Asghar Ali Vs The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

MINGORA BENCH

(Judicial Department) Cr.A No. 104-M/2025 With Cr.M No. 175-M/2025 Asghar Ali son of Muhammad Bashir (Appellant) Versus State through A.A.G (Respondent)

Present:- Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, AHC, for appellant/convict.

Mr. Naeem Khan, Astt: A.G, for State.

Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, AHC, for respondent/ complainant.

Cr.R. No. 18-M/2025 (for enhancement) Kashif Jamal son of Noor Kamal (Petitioner) Versus

Asghar Ali & another

(Respondents) Present: Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, ASC, for petitioner/ complainant.

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, AHC, for respondent/accused.

Mr. Naeem Khan, Astt: A.G, for State.

Date of hearing: 13.01.2026

JUDGMENT

SALAH-UD-DIN, J.- Appellant namely Asghar Ali has called in question judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/I.Z.Q, Buner at Dagger, dated 15.02.2025, rendered in case FIR No. 165 dated 29.3.2021, registered U/Ss 302, 311,404 PPC, R/W section 15- Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

AA at P.S City Daggar, District Buner, whereby upon conclusion of a full-fledged trial, he was convicted and sentenced as follows: -

37)From the above reasons and discussion, this Court reached to the irresistible conclusion that prosecution has successfully substantiated the guilt of accused facing trial Asghar Ali s/o Muhammad Bashir, r/o Village Elai, District Buner, for committing Qatal-e- Amd of deceased Sadiq Jamal S/o Noor Kamal which falls within the ambit of Section 302(c) PPC therefore, the accused facing trial Asghar Ali is held guilty under section 302(C) PPC in the light of discussions/ findings rendered above, therefore, the accused facing trial Asghar Ali is hereby sentenced to 14 Years rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) under section 302(C) PPC.

38.The convict is also ordered to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lad rupees) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased u/s 544-A PPC and in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. The amount of compensation shall be recoverable as arrear of land revenue provided under section 544-A(2) Cr.P.C.

39.Convict Asghar Ali s/o Muhammad Bashir, r/o Village Elai, District Buner, is further convicted u/s 15-AA and upon conviction he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand rupees) and in default thereof, to undergo SI for one month while accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him U/Ss 311 and 404 PPC being not fully substantiated and proved by the prosecution.

41)All the sentences awarded to the accused/convict shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C is extended to the convict.”

2.Arguments of learned counsel for

parties, as well as learned Astt: A.G for State were heard and requisitioned record gone through with their valuable assistance.

3.As per prosecution story, complainant namely Kashif Jamal reported the matter to local Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

police at emergency ward of Daggar hospital in terms that on the fateful day he was present in his house when in the meanwhile he was informed by his cousin namely Saboor Ali through telephone to pay visit to the Daggar hospital in view of some emergent event. Pursuant to receipt of such information, when the complainant reached to the hospital, whereby he found dead body of his deceased brother namely Sadiq Jamal. After due satisfaction, the complainant came to know that his brother was killed by their relative namely Asghar Ali (the appellant herein) through firearms. Subject occurrence might have been witnessed by anyone.

Motive qua commission of offence was disclosed to be a dispute over the women-folk. In view of report of the complainant, ‘Murasila’ (Ex. PW-4/4) was drafted which culminated into ibid FIR (Ex. PW-5/4) registered against present appellant at P.S concerned.

4.First & foremost, this fact shall be kept in mind that the instant occurrence of murder of deceased is an unseen and unwitnessed event, on all counts. As per initial report of the complainant in the shape of ‘Murasila’ followed by ibid FIR, at the time Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

of commission of alleged offence of murder of his deceased brother, the complainant was present in his house. It was also deposed by the complainant in his initial report that the subject occurrence of murder of his deceased brother might have been witnessed by anyone else, meaning thereby till so far nobody has come forward as an eyewitness of the tragic incident.

Likewise, the complainant has neither disclosed the source of his information nor satisfaction regarding implication of the present appellant in the case in hand, except mere mentioning of the fact that his brother was allegedly killed by his relative namely Asghar Ali, the appellant herein, in the background of cited motive, which was stated to be a dispute over women-folk. On his own turn, the complainant namely Kashif Jamal was examined in Court as PW-

9.In the opening line of his cross-examination there was an admission on the part of complainant that he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. He also admitted as correct that he has neither disclosed the source of his satisfaction qua implication of present appellant in the instant case, nor he was in knowledge of the crime venue that in-fact where his Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

deceased brother was done to death. Same was the case of statement of wife of the appellant namely Mst. Safia, who was examined in Court as PW-10.

