficient to connect the

appellant with the commission of the offence.

The Court is thus required to examine whether, in the absence of direct and unimpeachable evidence, the mere factum of relationship, both with the deceased and with the complainants, can legitimately be pressed into service to fasten criminal liability upon the appellant.

Relationship, by itself, is a neutral circumstance;

it may furnish motive or context, but it cannot substitute proof. To properly appreciate the controversy and to arrive at a just conclusion, this Court considers it imperative to undertake a comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence by examining, inter-alia, the antecedent relationship between the parties, the manner in which the occurrence unfolded, the time and places of occurrence, and the accusations levelled against the appellant, notwithstanding that the same emanate from persons closely related to him. This Court must ultimately be satisfied whether the testimony of the witnesses inspires confidence and whether the incriminating circumstances brought on record, when taken cumulatively, form an unbroken and coherent chain leading to

one irresistible conclusion, i.e. the guilt of the appellant, to the exclusion of every hypothesis consistent with innocence. It is for this reason, and in order to obviate any possibility of miscarriage of justice, that this Court deems it necessary to independently reappraise and re- evaluate the entire evidence available on the record before affirming or disturbing the findings returned by the learned trial Court.

8.The points arising for determination before this Court are: whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged and at the time asserted; whether there exists any ocular account of the incident and, if so, whether the same is worthy of credence; whether any direct or indirect evidence has been brought on record connecting the appellant with the commission of the tragic occurrence; whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive allegedly furnishing the genesis of the crime; whether the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution, when examined cumulatively, forms a complete, coherent, and unbroken chain so as to

irresistibly connect the appellant with the deaths of the deceased and to exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence; and, finally, whether the totality of the evidence brought on record satisfies the standard of proof required in criminal law for sustaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court.

9.The Court remains deeply conscious of the enormity and brutality of the occurrence.

Undoubtedly, it was one of the most gruesome incidents brought before this Court. Yet, the barbarity of an occurrence, howsoever shocking, cannot by itself furnish a lawful basis for fastening criminal liability upon an accused.

Criminal responsibility must rest not upon the emotional gravity of the crime, but upon legally admissible, cogent, and confidence-inspiring evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is the quality of evidence, and not the magnitude of the tragedy, which ultimately determines culpability. In order to appreciate the peculiar factual matrix of the present case, this Court considers it indispensable to examine, in their proper perspective, the identity of the parties to

the occurrence, their inter-se relationship, and the circumstances in which two separate but allegedly connected tragic incidents unfolded. On one hand stands the occurrence relating to the burning to death of the spouses; on the other, the tragic death of the female deceased, who, significantly, was the wife of the appellant and the daughter of the complainant in the connected crime report. These relationships are not peripheral; rather, they constitute the very factual setting within which the prosecution seeks to construct its case. Equally significant are the respective places of occurrence. The record reflects two distinct loci: one where the spouses were done to death, and the other where the female deceased i.e. wife of the appellant, is alleged to have met her tragic end, from where her dead body was subsequently recovered. The geographical and factual disconnect between these places assumes considerable importance, particularly when the prosecution case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence. The Court is, therefore, required to ascertain with precision where exactly the deceased wife met her death, in

what circumstances her dead body was transported to the place of recovery, and for what conceivable purpose such transportation took place. It is further necessary to determine, from the record, the place where the appellant and his wife were ordinarily residing immediately prior to the occurrence, whether in village Topi or elsewhere, and the relevance of such residence to the chain of events relied upon by the prosecution. This aspect assumes critical significance because unless the prosecution establishes the situs of cohabitation and the place of occurrence with certainty, the chain of circumstances remains materially incomplete.

