Ashfar Ahmed VS The State etc.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Crl. Appeal No.142/2023 Ashfar Ahmed Versus The State and another

Murder Reference No.08/2023 The State Versus Ashfar Ahmed

Crl. Appeal No.149/2023 Asad Imran Versus The State

Crl. Appeal No.200/2023 Nasir Iqbal Versus Ibrar Ahmed and others

Crl. Appeal No.150/2023 Tabraiz Hussain Versus The State

Crl. Revision No.84/2023 Nasir Iqbal Versus Ibrar Ahmed and others

Appellants by : M/s. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, Barrister Adil Aziz Qazi, Ch. Ch. Abdul Rafay, Barrister Malik Talha Ahmed, Muhammad Yaseen Iqbal,. Malik Saqib Mahmood, Muhammad Suleman, Raja Ali Shan, Aamir Mehmood Mughal, Usman Ali Bajwa, Faisal Nawaz, Malik Qatadah Jamal Advocates.

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

Respondent by : Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP for State.

Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, ASI/IO.

Date of Hearing : 21.09.2026.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.- The titled criminal appeals, murder reference and the criminal revisions are being decided through this common judgment as they emanate from the same criminal case and entail common questions of law and facts.

2.Through Criminal Appeal No.142/2023, 150/2023 and 149/2023 filed in terms of section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.), the appellants/convicts Ashfar Ahmed, Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran impugn judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V (East), Islamabad, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced to them in terms reproduced below, in FIR No.270/21, dated 14.03.2021, registered under section 302, 324, 447, 511, 148, 149, 337-F(ii) of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter PPC) Police Station Koral, Islamabad (hereinafter FIR).-

“40. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the convict Ashfar Ahmed caused fatal fire-shot on the person of deceased namely (Abdul Salam) who was done to death at the spot, whereas, convict Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran shared the common intention. All the three convicts by sharing their common intention also attempted to kill injured person (Siraj ul Haq) by making fire shots. I find no mitigating stance in the case in hand to the extent of the convict Asfar Ahmed, therefore, he is liable to be awarded maximum punishment and does not deserve-any leniency. The convict namely Ashfar Ahmed is sentenced as under:-

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

i. U/S 302(b)/34 PPC, sentenced to death as Tazir for committing murder of (Abdul Salam). The convict shall be hanged by neck till he is dead, subject to the confirmation by Hon’ble Islamabad High Court. The convict is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.300,000/- as required under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased (Abdul Salam). In default of the payment of compensation, convict shall undergo 06 months simple imprisonment.

The convict namely Tabraiz Hussain & Asad Imran shared their common intention with accused/convict Ashfar Ahmed, who made fire shot upon the deceased (Abdul Salam). As convict Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran have not made any fire shot upon the deceased, therefore, capital punishment cannot be awarded to convicts Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran. They are sentenced as under:- i. U/S 302(b) PPC read with section 34 PPC, sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life as “Tazir” each. They are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.300,000/- each as required under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased (Abdul Salam). In default of the payment of compensation, convicts shall undergo 06 months simple imprisonment each.

The convicts namely Ashfar Ahmed, Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran are also sentenced as under:- i. U/S 324 PPC read with section 34 PPC, sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten years) each for attempt to commit Qatal-i-Amd of injured namely Siraj ul Haq and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default thereof, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment of six (06 months) each. ii. U/S 337-F(ii) PPC read with section 34 PPC, sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment of 03 (three years as Tazir) each for causing injury (Ghayr-Jaifah Badiah) to Siraj ul Haq and

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

shall also be liable to Daman of Rs.10000/- each. In default thereof, the convicts shall remain in Jail till the complete payment of Daman and their imprisonment shall be treated as simple.”

Whereas, Murder Reference No. 08/2023 has been forwarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 374 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the convict-Ashfar Ahmed.

3.Through Crl. Appeal No.200/2023 under section 417(2A) of Cr.P.C., the complainant-Nasir Iqbal impugns acquittal of Ibrar Ahmed and Farhat Mehmood, whereas, through Crl. Revision No.84/2023 filed in terms of sections 435 read with 439 Cr.P.C., he seeks enhancement of the sentence awarded to Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran.