In her Court statement, she has deposed that on the fateful day, she was present inside the premises of her house, when she was informed by other inmates that the deceased Sadiq Jamal was murdered by her husband i.e. the present appellant. In view of the aforesaid statements of star witnesses of the prosecution, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any direct evidence against the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed in jail petition titled “Naveed Asghar and others v/s State” reported as PLD 2021 S.C 600 that the accused person could not be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion or probability unless and until the charge against him was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Strong belief of PWs regarding involvement of an accused in murder of deceased is not sufficient for holding him criminally liable unless and until such belief is substantiated through some evidence of tangible and independent nature. In this regard if any authority on the above rational is needed, reference Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

can be made to case titled “Taweez Khan v/s State” reported as 2023 P Cr.L J 1792, whereby it was held by Hon’ble Baluchistan High Court:- “Complainant was not eye-witness to the occurrence, however, when he received information about the injuries caused to his son, he reached the hospital and there he found the dead body of the deceased. Complainant had not disclosed the source of information regarding the occurrence in his report. Complainant stated during his cross-examination that he was informed about the occurrence by his relative.”

Reference can also be placed on the

case law titled “Sheikh Tariq Mehboob v/s State & another” (2022 P Cr.LJ Note 90), wherein it was expounded by Islamabad High Court that the “complainant had not disclosed his source of information while lodging FIR. Complainant had not seen the incident and was not present at the place of occurrence, then how he could say that the accident took place due to negligence and carelessness of the respondents”. Likewise, in case titled “Muhammad Hussain alias Mushfiq v/s State & another” reported as (2020 YLR 360), the same rational was followed in terms that needless to say that complainant did not disclose the source of information in his report, rather he subsequently introduced that he was informed by his son about the Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

occurrence, which appeared to be an exaggeration of the complainant just to cover an unseen occurrence.

5.Now the only piece of evidence against the present appellant is his alleged confession recorded before the then learned Judicial Magistrate namely Seemab Waheed Siqqui, which was placed on record and exhibited in evidence as Ex. PW-14/3.

Questionnaire was also placed on record as Ex. PW- 14/1. It would not be out of place to mention here that during pendency of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate has left this transient world and died, therefore, Muhammad Dawood, K.P.O/Reader was examined in Court PW-14, who was allegedly well conversant to the handwriting and signature of the deceased Judicial Officer. It is part of record and as evident from card arrest memo, Ex. PW-1/1, it was the present appellant who on 29.3.2021 at 01:15 hours visited the concerned police station and surrendered himself before the law. It was on 31.3.2021 i.e. on the second day of his arrest when the present appellant has recorded his aforesaid confessional statement. No doubt, conviction of an accused can be based on his belated and retracted Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

confession but when it is corroborated by independent source, which element is hard to find in the case in hand. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Muhammad Ismail and others v/s State” reported as 2017 SCMR 898 that in absence of any independent corroboration retracted judicial confession could not be sufficient by itself for recording or upholding conviction of accused. Likewise, it is settled by now that if the Court was satisfied that the confession so made by an accused is voluntary and truthful, in legal parlance, then the same alone can be made basis to sustain conviction on the capital charge, event it is retracted or resiled later on, however, rule of prudence demands that a confessional statement should be corroborated by other evidence direct or circumstantial, in material particulars, which is not available in the present case. In case titled “Maj.

(Rtd.) Tariq Mehmood Vs. State” reported as 2002 SCMR 1493, the following view was formed by honourable apex Court: -

“If the Court was convinced that the confession was voluntary and truthful, the same, even if retracted, could be sufficient to sustain the conviction on the capital charge. Rule of prudence, However, demands that a Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

confessional statement should be corroborated by other evidence direct or circumstantial in material particulars. Judicial confession of the accused.”

In context of the case in hand, since the Worthy Magistrate during the pendency of trial did not see light of the day and met natural death, therefore, one Muhammad Dawood, K.P.O/Reader was

examined in Court as PW-14, who was alleged to be well conversant with the handwriting and signature of the deceased Presiding Officer, however, during cross- examination, PW-14 has deposed that he has not recorded the alleged confessional statement of the appellant in the capacity of K.P.O or Steno. As per evidence of prosecution, mother tong/language of appellant was Pashtu, whereas the Court language is Urdu. Allegedly, confessional statement bears signature and thumb impression of appellant. Apart from above, there is nothing available on record that the appellant was either Urdu speaking or he has shown satisfaction over the alleged interpretation offered by learned Magistrate in Pashtu language. In view of above there was a glaring communication gap in-between learned Judicial Magistrate and the accused/appellant, which element alone render his confession totally unreliable qua maintaining of his Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

conviction. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment in case titled “Azeem Khan and another v/s Mujahid Khan & others” reported as 2016 SCMR274 has held that:-