Admittedly, the prosecution case is not founded upon ocular account but hinges entirely upon circumstantial evidence. In such a case, the law requires that every incriminating circumstance must not only be firmly established, but all such circumstances must form an unbroken and coherent chain leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused and excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence. When the complainant lodged the report regarding the tragic death of his

mother and stepfather, he did nominate the appellant as the perpetrator; however, the record remains conspicuously silent as to the source of such satisfaction. He neither disclosed any factual basis for implicating the appellant, nor pointed out any witness who had seen the appellant either committing the offence or departing from the place of occurrence under suspicious circumstances. Mere nomination in the first information report, unsupported by disclosed foundational facts, cannot by itself acquire evidentiary sanctity. Likewise, the complainant in the connected case i.e. the mother of the deceased wife, though attributing responsibility to the appellant, failed to explain the factual foundation of such accusation. While she alluded to strained matrimonial relations, such strained relations, by themselves, can at best suggest a possible motive but can never substitute proof. More importantly, she too could not establish where the spouses were residing prior to the occurrence, where the deceased was allegedly taken by the appellant, under what circumstances she remained there, and where exactly she met her death. These

omissions are not minor discrepancies; they go to the root of the prosecution case. If both occurrences were unwitnessed, the Court is obliged to examine with greater caution what material satisfied the complainants to specifically implicate the appellant. The prosecution was under a corresponding obligation to produce evidence explaining the source of such implication, so that the Court could independently assess its evidentiary worth. What further renders the prosecution case fragile is the absence of any established nexus between the two occurrences. If the prosecution seeks to suggest that the strained matrimonial relationship between the appellant and his wife became the motivating factor behind her killing, it must then explain, through evidence, how such strained relations had any rational or factual connection with the killing of the other deceased persons in their separate house situated in District Swabi.

The prosecution was duty-bound to establish that both incidents were interlinked, that one formed the genesis of the other, and that both constituted parts of a singular transaction or design. In the

absence of such connecting evidence, the two incidents remain detached factual events incapable of being merged into one incriminating chain. These are not peripheral questions; they constitute the central and decisive features of the prosecution case. Their proper resolution is indispensable for a just adjudication. This Court is, therefore, required to sift the evidence with utmost judicial caution in order to ascertain the true genesis of the occurrence, the actual cause behind the killings, the real involvement, if any, of the appellant, and whether the prosecution succeeded in collecting and producing such evidence as would lawfully sustain a conviction.

In criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, however grave, cannot be permitted to substitute proof, and unless the prosecution discharges its burden through credible and legally acceptable evidence, the liberty of a citizen cannot be imperiled on conjecture alone. The record reveals that the two deceased, who were murdered inside the house, belonged to one place of occurrence situated in District Swabi, whereas the third deceased, namely Mst. Zubaida, is shown to have met her

tragic end within the jurisdiction of Akora Khattak, where her dead body was recovered from a bus stop and thereafter shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital Nowshera, where the matter was ultimately reported by her mother, who admittedly was also the mother-in-law of the appellant. This factual position unmistakably suggests that both the incidents occurred at two distinct places situated in two different districts.

Such geographical separation, coupled with the near-simultaneous timing of both occurrences, raises a question of considerable legal significance: whether both incidents could reasonably be attributed to the sole act of the appellant, and if so, by what evidence. The death of the said lady deceased remains shrouded in mystery. No witness came forward to state that he had either seen the occurrence or heard any cries or circumstances immediately connected therewith rather, the prosecution case itself shows that the dead body was first recovered by the local police and shifted to the hospital, where, upon arrival, the complainant, being the mother of the deceased, lodged the report. Significantly,

the timing of the two occurrences assumes importance. The occurrence reported at Topi was stated to have taken place at about 21:40 hours, whereas the second report was lodged at about 08:30 hours, thus reflecting that both occurrences are alleged to have taken place within almost the same span of time. This circumstance, on the face of it, creates a serious factual complexity regarding the version of the prosecution and the alleged role of the appellant. This circumstance further suggests that neither the occurrence inside the house of the deceased Mst. Dilshad nor that relating to the death of Mst. Zubaida was ever witnessed by any prosecution witness. In such circumstances, the Court is under a legal duty to examine with care as to what was the source of knowledge of the complainants enabling them to nominate the appellant in such serious offences, and what subsequent material was collected during investigation to connect him with the commission of the crimes. No doubt, both complainants were closely related to their respective deceased and were also related to the appellant. However, mere relationship, by itself,