FACTS:

4.The relevant facts are that, on the basis of written complaint (Exh.PL), FIR (Exh.PA) was registered, wherein it was alleged that the complainant owned land situated in Mouza Ghara Mast, Bhimber Trar, where he had kept cattle and his servant Muhammad Shafique, along with his family, was residing for their care. On 13.03.2021, Ashfar, etc. allegedly attempted to unlawfully occupy the said land, which attempt was foiled and the matter was reported to the police. On 14.03.2021, at about 06:10 a.m., the complainant was present at his Daira along with Abdul Salam, Siraj-ul-Haq, Azhar Iqbal and Shafique, when (1) Ashfar, (2) Asad, (3) Tabraiz, (4) Ibrar Ahmed and (5) Farrukh Mehmood, along with 7/8 unknown armed persons, allegedly arrived and started indiscriminate firing. Ashfar Ali allegedly fired directly at Abdul Salam with a Kalashnikov, hitting him in the chest, as a result whereof he fell down injured. Tabraiz Ahmed allegedly fired at Siraj- ul-Haq with a Kalashnikov, hitting him on his right arm, whereas Asad Altaf

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

allegedly fired at Shafique, hitting him on his back and left arm. The complainant shifted the injured persons to PIMS Hospital with the help of other persons. Damage was also allegedly caused to the residential rooms and vehicles parked at the place of occurrence. Abdul Salam subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over possession of the land owned by the complainant. Upon receipt of information regarding the occurrence, SI Omer Hayat reached PIMS Hospital along with Yasir Mehmood HC/3637, Muhammad Waleem HC/6007 and Atif Mehmood C/7186, where the dead body of Abdul Salam was lying on a stretcher in the Emergency Ward. The injury statements of the injured persons were prepared, while applications for postmortem examination and preservation of the dead body in the mortuary were submitted to the CMO. The written complaint of the complainant was thereafter forwarded to the police station through Atif Mehmood C/7186 for registration of the FIR.

TRIAL COURT’S PROCEEDINGS:

5.Charge against the appellants was framed on 10.11.2021. The prosecution led 17 witnesses in support of its case. The brief detail of the PWs is as follows.-

a) Dr. Nasreen Butt (PW-6), MLO, PIMS, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and prepared postmortem report (Exh.PC-1/6). She also prepared the MLCs of Siraj-ul-Haq (Exh.PD) and Shafi Muhammad (Exh.PE).

b) Dr. Nimrah Mehmood (PW-9) examined injured Shafi Muhammad.

c) Dr. Muhammad Aqib (PW-10) had examined the injured Siraj Ul Haq. On 20.03.2021, Malik Amir Shahzad (PW-3) visited the crime scene and prepared the scaled site plan (Exh.PB/1-4).

d) On 14.03.2021, Mehmood Amjad HC/4065 (PW-2) received four sealed parcels said to contain crime empties, which were deposited in malkhana. The

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

same parcels were thereafter handed over to Qaiser Mehmood (PW-11) for onward deposit to the NFSA on 26.03.2021.

e) On 08.04.2021, Asad Sadiq ASI (PW-4) handed over to Muhammad Akram Inspector (PW-16) the sealed parcel said to contain blood stained cotton for onward deposit to PFSA.

f) On 27.06.2021, Muhammad Ishaq HC/1501 (PW-5) received sealed parcel said to contain Kalashnikov from Fakhar Abbas SI (PW-17) recovered from accused Asghar, which he kept in malkhana. On 28.06.2021, he again received 02 sealed parcels said to contain Kalashnikov from Fakhar Abbas recovered from the accused Tabraiz and Asad Imran, kept intact in malkhana. The parcels said to contain Kalashnikov were handed over to Qaiser Constable for onward transmission Forensic Science Laboratory on 08.07.2021.

g) Qaiser Mehmood C/6592 (PW-11) accompanied Muhammad Akram Inspector (PW-16) while visiting the crime scene. He is witness to the recovery of crime empties from the crime scene, recovery of vehicle hit by firing, recovery of crime weapons from Asfar, Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran and also delivered the sealed parcels to the laboratory for analysis.

h) PW-11 Nasir Iqbal-complainant testified the facts narrated in the FIR. He is also witness to the recoveries effected from the crime scene.

i)PW-13 Azhar Iqbal and PW-14 Raja Siraj ul Haq are the eye witnesses of occurrence.

j) Imran Ajmal (PW-15) is the witness of recovery of the crime weapons by the accused persons. k) Muhammad Akram, DSP (PW-16) testified regarding the death of Umar Hayat SI and recorded testified regarding the facts within his own knowledge as well as recording secondary statement for Umar Hayat SI, being well conversant with his hand writing. This witness initially inspected the crime scene and collected crime empties, took into possession the vehicle and motorcycle hit by fire shots and handing over sealed parcels to Qaimer Mehmood for onward delivery to laboratory for analysis.