“The statement of accused be recorded by the Magistrate with his own hand and in case there is a genuine compelling reason then, a special note is to be given that the same was dictated to a responsible official of the Court like Stenographer or Reader and oath shall also be administered to such official that he would correctly type or write the true and correct version, the accused stated and dictated by the Magistrate. In case, the accused is illiterate, the confession he makes, if recorded in another language i.e. Urdu or English then, after its completion, the same be read-over and explained to him in the language, the accused fully understand and thereafter a certificate, as required under section 364, Cr.P.C. with regard to these proceedings be given by the Magistrate under his seal and signatures and the accused shall be sent to jail on judicial remand and during this process at no occasion he shall be handed over to any police official/officer whether he is Naib Court wearing police uniform, or any other police official/officer, because such careless dispensation would considerably diminish the voluntary nature of the confession, made by the accused.”

While faced with a similar situation,

this Court has not believed confessional statement in its judgment in case titled “Ali Rehman v/s State” (Cr.A No. 397-M/2018). It was observed therein;

“Admittedly, both the Judicial Magistrate and the present appellant did not know the languages of each other and Reader of the Court had acted as an interpreter/translator between them while recording the confessional statement. The best and legal course for the Judicial Magistrate in the mentioned situation was to administer oath to the Reader before recording confession for getting the satisfaction that what the Judicial Magistrate had recorded in his handwriting was the actual utterance of the appellant and was translated word by word by the Reader without any alteration. Even the prosecution has not produced the said Reader of the Court as prosecution witness.”

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Similar observations have also been

recorded in an earlier judgment of this Court in case titled “Mst. Bakht Saba and another v/s State through Additional Advocate-General and

another” reported as 2014 MLD 942, wherein this Court has held that:-

“Secondly, the appellants were speaking Pashto while the Magistrate, who recorded the confession, was of Urdu speaking. Adil Mir, Judicial Magistrate, (P.W.5) in the first line of his cross-examination stated that he was not understanding Pashto and requested learned counsel for appellants to ask questions from him in Urdu. He further stated that he had not examined the accused to ascertain as to whether they were maltreated or not. He further stated in his cross examination that accused were not knowing Urdu while he was not understanding Pashto; therefore, he recorded the confessions through his Steno, namely, Sheraz. He admitted that he has not mentioned this fact in the confessional statements. As there was complete disorder in verbal communication between the Magistrate concerned and the appellants and even the said Sheraz has not been produced, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the said Magistrate satisfied himself regarding voluntariness of the confessional statements.”

Similarly, a bare look of the

questionnaire, Ex. PW-14/1 would reveal that the appellant was put-forward a Question No. 09, which being relevant for the present controversy is reproduced below: -

(Q-9) Do you know that after making the statement before me you will not be remanded to the police custody but will be sent to the judicial lock-up through Naib Court? In response to the aforesaid question, the appellant has though replied “Yes”, however, the whole question by itself is a sort of threat or alarm to Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

the appellant that in case that if he would have not recorded his confession, then he would be remanded to police custody, therefore, on eve of such alarming question, obviously, the appellant would have no choice but to record confessional statement, thus, such kind of tactics would squarely come within the category of force, pressure and coercion, on the part of the then learned Presiding Officer.

At the tale-end of questionnaire, there was another phenomenon which needs consideration of this Court, wherein it was opined by the then learned Presiding Officer; - “Now I give you 40-minutes time to think over that you want to give confessional statement or not. In the concluding Para it was also mentioned that the accused was re-summoned at 10:30 a.m. Codal formalities again followed and his hand cuffs removed. All police officials were again sent outside the Court, then I asked the question to accused. As I was satisfied that the accused is ready to make a true and voluntary confessional statement. From above highlighted narrations of the then learned Presiding Officer, one could get an impression that initially the appellant was produced before the learned Magistrate on 31.3.2021 at 09:50 Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

a.m. and thereafter he was given 40-minutes time for pondering over his confession, however, when the appellant was re-summoned at 10:30 a.m. it was specifically mentioned that the codal formalities have once again been followed and even hands-cuffs of the appellant were removed and above all, the police officials were again sent outside the Court premises, meaning thereby, after extending of additional time of 40-mintues, the appellant was handed over to local police and it prima facie seems that he was taken outside the Court premises, therefore, in such compelling circumstances, the possibility of force, coercion and even tutoring on the part of local police cannot be ruled out. Thus, keeping in view the failure of learned Magistrate to take necessary precautions before recording confession of appellant, it cannot be safely held that he had voluntarily recorded his confession without any torture, pressure or coercion.

