Sawab Khan Vs The State and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department) Cr.A No.158-M/2025 Sawab Khan Vs. The State and others Appellant: (Sawab Khan) by Mr. Shams-ul-Hadi, Advocate.

Respondent(s): (The State) by Mr. Naeem Khan, A.A.G.

(Muhammad Ali and others) By Mr. Shah Bros Khan, Advocate.

Date of hearing: 14.01.2026

JUDGMENT

SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J:- This single judgment in this appeal shall also decide the connected Cr.A No.171-M/2025 titled “Muhammad Ali vs. Sawab Khan and another” and Cr.R No.64-M/2025 titled “Muhammad Ali vs. Sawab Khan and another”, as all these matters are outcome of the same judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Buner at Daggar in case bearing FIR No.581 dated 23.08.2022 registered u/s 302 PPC and section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 at Police Station City Swari, District Buner, whereby appellant Sawab Khan s/o Sardar Khan, was convicted u/s 302(b) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Ta’zir, with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue u/s 544-A Cr.P.C., or in default thereof to undergo six months’ S.I. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. He has assailed his conviction and sentence through the instant criminal appeal filed u/s 410 Cr.P.C. Through Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

the same judgment, the accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, against which the complainant-party has filed connected Cr.A No.171-M/2025, while connected Cr.R No.64-M/2025 has been preferred by the complainant-side seeking enhancement of the sentence.

2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.08.2022 at 19:35 hours, the complainant Muhammad Ali (PW- 8), while in the Emergency Ward of DHQ Hospital, Daggar, Buner, in the presence of the dead body of his brother Murad Ali (deceased), has lodged a report to the effect that on the eventful day in the morning, near the road adjacent to their house, they had erected a mud speed breaker for the safety of their children; that he, along with his deceased brother, was present in the field of one Afarin situated near the said speed breaker when, at 18:00 hours, the appellant/accused Sawab Khan, while riding a motorcycle loader and crossing the said speed breaker, started hurling abuses.

Upon this, the deceased was restraining the accused but he stopped the loader, took out a pistol from the fold of his trousers, and opened firing at the deceased, as a result whereof he sustained a firearm injury on the left side of his chest and died on the spot.

The accused thereafter made good his escape. The dead body was shifted to the hospital through Rescue-1122. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by the complainant (PW-8) and his cousin Ali Maizer while motive was disclosed to be an altercation over the speed breaker. The report was reduced into writing in the shape of murasila (Ex.PW-8/1) by Muhammad Qasim ASI (PW- Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

10), on the basis whereof, the FIR (Ex.PW-4/1) was registered by Zubair Shah ASI (PW-4).

3.The injury sheet (Ex.PW10/1) and inquest report (Ex.PW10/2) of the deceased were prepared by PW-10, the scribe of the murasila. In the hospital, Dr. Muhammad Ali conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Murad Ali vide report (Ex.PW1/4). The Investigating Officer (PW-11) prepared the site plan (Ex.PW11/1) on the pointation of the complainant (PW-8) and eyewitness Ali Maizer. During spot inspection, one empty of 30-bore pistol was recovered vide memo (Ex.PW3/1), while the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW3/3). On the same day, i.e., 23.08.2022, the appellant/accused was arrested from Fateh Baba graveyard by Sher Ali Khan SHO vide arrest card (Ex.PW5/1).

On 24.08.2022, two days’ police custody of the appellant was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the I.O’s application (Ex.PW11/4). During interrogation, the appellant pointed out the place of occurrence and, on his pointation, a 30-bore pistol No.41065293, the alleged crime weapon, was recovered from concealment under fir leaves vide memo (Ex.PW3/7). The sketch of the weapon’s recovery place (Ex.PW11/8) was prepared and section 15-AA was added to the case vide memo (Ex.PW11/7).

On expiry of police custody, on 26.08.2022, the appellant was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (PW-6), where his confessional statement was recorded; the questionnaire Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

is (Ex.PW6/1), the confessional statement (Ex.PW6/2), and the certificate issued by PW-6 (Ex.PW6/3).

4.Upon completion of the investigation, the challan (Ex.PW5/2) was submitted before the learned trial Court by the SHO (PW-5). On 19.10.2022, copies of the relevant documents, as required u/s 265-C Cr.P.C., were delivered to the accused and then on 26.10.2022, charge was framed, to which the appellant/ accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereafter the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence; however, he neither opted to make a statement on oath nor desired to produce any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 302 (b) PPC, as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment, while acquitting him of the charge u/s 15-AA of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 vide judgment dated 23.06.2025, hence, these criminal appeals and revision.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The precise allegation against the appellant is that on 23.08.2022 at 18:00 hours, he has committed the murder of Murad Ali on link road Biamdar near the field of one Afareen, allegedly over a dispute arising from the erection of a mud speed breaker by the complainant-side near their house for the safety of children.