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

l) Raja Abdul Basit (PW-8) identified the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary; he is also a witness to the recovery memo of the last worn clothes and other belongings of the deceased. The report of PFSA were exhibited as Exh.PL, Exh.PMM and Exh.PNN.

6.The prosecution gave up witnesses Shafi Muhammad (injured), Izhar Ul Haq, Muhammad Shahid, Muhammad Sajjad, Zulfiqar Ali ASI and Asif ASI being unnecessary.

7.Statement of the accused persons under section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 21.02.2023. The accused did not opt to record statement under section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, they led defence evidence. Zulfiqar Ahmed LDC/Medical Board PIMS was examined as DW-1, who produced the record of medical board before the trial court as Exh.DB alongwith copy of order of the District Magistrate (Exh.DC).

8.On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused in aforesaid terms, hence this appeal and the murder reference.

ARGUMENTS:

9 Learned counsel for the convicted appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish who fired the fatal and injurious shots; that the occurrence took place at about 06:10 a.m., before sunrise, and the alleged fatal shot was fired from 354 steps away; that the scaled site plan recorded a distance of 894 feet between points Nos. 3 and 6; that, in an occurrence involving firing from different directions, identification of individual assailants at such a distance was unreliable; that Nasir Iqbal omitted his own firing from the initial version, although PW-17 confirmed that Nasir and Azhar Iqbal had fired and recovered 54 empties from where they stood; that

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

their weapons were not seized, whereas the weapons recovered from the accused did not match the recovered empties in forensic analysis; that injured Shafi Muhammad, allegedly shot by Asad Imran, was given up as unnecessary; that the description “anything blunt” in his MLC remained unexplained in light of the later description of firearm wounds; and that the conflicting times of FIR registration and making of the complaint further entitled the appellants to the benefit of doubt.

10.The learned Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant argued that the eyewitnesses consistently identified the accused and assigned specific acts to them; that Siraj-ul-Haq was an injured eyewitness whose presence at the occurrence was established; that the death and injuries were supported by the medical evidence; that the witnesses’ relationship to the complainant did not render their testimony unreliable; that the occurrence took place at dawn and the accused were known to the witnesses; that the absence of a forensic match did not defeat a trustworthy ocular account; that firing by persons on the complainant’s side did not absolve the accused of their acts; that Shafi Muhammad’s examination was unnecessary because the occurrence was proved through the witnesses produced; and that the convictions should be maintained, the acquittal of Ibrar Ahmed and Farhat Mehmood set aside, and the sentences of Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran enhanced.

11.Learned counsel for the appellants, complainant and the learned Prosecutor have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.

FINDINGS:

12.The question which arises for determination is whether the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants caused the death of Abdul Salam and the injuries attributed to them during the

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

occurrence of 14.03.2021. To answer that question, the medical evidence shall first be examined, followed by the ocular account and the evidence relating to the scene and recovered weapons.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE:

13.Dr. Nasreen Butt (PW-6) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Abdul Salam. She described the injury in the following terms:

“Firearm entry wound 1 × 1 cm in the fourth intercostal space, 2 cm medial to the left nipple of the left breast, with inward margins. The clothes corresponded with the site of the injury and were torn at that place, having a hole. No exit wound was found, but there was a bulge on the posterior aspect of the left lower chest, 18 cm from the left shoulder joint. After making a skin incision, a bullet was recovered and handed over to the police.”

14.According to PW-6, Abdul Salam died as a result of the firearm injury to his chest, which caused rupture of the heart, lung, liver, intestine, stomach and left kidney. She also prepared the MLCs of injured Siraj-ul-Haq (Exh.PD) and Shafi Muhammad (Exh.PE). During cross examination, she admitted that the kind of weapon used was not specified with certainty in Exh.PD, while in Exh.PE she had mentioned “anything blunt” as the kind of weapon used. She further stated that an inquiry committee headed by Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, Professor of General Surgery, subsequently examined Exh.PD and Exh.PE and issued a report concurring with her opinion. She also stated that a shot fired from a short distance might produce both an entry and an exit wound. The said inquiry committee was constituted on the application of complainant.

15.Dr. Nimrah Mehmood (PW-9) examined injured Shafi Muhammad. She described a “1 × 1 cm wound on the left arm and exit wound 2 × 2 cm” and an “entry wound on the back below the scapula in the seventh

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

intercostal space, measuring 1 × 2 cm at the paraspinal border, with exit wound 5 cm lateral to the spinous process near the seventh rib, measuring 2 × 2 cm.” During cross examination, she admitted that the front page of Shafi Muhammad’s emergency slip did not contain her notes or handwriting. She further admitted that she wrote her notes after the notes on the front page of that slip had been recorded.