Reliance is placed on case titled “State Vs. Asfandyar Wali and others” reported as 1982 SCMR 321, wherein it was observed that: -

“According to the settled law, the delay in recording the confession was absolutely shocking. Secondly, the accused was the literally being produced from the dungeons of a medieval Fort. As these circumstances invited suspicion, the least that the Magistrate was required to do was to question the accused about his treatment in custody, and to Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

verify for himself that the body of the accused did not bear any marks of ill-treatment. As these elementary safeguards for recording a confession were disregarded, we respectfully agree with the view of the learned Judges that no reliance whatever can be placed on Asfandyar's confession.

Further ahead, in ibid judgment of

Muhammad Pervez Supra it was also held apex Court that:-

“In case all the facts are put in a juxtaposition, then it is crystal clear that confessional statement was recorded after five days as the appellant Pervez was remained in the custody of the local police. It is a settled law the delay of over 24 hours would normally be fatal to the acceptance of judicial confession as law laid down by this Court in Naqeebullah's case PLD 1978 SC 21 coupled with the fact that prosecution had failed to explain the delay in recording the confessional statement.”

6.It is also part of record and as evident from the confessional statement of the appellant that it was on 29.3.2021 when the appellant has allegedly committed the murder of deceased and thereafter, he went to the police station concerned, duly armed with weapon of offence i.e. a .30-bore pistol and surrendered himself before the Court of law. As against this, the recovery memo, Ex. PW-7/2 would reveal that the weapon of offence i.e. 30-bore pistol was shown recovered on the pointation of appellant on 30.3.2021. Now this court will have to see as to whether the alleged discovery of weapon of offence was valid, admissible and reliable as a substantive piece of evidence for purpose of conviction of Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

appellant or otherwise? Likewise, this Court will also analyze whether pre-requisites for valid and reliable discovery have been fulfilled by prosecution or otherwise? In order to inculcate true sense of valid discovery, provision of Article 40 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -

40.How much of information received from accused may be proved: When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Bare reading of the aforesaid provision of law would reveal that how much of information received from an accused person may be proved.

When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information from an accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact, thereby discovered, may be proved. Corresponds to provision of section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 (since replead), the latter provision is also reproduced below: -

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

S.27 of Evidence Act, 1872. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

How much of information received

from accused may be proved. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of police officer, so much of such information, where it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact, thereby discovered, may be proved, however, there is an exception to the rules enacted in Article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and in order to bring the case within the ambit of Article 40, prosecution must establish that firstly;- information conveyed by accused actually led to discovery of same fact and secondly; subject fact was unknown to police and it was for first time derived from an accused person and thirdly;- discovery of fact must relates to commission of an offence to connect an accused with crime. Wisdom is derived from judgment of Hon’ble Federal Shariat Court, rendered in case titled “Mst. Rizwana Bibi & others v/s State & Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

others” reported as 2003 YLR 263, whereby, it was held that: -

“Article 40 of Qanun-e -Shahadat, 1984, is an exception to the rule enacted in Arts. 38 & 39 and in order to bring the case within the ambit of Art. 40 the prosecution must establish that firstly, the information conveyed by the accused actually led to the discovery of same fact and secondly. the fact was unknown to the police and it was for the first time derived from the accused, and thirdly, discovery of the fact must relate to commission of the offence to connect the accused with the crime.” These three conditions are legally well- established pre-requisites of a valid discovery: -

1)there must be a prior information from accused,

2)on the bases of such information there must be some recovery,

3)and it was not in the knowledge of police prior to it conveyed by accused to police.

Now, if any of such a condition lakes, then it would not be a valid and reliable discovery.