The complainant disclosed himself and his cousin Ali Maizer as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, during trial, only the Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

complainant Muhammad Ali was examined as PW-8 whereas the alleged eyewitness Ali Maizer was not produced rather was abandoned by the prosecution on the ground of being abroad. The statement of Mst. Saira, mother of the deceased, was recorded as PW-9. In the initial report (murasila Ex.PW8/1), the complainant (PW-8) stated that the deceased was shifted to the hospital in a Rescue-1122 vehicle, which version was also reiterated by PW-9 but during cross-examination, PW-8 contradicted this stance by deposing that the deceased was lifted by him, his mother (PW-9), and Ali Maizer, placed in a loader and that PW-9 and Ali Maizer had accompanied the dead body to DHQ Hospital Daggar, whereas he himself proceeded the hospital on a motorcycle. It may be noted here that the complainant (PW-8), being the sole eyewitness produced by the prosecution, failed to corroborate either his own initial report or the testimony of his mother (PW- 9), who allegedly accompanied the dead body to the hospital.

More-so, PW-8 claimed that the loader used for shifting the dead body belonged to one Haris, who was never examined during trial.

In addition, the Investigating Officer (PW-11) admitted in cross- examination that he did not record the statement of any person who allegedly taken the deceased to the hospital in his vehicle.

There is also no explanation forthcoming either in the record or from Muhammad Qasim ASI (PW-10), the scribe of the murasila, injury sheet, and inquest report, regarding the manner in which the dead body was shifted to the hospital. The medical officer (PW-1), in the post-mortem report (Ex.PW1/4), has also noted Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

that the dead body was brought to the hospital by the alleged eyewitness Ali Maizer; however, his non-production during trial renders this assertion uncorroborated. So, it remains uncertain as to how and by whom the deceased was taken to the hospital, as the statements of the relevant prosecution witnesses on this aspect suffer from material and irreconcilable contradictions.

7.Admittedly, the complainant/eyewitness (PW-8) did not sustain any injury, nor it is alleged that the accused had fired at him. therefore, his testimony regarding his alleged presence on the scene at the relevant time requires cautious and careful scrutiny.

During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that he had informed the police that his mother had also witnessed the occurrence;

however, his mother Mst. Saira (PW-9), neither in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. nor in her deposition before the Court, has claimed to be an eyewitness. In this regard, Muhammad Qasim, ASI (PW-10), the scribe of the murasila, has categorically stated that whatever was narrated by the complainant was reduced into writing. Likewise, neither the mother of the deceased claimed eyewitness status in her statement nor the prosecution could raise any objection during investigation regarding non-mention of Mst.

Saira as an eyewitness in the report or FIR. Furthermore, PW-8 deposed in cross-examination that at Asr vela, when the accused arrived on his loader, the loader was empty, whereas PW-9 stated that the accused had come to the place of occurrence in the morning with his loader, but had no loader with him at Asr vela.

In another place in cross-examination, PW-8 has asserted that Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

after committing the murder, the accused fled from the spot leaving the loader near the speed breaker. This assertion is contradicted by the Investigating Officer (PW-11), who admitted that no loader was recovered from the place of occurrence and that no description of such loader was recorded during investigation.

These inconsistencies, taken cumulatively, give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the manner, in which, the report was allegedly lodged by the complainant (PW-8), casting serious doubt qua the prosecution version.

8.In addition to the above, the complainant (PW-8) has deposed that no blood was oozing from the dead body at the time when it was being lifted and shifted to the hospital. This fact was also corroborated by the I.O (PW-11), who admitted that no blood was recovered from the spot. The I.O. further conceded that he did not mention the distance between the link road and the relevant points in the site plan. Although, an alleged 30-bore crime empty was stated to have been recovered from the spot through memo (Ex.PW3/1), however, the I.O. admitted that he neither described the exact place of recovery in the memo nor documented the scene through photographs or videography.