16.Dr. Muhammad Aqib (PW-10) examined injured Raja Zafar Iqbal, who had an “entry wound measuring approximately 1 × 1.5 cm on the medial aspect, about 12 cm above the wrist joint; no exit wound was present.” The bullet was recovered under local anesthesia through an incision over the place where it was palpable and was handed over to Umar Hayat SI. During cross examination, PW-10 admitted that, in a normal standing position, the entry wound was on the back side of the forearm, while the bullet was palpable anteriorly about 7 cm above the wrist. He stated that the bullet had not struck any hard surface after entering the body and, in his opinion, had travelled from above downward.

17.Zulfiqar Ahmed, LDC, Medical Board, PIMS, appeared as DW- 1 and produced the medical-board record (Exh.DB) and the order of the District Magistrate (Exh.DC).

OCULAR ACCOUNT:

18.Nasir Iqbal (PW-12) narrated the version recorded in the FIR. During cross examination, he stated that the radius of the place of occurrence was approximately 2,000 to 2,500 feet and admitted that all the private witnesses were his close relatives. He stated that the deceased was shifted to hospital in private vehicle No. 005, but neither that vehicle nor his clothes were bloodstained. Although the FIR was registered on 14.03.2021 at 09:00

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

a.m., he stated that the complaint was made at 10:30 a.m. He also disclosed in cross examination that he was firing at the accused party, a fact absent from his initial version. He stated that he, along with others, shifted the deceased to hospital.

19.Azhar Iqbal (PW-13), an eyewitness, stated during cross examination that when Abdul Salam was taken out of vehicle No. 005 and placed on a stretcher at the hospital, the deceased’s clothes were smeared with blood. He further stated that Muhammad Shafi and Siraj lifted Abdul Salam from the place of occurrence and placed him in the vehicle, and that blood was then oozing from the bodies of the deceased and injured persons. He described their positions in the vehicle as follows:

“Nasir Iqbal was driving the vehicle. Salam (deceased) was lying on the front seat. I was sitting on the rear seat behind the driving seat, and Siraj, Shafi and Muhammad Shahid were seated to my left. All the injured persons were conscious, whereas Abdul Salam was unconscious. Abdul Salam was lying on the front seat with the seat partly reclined. Shahid, seated on the rear seat, held the deceased by his shoulder. The injured persons were sitting on their own.”

This portion of the statement of this PW, is in direct conflict with the version of complainant that he took the deceased to hospital, whereas, he is not present in the vehicle as per this witness.

20.Raja Siraj-ul-Haq (PW-14), an injured witness, stated during cross examination that firing continued at intervals during the night between 13 and 14 March 2021. According to him, shots were fired from all directions, with the object of preventing them from returning to their homes.

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

21.Fakhar Abbas (PW-17), who initially inspected the crime scene, stated during cross examination that he recovered 195 Kalashnikov empties, besides others, from the place where the accused were said to have been present. Approximately 500 other empties were recovered from different places at the scene. He admitted that, according to his investigation, Nasir Iqbal and Azhar Iqbal had also fired there. He collected 54 empties from the place where Nasir and Azhar were standing, but did not take their weapons into possession.

22.The prosecution gave up injured Shafi Muhammad, along with Izhar-ul-Haq, Muhammad Shahid, Muhammad Sajjad, Zulfiqar Ali ASI and Asif ASI, describing them as unnecessary witnesses.

23.Malik Amir Shahzad (PW-3) stated that he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the scaled site plan (Exh.PB/1-4) on the pointing out of the complainant and eyewitnesses. During cross examination, he admitted that the distance between points Nos. 3 and 6 was 894 feet. He also admitted that he had earlier prepared another scaled site plan (Exh.DA), to which the District Attorney had raised an objection.

APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE:

24.The initial prosecution version alleged that Ashfar Ahmed fired the fatal shot at Abdul Salam, Tabraiz Hussain fired at Siraj-ul-Haq, and Asad Imran fired at Shafi Muhammad. It presented the complainant and his companions as persons upon whom the accused party opened indiscriminate fire. The first material departure from that version emerged from the complainant himself as he admitted in cross examination that he had also fired at the accused party. PW-17 confirmed that both Nasir and Azhar fired and that 54 empties were recovered from where they stood. This was not a minor

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

detail concerning the sequence of events. It demonstrates that firing was reciprocal, yet that feature was withheld from the initial account. In an occurrence involving several armed persons and firing from different positions, the omission directly affects the reliability of the witnesses’ assignment of individual shots.