In the instant case, since it was specifically alleged by appellant in his confession that after commission of the alleged offence he had presented his arrest before local police at P.S concerned, duly armed with weapon of offence i.e. a .30-bore pistol, therefore, the alleged weapon of offence was not only in knowledge of the local police but they also knew that what kind of discovery is going to be Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

affected. In its judgment rendered in case titled “Hayat Ullah v/s State” reported as 2018 SCMR 2092, it was also held Hon’ble apex Court that: - “Pointing out of the place where dead body of deceased was thrown and the place of recovery of motorcycle by the accused could not be termed as discovery as a consequence of information received from the accused within the meanings of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as the said places were already in the knowledge of the police and the complainant party, therefore, it was also inadmissible evidence. Neither the prosecutor nor the defence made any objection upon bringing the said inadmissible pieces of evidence on record. Conviction of accused was based on inadmissible evidence.” In another judgment of Supreme court of Pakistan titled “Fazal Subhan v/s State” published as 2019 SCMR 1027, it was held that: - “Upon perusal of evidence, we have found the very genesis of the prosecution case as being fraught with doubts. Various pieces of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not satisfactorily connect the appellants with the commission of crime. Memo of pointing out of place of occurrence cannot be equated with disclosure within the contemplation Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. How the abductee made his escape good despite being held by no less than four persons so as to appear without let or hindrance before the police is quite intriguing. Demand of ransom from abductee's brother Luqman is a verbal assertion alone with no forensic proof regarding conversation on the cell phone. Vehicle was not recovered from any of the accused and the person who produced it is not in the array. On the whole, we have found the prosecution case far from being confidence inspiring and thus consider it unsafe to maintain the conviction. Criminal Appeals Nos.8-P and 9-P/2017 are allowed, impugned judgments are set aside and the appellants shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Similarly, this Court in case titled

“Muhammad Riaz & others v/s State” reported as PLD 1994 Peshawar 102 has held as follows: - “Place of recovery already known to Investigating Officer. Where place of recovery was already known to the Prosecuting Agency, the subsequent pointing out of the same by the accused did not advance the prosecution case as it was not a discovery of any new fact or circumstance supporting the prosecution version.”

Further reliance is placed on case law reported as 2024 SCMR 1773, 2023 MLD1880, 2003 SCMR 1419, PLD 1974 Quetta 28, 2011

YLR 543,1980 SCMR 654, 2010 SCMR 1604,

PLD 2008 Karachi 603, 1991 P Cr. LJ 2110 and 1993 P Cr. LJ 68.

In the light of ongoing discussion, it is not a valid discovery, so, it cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of present appellant. Even otherwise, in ibid judgment of Hayat Ullah’s case Supra, it was expounded by apex Court that discovery on pointation of an accused person being a corroborative piece of evidence, it cannot provide a base for conviction. Even a valid discovery too, is not the alternate and replacement of a direct ocular- account, as the circumstantial evidence must be in the Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

shape of unbroken chain. In case titled “Mst. Askar Jan & others v/s Muhammad Daud & others” reported as 2010 SCMR 1604, apex Court has held as under: -

“Firstly there should be an information or statement of the accused whether it may be confession or otherwise and that too when he was in police custody and secondly on the basis of such information or statement of some fact is discovered. If there is no statement of the a c c u s e d or information given to the police, w h i c h is an essential requirement of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, then the subsequent discovery would become inconsequential. Further, such information either oral or recorded by the police is required to be proved by the prosecution through evidence.”

7.It is otherwise well settled by now that “when substantive evidence fails to connect an accused person with commission of an offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to prosecution’s case” [1]. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also reiterated the same rational by holding that “recovery of incriminating articles is used for the purpose of providing corroboration to the ocular testimony” [2].

8.In view of above discussion, when

neither any direct nor any circumstantial evidence is available on face of record, as such, case of Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others vs. The State and others” reported as 2009 SCMR 639

“Imran Ashraf & 7 others v/s The State” reported as 2001 SCMR 424 Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

prosecution is full of doubts all-around, therefore, appellant has to be extended its benefit.

9.Even otherwise, it is well settled that even a single worth reliable doubt is sufficient enough to extend its benefit to an accused person [3 ]. Further reliance is placed on the judgments of apex Court cited as “Daniel boyd (Muslim name Saifullah) vs the State” (1992 SCMR 196), case titled “Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs the State” (2008 SCMR 1221) and case titled “Muhammad Zaman vs. the State” (2014 SCMR 749).

10.For what has been discussed above, this Court is of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant namely Asghar Ali, beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, his conviction cannot be maintained. Resultantly, while extending him benefit of doubt, the instant criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order/judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.2.2025 recorded by learned trial Court is set aside and consequently appellant named above is acquitted of the charges “Tariq Pervaiz v/s State” reported as 1995 SCMR 1345 Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

leveled against him. He be released forthwith from the Jail, if not required in any other case.

11.Since this Court has already allowed the appeal preferred by appellant namely Asghar Ali against his conviction, therefore, the connected criminal revision bearing No. 18-M of 2025 for enhancement stands dismissed, having become infructuous.

12.These are reasons of our short order of even date.

Announced --Sd-- Dt.13.01.2026 JUDGE

--Sd--

JUDGE

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din