neither guarantees truthfulness nor excludes the possibility of misconception, suspicion, or even malice. Relationship is a double-edged circumstance: it may provide a reason for truthful implication, but equally may furnish a motive for false nomination therefore, such relationship alone cannot be treated as an assurance of correctness, particularly where the complainants are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Before their accusations can be accepted, they were under an obligation to disclose the source from which they derived knowledge regarding the involvement of the appellant thereafter, it was for the prosecution to substantiate such accusation through independent evidence establishing connectivity between the appellant and the homicidal deaths.

10.It is pertinent to observe that the Investigating Officer of the case registered at Akora Police Station visited the relevant places, prepared the site plan on his own observations, and noted that by the time he reached the place of recovery, the dead body had already been shifted to the hospital. It was there, upon the arrival of

the complainant, that the matter was formally reported and suspicion was cast upon the appellant. The said Investigating Officer, while appearing before the trial Court as PW-20, explained the steps undertaken during investigation. He deposed that he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, and thereafter proceeded to a petrol pump situated at Manki, where he recorded the statements of two employees who were present on duty on the relevant night. According to the prosecution, those witnesses disclosed that during the night of occurrence, a motorcycle arrived carrying a male rider with a female seated behind him; that the motorcycle was refueled; and that the rider left the premises without making payment. Those witnesses later appeared before the trial Court as PW-15 and PW-16. However, their testimony, when examined carefully, does not materially advance the prosecution case. Though they did speak about the arrival of a motorcycle carrying a man and a woman, neither of them identified the appellant as that rider, nor did they state that they could identify him if produced before them. More

importantly, they candidly admitted that they did not know the accused, who had no prior acquaintance with him, and had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the commission of the offence. Thus, their evidence merely establishes the presence of an unidentified man and woman at a petrol pump, a circumstance too fragile and indefinite to connect the appellant with the offence. What further weakens the prosecution case is the omission of the Investigating Officer to produce or even satisfactorily explain the status of the CCTV footage of the petrol pump, if any existed. During cross-examination, though an attempt was made to explain the investigative steps, the Investigating Officer could not clarify whether CCTV footage was ever collected, preserved, or examined for establishing the identity of the alleged rider and the deceased on the relevant night. This omission assumes significance because such electronic evidence, if available, could have provided objective corroboration and removed uncertainty regarding the identity of the persons seen at the petrol pump. The non-production of such best available

evidence, without lawful explanation, inevitably casts a shadow upon the completeness and fairness of the investigation, particularly in a case resting wholly upon circumstantial evidence, where every link in the chain must be independently and conclusively established before criminal liability can be lawfully fastened upon the accused. The learned counsel for the complainant attempted to persuade this Court that the motorcyclist seen at the petrol pump was accompanied by a lady who was in an injured condition, and that the said lady was none other than the deceased, Mst. Zubaida. This submission, however, when tested on the touchstone of the medical evidence and surrounding probabilities, does not inspire confidence. The medical evidence reveals that the deceased had sustained two firearm entry wounds on vital parts of her body. In such a condition, it appears highly improbable that she could have been carried on a motorcycle over a considerable distance, nor it appear reasonably probable that the assailant, if he had indeed caused such injuries, would expose himself to the risk of

carrying a critically injured victim in a public place, where her condition could attract immediate attention or where she might regain consciousness and disclose the identity of the assailant. The natural course of human conduct and the surrounding probabilities do not support such a proposition. These circumstances rather suggest that the manner in which the deceased met her death remained wholly unwitnessed and continues to be shrouded in mystery. The prosecution has failed to explain where the deceased was actually done to death, where her dead body remained thereafter, from where it was transported, by whom it was carried, and at what precise place and in what circumstances it was ultimately abandoned.