Similarly, PW-3, the marginal witness to the said recovery memo, admitted that he cannot specifically mention the place from where the empty was allegedly recovered. In these circumstances, it could not be safely inferred from the evidence of PW-8, PW-9, and PW-11 that the occurrence has taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The evidence regarding the presence Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

of the complainant/eyewitness (PW-8) on the spot, at the relevant time, is neither unimpeachable nor corroborative or confidence- inspiring. Needless to say that the alleged eyewitness Ali Maizer, was abandoned by the prosecution without any plausible justification, merely on the ground that he was abroad. In the absence of compelling circumstances, he could have been examined by the prosecution and its failure to do so warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 against the prosecution in terms that had he been produced, he would not have supported the prosecution case. In a recent pronouncement1, the abandonment of material prosecution witnesses without reasonable cause was held to be fatal to the prosecution case. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“Two persons who according to complainant had also witnessed occurrence were abandoned by prosecution for no good reason. Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e- Shahdat Order, 1984 to the effect that had the two witnesses been produced by the prosecution, they would have not prosecution’s case.”

Most recently, this Court in the case2 has held that where a person is cited in the FIR as an eyewitness to the occurrence but is not produced by the prosecution, such a weakness on part of the prosecution constitutes a valid ground for acquittal, holding that:

“When the best available evidence was not produced then an inference could be drawn that had the witness been produced, he would have not supported the claim of the complainant so an Waqas Ahmad v. The State (2025 SCMR 1087),

Fazal Khaliq v. The State and another (2025 YLR 233) Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

interference could be drawn adverse to the prosecution. Article 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 catered for such a situation.”

9.Moreover, the complainant (PW-8) has deposed in his cross-examination that he had disclosed to the scribe of the report that the accused had come to the speed breaker at 10:00 or 11:00 hours, which fact is not reflected in the crime report. Similarly, his statement before the Court that his mother came out of the house to restrain the accused while he was demolishing the speed breaker is also not mentioned in the report rather he stated that at the time of demolishing the speed breaker, they were not present.

Likewise, his claim that the deceased, along with PW Ali Maizer, had come to their house in the afternoon is not found in the report.

In the report, it was stated only that the accused arrived at the speed breaker, started abusing and, on being restrained by the deceased, pulled out his pistol and fired. The act of demolishing the speed breaker was neither mentioned in the report nor claimed by PW-8 to have been witnessed by him. In this regard, the scribe of the report (PW-10) has deposed in cross-examination that the accused’s demolition of the speed breaker was not mentioned in the report and that it was only after four or five days of the occurrence, when the statement of the mother of the deceased (PW-9) was recorded, that this story was introduced. Mst. Saira (PW-9) has also categorically stated during cross-examination that it was her first interaction with the police, four to five days after the occurrence. This deposition itself undermines the claim that she had accompanied the dead body to the hospital and Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

remained there for two and a half hours. All these aspects appear to dishonest improvements in the prosecution case, introduced to fill gaps and strengthen the version against the accused. It is a settled principle of law that such dishonest enhancements diminish the probative value of the witnesses. Reliance is placed on the case3, wherein the Apex Court has held that:

“It is well established by now that when a witness improves his statement and moment it is observed that the said improvement was made dishonestly to strengthen the prosecution, such portion of his statement is to be discarded out of consideration. Having observed the improvements in the statements of both the witnesses of ocular account, we hold that it is not safe to rely on their testimony to maintain conviction and sentence of Muhammad Arif (appellant) on a capital charge.”

In the case4, the apex Court while noting some dishonest improvement in the testimony of a witness has observed as under:

“To award capital punishment in a murder crime, it is imperative for the prosecution to lead unimpeachable evidence of a first degree, which ordinarily must get strong corroboration from other independent evidence.”

10.The prosecution has further asserted that there was an exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased in the form of an altercation and abuse, however, both the alleged witnesses, i.e., the complainant (PW-8), being the brother of the deceased, and Ali Maizer, cousin of the deceased, were closely related to him; out of them, one was not produced, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate the purpose of the presence of the other witness (PW-8) on the crime scene at the relevant time Muhammad Arif v. The State (2019 SCMR 631),

Irfan Ali Vs. The State (2015 SCMR 840),

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

as none of them was neither a victim of the incident nor made any attempt to rescue the deceased, intervene, or take part in the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of related or chance witnesses must be evaluated with great care and caution, particularly in offences carrying capital punishment. In the present case, the conduct of both the complainant (PW-8) and his mother (PW-9), as highlighted above, appears unnatural and in view of the glaring contradictions between their statements and inconsistencies with the prosecution’s version, no reliance could be placed on their testimonies5. In the latter case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:

“The presence of witnesses on the crime spot due to their unnatural conduct has become highly doubtful, therefore, no explicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. They had only given photogenic/photographic narration of the occurrence but did nothing nor took a single step to rescue the deceased. The causing of that much of stab wounds on the deceased loudly speaks that if these three witnesses were present on the spot, being close blood relatives including the son, they would have definitely intervened, preventing the accused from causing further damage to the deceased rather strong presumption operates that the deceased was done to death in a merciless manner by the culprit when he was at the mercy of the latter and no one was there for his rescue. In similar circumstances, the evidence of such eye- witnesses was disbelieved by this Court in the case of Masood Ahmed and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (1994 SCMR 6).”