11.The record further reflects that when the investigation of the connected case was subsequently entrusted to the Investigating Officer of the case registered at Topi Police Station, certain coercive steps were taken for the arrest of the appellant. It has been brought on record that the appellant had allegedly left the country and was later apprehended with the

assistance of the Federal Investigation Agency thereafter, he was brought back, produced before the competent court, and police custody was obtained for further investigation. It is the prosecution case that during such custody, the appellant led the police party to the place of occurrence, where certain supplementary site plans were prepared, and thereafter, allegedly led them to a place known as Misri Banda Zarha Maina, where from the house of one Sher Zaman a pistol was recovered. According to the prosecution, the appellant took out the said pistol from a room where it had been concealed beneath a haystack and handed it over to the Investigating Officer. The weapon was subsequently sent for forensic examination along with the crime empties, and the report returned positive. No doubt, recovery of a weapon coupled with a positive forensic report can, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a strong incriminating circumstance. However, such recovery must first be proved in accordance with law and in a manner inspiring confidence. In the present case, the very foundation of the alleged recovery

suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities.

The Investigating Officer admittedly failed to record the statement of the owner of the house, namely Sher Zaman, from where the weapon was allegedly recovered. The prosecution also failed to explain the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the said house-owner, or in what capacity the appellant had access to that house, the room therein, and the particular place where the weapon was allegedly concealed. This omission assumes decisive significance because the house from where the weapon was allegedly recovered did not belong to the appellant. In such circumstances, the owner of the premises was the most natural, relevant, and material witness to prove whether the appellant had access to the room and whether the weapon was in fact concealed there at his instance. His non- examination creates a serious dent in the prosecution version. What further weakens the evidentiary worth of this recovery is that no independent witness was associated at the time of recovery, nor was any person from the house examined to confirm the version of the

prosecution. The entire recovery thus rests solely upon official testimony, unsupported by independent corroboration, in circumstances where such corroboration was naturally available.

When the very factum of recovery fails to inspire confidence, the subsequent forensic report, however positive, loses much of its evidentiary force. A positive forensic opinion can only connect a recovered weapon with crime empties;

it cannot cure defects in proving the lawful and credible recovery of the weapon itself. If the recovery is doubtful, the forensic consequence built upon it also becomes legally fragile. The non-production of the most material witness i.e.

the owner of the house, permits an adverse inference against the prosecution under settled principles of evidence, that had such witness been produced, his testimony might not have supported the prosecution case. Thus, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the exact manner in which the recovery was effected, the place from where it was made, and, above all, that it was in fact recovered at the instance of the appellant. This piece of evidence,

therefore, by itself, is wholly insufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the appellant. Reliance is placed on case of the apex court titled “Muhammad Ramzan and another versus The State” (2025 SCMR 1742), wherein, it has been held as under:

“The positive report of NFSA was issued on 08.02.2021. Though positive report of a firearm expert is a valid piece of corroborative evidence but its weight is heavily dependent on the reliability of the weapon recovery. If the recovery of weapon is found to be doubtful, fabricated or otherwise unreliable, the report of firearm expert, even if positive, can be disregarded by the Court as it fails to connect the weapon genuinely to the accused or the crime in a credible manner.”

12.The learned counsel for the

complainant invited this Court to take adverse inference from the subsequent conduct of the accused, contending that instead of attending the funeral rites of the deceased or participating in the last rituals of his wife, he allegedly absconded and was about to left the country. It was argued

that such conduct, by itself, furnishes a sufficient incriminating circumstance to fasten liability upon the appellant. No doubt, in a case where the prosecution version relates exclusively to the death of the wife of the appellant, such conduct, if proved in proper perspective, may in certain circumstances be treated as a relevant piece of evidence however, in the present case, the factual matrix stands on an entirely different footing. The dead body of the deceased was not recovered from the matrimonial home or from any place within the control or knowledge of the appellant, but rather from a bus stand situated at an altogether different location. More importantly, the appellant had already been implicated in serious allegations relating to the murder of his mother and stepfather. In such a situation, his alleged absence or non-participation in funeral rites cannot, by itself, be treated as an incriminating circumstance of decisive character.

It is quite plausible that a person already facing grave allegations of multiple murders may act under apprehension of arrest or fear of immediate consequences, and such conduct cannot be

elevated to the status of substantive proof of guilt.

Even otherwise, the principle relating to adverse inference from subsequent conduct cannot be applied in isolation, dissociated from the overall evidentiary framework of the case. In criminal jurisprudence, such conduct is only a corroborative circumstance and cannot substitute proof of the core ingredients of the offence. There is no cavil with the settled proposition that conviction may lawfully be recorded on the strength of circumstantial evidence alone.

However, there is equally no cavil with the principle that such circumstantial evidence must form a complete, coherent, and unbroken chain;

each link must be firmly established; each circumstance must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused; and all such circumstances, when taken together, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

In the present case, that chain is materially fractured. The links are incomplete, the circumstances remain disconnected, and vital gaps remain unexplained. The prosecution has failed to bridge those gaps through legally

admissible and confidence-inspiring evidence. In such circumstances, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the conviction on evidence so uncertain, fragmented, and inconclusive, and is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan titled “Shahid Ali versus the State” (PLD 2026 Supreme Court 126) wherein, it has been held as under:

“In this case there was no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence brought on record was not reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring enough to convict the appellant for the charge framed against him. He was, therefore, entitled to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt as of right.”

13.In the present case, the more

fundamental aspect is the complete absence of an established motive and the lack of any credible material connecting all the three alleged murders into one coherent transaction. The prosecution

has failed to establish any nexus or interlinking cause that could explain why the appellant would allegedly commit the murder of his wife on the one hand, and the murder of his mother and stepfather on the other. The two sets of occurrences are not only geographically distant, having taken place at widely separated locations, but also factually unconnected in terms of time, circumstance, and proven causation. The prosecution has not been able to establish what conceivable motive could impel the appellant to commit such multiple and unrelated acts of homicide. If the appellant had any grievance against his wife, the prosecution has not explained how or why such grievance would extend to the killing of his mother and stepfather.

Conversely, if the alleged motive pertained to the latter, no rational explanation has been brought on record as to why the wife would be eliminated in a separate and distinct occurrence. The absence of such foundational linkage creates a serious gap in the prosecution story. It is this missing link which assumes critical importance. The prosecution was required to establish not only the

occurrence of the deaths, but also the unifying thread connecting the appellant with all three alleged offences. In the absence of motive, absence of interconnection, and absence of reliable eyewitness account, the entire edifice of the prosecution case remains resting on conjectures and presumptions. Reliance is placed on case of the apex court titled “Muhammad Khan alias Mithu versus The State and others” (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 425), wherein, it has been held as under:

“So far as motive part of the prosecution's case is concerned, we have observed that the same has not been established by the prosecution through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence.”

14.When these circumstances are

evaluated collectively, they create serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. The failure to establish motive, the failure to prove interconnectivity between the incidents, and the absence of direct or reliable circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of the offences, collectively weaken

the prosecution case to a material extent. This Court is, therefore, constrained to observe that the prosecution has failed to bring on record evidence which could satisfy the judicial conscience that it was, in fact, the appellant who committed the alleged offences. The case against the appellant, at best, appears to rest on suspicion and presumption, whereas criminal conviction cannot be founded on such shaky grounds. The cumulative effect of the circumstances discussed hereinabove leaves this Court with no manner of doubt that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court appears to have fallen into error in appreciating the evidence in its true perspective and in drawing inferences not warranted by the record. The impugned judgment is thus vitiated by misreading and non-reading of material evidence, as well as by failure to apply the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment suffers from inherent legal and factual infirmities, rendering it unsustainable in law, and therefore calls for

interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other criminal case.

15.As the appeal against conviction succeeded and the appellant is acquitted of the charge, so Murder Reference No.04-P/2025 is answered in negative.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

*Muhammad Fiaz* *D.B* Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, J Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan, J