11.Adverting to the judicial confession of the accused, the record shows that he was arrested on the day of the occurrence i.e., 23.08.2022. On the following day i.e., 24.08.2022, when he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, he did not Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142), and Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315)

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

wish to make a confession and two days’ police custody was granted. The I.O (PW-11) has admitted in cross-examination that the accused had not confessed on 23.08.2022 nor on 24.08.2022, and that the confession before him was made only on 25.08.2022 during police interrogation. On 26.08.2022, he was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, where his confessional statement was recorded as Ex.PW6/2. The prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation for this delay, which, as a settled principle, diminishes the evidentiary value of the confession; the longer the accused remains in police custody, the greater the risk of coercion6. Furthermore, PW-6, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has admitted that at the time of recording the confession, steno and reader were present, which is contrary to the certificate (Ex.PW6/3), stating that all officials including the APP and Naib Court were directed to leave the Court so that the accused would not feel himself under pressure. He also deposed that the questionnaire was prepared first and legal formalities including time to consider the confession, were extended only once for about one and a half hours, with no second opportunity.

As per the available evidence, the measures and precautions necessary to fully safeguard the accused’s free will in recording the confession were not adopted. In a case7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discarded a confessional statement recorded under similar circumstances, by holding that:

Sher Ahmad and another v. The State and another 2025 SCMR 1717) Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274), Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

“Sufficient time for reflection was to be given after the first warning was administered. At the expiry of such time, recording Magistrate had to administer the second warning and the accused shall be assured that now he was in the safe hands.”

Needless to say that the confessional statement is not in conformity with the initial crime report, which reflects that when the accused arrived at the speed breaker allegedly erected by the deceased and removed the stones therefrom, the mother of the deceased intervened and at Asr vela, the accused took out his pistol for self-protection, sat with his neighbour Gul Zarin for some time and during this interval, the deceased ran towards him, abused him and attacked him with kicks and fists, compelling him to fire at the deceased, however, the initial report did not mention the destruction of the speed breaker and it appears that the statement of the mother of the deceased (PW-9) was recorded four to five days after the occurrence, after the confessional statement was recorded, to introduce these new facts as dishonest improvements, likely to align the prosecution case with the confession of the accused. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case8 has held that where a confessional statement is inconsistent with the prosecution’s case, such confession cannot be relied upon. A similar view was also taken by the apex Court in another case9. Moreover, in the case10, the Apex Court has reiterated that a valid judicial confession must (i) be made voluntarily and represent a true account of the circumstances Imran and another v. The State (2025 SCMR 918) Rukan Zaman v. Khizar Hayat and others (1988 SCMR 950) Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

leading to the crime; and (ii) the same is to be duly proved during trial. In the present case, the surrounding circumstances as highlighted above cast serious doubt on the voluntariness and truthfulness of the judicial confession recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate (PW-6). Accordingly, this piece of evidence is of no help to the prosecution. Reliance is further placed the case11, wherein the Apex Court has held that:

“Conviction and sentence of an accused could be maintained on the basis of a retracted judicial confession provided the said evidence appeared to be trustworthy and the same was corroborated by some independent evidence. However, if the retracted judicial confession of an accused was not corroborated by any independent evidence or the same had been recorded in violation of the law on the subject then conviction and sentence of an accused could not be sustained on the basis of said confession.”

12.The prosecution has alleged that during the course of investigation, on 25.08.2022, a .30 bore pistol bearing No.41065293 was recovered vide memo (Ex.PW7/2) as the weapon of offence, on the alleged pointation of the accused, the pointation memo being Ex.PW7/1, however, when the pistol was sent to the FSL for expert examination along with a crime empty of a 30-bore pistol, the report (Ex.PW111/16) was received negative. Moreover, the alleged recovery in the stated mode and manner could not be established by the prosecution through reliable and convincing evidence, as the testimonies of the relevant witnesses (PW-7 and PW-11) were not neither sufficient nor reliable. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish any Obaidullah and 02 others v. The State and others (2025 SCMR 1558).

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

connection between the alleged recovered weapon and the crime and being so, it could not be relied upon for the conviction of the accused. In the case12, the Apex Court has held that recovery of a crime weapon, due to non-matching with crime empties, is inconsequential, with the following observations:

“Pistol .30 bore allegedly recovered on pointation of the accused was transmitted to the Provincial Forensic Science Agency but the matching report of the same with crime empties recovered from the spot was negative, therefore, the recovery of pistol became inconsequential. Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.”

Similarly, in the absence of any independent

corroboration and due to the failure of the alleged eyewitness (PW-8) to establish his presence on the spot at the relevant time, the only medical evidence confirming the unnatural death of the deceased could not form a basis for conviction. In Hashim Qasim’ case (supra), the apex Court has held that the medical evidence is only confirmatory or supportive in nature and could not, by itself, identify the culprit. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge under section 15-AA in the case in hand. It may also be noted here that this is an offence against the State and only the State had a locus standi to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused of the offence u/s 15-AA. When asked, the learned counsel for the complainant could not justify the locus standi to file the connected Cr.A No.171-M/2025.

Tajamul Hussain Shah v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 1567).

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

13.Motive is a double-edged sword in criminal cases, relevant both for establishing guilt and for highlighting potential false implication of an accused. In the present matter, the prosecution has primarily alleged the motive as annoyance of the accused over the erection of a mud speed breaker by the deceased near his house for the safety of children. However, during the course of evidence, it was initially alleged that the accused, while crossing the said speed breaker on a loaded motorcycle loader, used abusive language in the morning and, at Asr vela, had an altercation with the deceased. As noted above, after the recording of the confessional statement, the mother of the deceased, who was not shown to be an eyewitness in crime report, introduced the allegation that the accused had demolished the speed breaker, but said a fact could not be corroborated by any independent source.

The I.O (PW-11) has admitted in cross-examination that the murasila does not mention any demolition of the speed breaker.

Likewise, the complainant (PW-8) could not produce any witness regarding the alleged demolition or the altercation involving his mother. In view of these glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements, the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged absurd and illogical motive. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive, it must suffer the consequences. Accordingly, the foundation of the prosecution case is neither natural nor persuasive to a prudent mind in the absence of independent Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

corroboration and, therefore, could not be relied upon. In the case13, the apex Court has held that:

“The prosecution story being the foundation on which edifice of the prosecution case is raised occupies a pivotal position in a criminal case. It should, therefore, stand to reason and must be natural, convincing and free from any inherent improbability. It is neither safe to believe a prosecution story which does not meet these requirements nor a prosecution case based on an improbable prosecution story can sustain conviction”.

14.The summary of the prosecution evidence on record is that neither the story of the prosecution is believable nor the witnesses were present on the spot at the relevant time; and the judicial confession of the accused was neither true nor voluntary; the testimonies of the star prosecution witnesses are full of glaring contradictions going to the root of the case. It is a settled principle of criminal law that conviction must be based on strong, independent and unimpeachable evidence, and cannot be based on doubtful, shaky or speculative material while in order to extend the benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that multiple circumstances exist; even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the guilt of the accused is sufficient to entitle him to acquittal. The Superior Courts of Pakistan have consistently held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace14. In the former case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:

Mst. Shamim and 2 others v. The State and another (2003 SCMR 1466).

Abdul Qadeer vs. The State (2024 SCMR 1146) and Abdul Jabbar and another Vs. The State

(2019 SCMR 129).

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

“Even if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of an accused, he/she shall be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as of right.”

15.In view of the foregoing discussion, we have reached a firm conclusion that the learned trial Court, while recording the conviction of the accused, has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its true perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment, to the extent of the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 302 PPC, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge u/s 302 PPC and the impugned judgment to that extent is set aside.

The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith from jail if not required in any other case.

16.Similarly, the connected Cr.A No.171-M/2025, challenging the acquittal u/s 15-AA is meritless, while the connected Cr.R No.64-M/2025, in view of the acceptance of the instant appeal and the acquittal of the appellant/accused, has become infructuous. Both the connected matters are accordingly dismissed.

17.These are the reasons of our short order of even date.

Announced

..Sd...

JUDGE

..Sd...

JUDGE

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN

Sabz Ali/* (D.B) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABIT ULLAH KHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SALAH-UD-DIN