25.Injured Shafi Muhammad was not merely a person named at the scene. According to the initial version, Asad Imran fired at him, striking his back and left arm. His injuries were examined by PW-9. Azhar Iqbal also named him as one of the persons who lifted Abdul Salam and placed him in the vehicle. Shafi could, therefore, have testified from personal knowledge about the position from which he was struck, the identity of any assailant he saw, the firing by both sides, and the removal of the deceased from the scene. His account was particularly important because the complainant admitted that the private witnesses who testified were his close relatives. The record supplied does not establish Shafi’s relationship to the complainant; which suggests that his evidence would have been independent and impartial. What is clear is that he was an injured, material witness with direct knowledge of matters in dispute.

26.The prosecution may choose its witnesses, and every person named in an FIR need not be examined. But calling this particular injured witness “unnecessary” gives no explanation for withholding his account. Non-examination of this disinterested witness gave inference, as envisaged under Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to the effect that in case, this witness had been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case, rather he would have deposed against the prosecution. It would be advantageous for the purpose of ready reference to reproduce Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

“Article 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it”.

27.It is settled law, that non-production of most natural and material witness of occurrence would strongly lead to an inference of prosecutorial misconduct, which would not only be considered a source of undue advantage for prosecution but also an act of suppression of material facts causing prejudice to accused. It is also settled principle of law that act of withholding of most natural and material witness of occurrence would create an impression that had such witness been brought into witness-box, he might not have supported the prosecution and prosecution in such eventuality must not be in position to avoid the consequence. It has also been settled that non- examination of material witness would seriously reflect upon the credibility of rest of witnesses but also create a reasonable doubt regarding the correctness of the incident set up by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the cases of Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) and Tahir Khan v. The State (2011 SCMR 646).

28.Blunt injury ordinarily means injury caused by the impact of a non-sharp surface or object. Depending on the force and surface involved, it may appear as a bruise, abrasion or laceration. A firearm injury is caused by a projectile and may produce an entry wound, a track through tissue and, if the projectile emerges, an exit wound. These are descriptions of different mechanisms of injury; the word “blunt” should not simply be treated as another term for a bullet wound.

29.PW-6’s (Dr. Nasreen Butt, MLO) findings regarding “anything blunt” in Shafi’s MLC (Exh.PE) is inconsistent with PW-9’s (Dr. Nimrah

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

Mehnood) subsequent description of firearm entry and exit wounds. It is significant to note that it was the complainant-Nasir on whose application a medical board was constituted, which ultimately upheld PW-6’s conclusion of “anything blunt”. No explanation was offered why this injured was brought to hospital at 07:57 a.m. when the occurrence is alleged to be that of 06:10 a.m. PW-9 admitted that her notes were written after those on the front page of the emergency slip.

30.The prosecution places the fatal shot at 356 steps as per the site plan (Exh.PB/1-4). On an ordinary estimated step length, that is roughly 260 to 270 meters. PW-3 separately measured 894 feet, or approximately 272 meters, between points Nos. 1 and 4 on the site plan. As per the explanation in the site plan point No.1 is the place where deceased was present, whereas, point No.4 is the convict-Ashfar’s location. The occurrence is alleged at 06:10 a.m. on 14.03.2021. For the Islamabad area, that time was approximately twelve minutes before calculated sunrise, during morning twilight. It was neither established full daylight nor necessarily complete darkness. The court’s concern is, therefore, precise: while a person might see human figures or firing at that hour, it is hard to identify the faces of particular persons as who fired from which point and that which particular bullet landed on the person of the deceased or injured person. Prior acquaintance may assist identification, but it does not remove the need to establish what the witnesses could see, for how long, and whether the alleged assailants ever came nearer.

31.In a recent reported judgment dated 16.04.2026 passed in the case of Shahbaz alias Gillo v. The State, etc. (Criminal Petition No.750- L/2018), the Hon’ble Supreme, while referring to its earlier judgment in the case of Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State (2019 SCMR 956) observed that the concept of “Estimator Variables” are witness-related factors that

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

fundamentally affect the accuracy of memory retention and retrieval. Further that these variables are beyond the control of the legal system but are critical in determining the weight of an identification by an accused. It was further held as follows.-

“8. Distance and lighting serve as the two primary pillars for assessing the weight of an identification by an eyewitness. As elaborated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of S v. Henderson [27 A.3d 872 (NJ 2011)], the reliability of an eyewitness is inversely proportional to the distance of the observation; simply put, while proximity ensures clarity, a greater distance physically erodes the witness's ability to identify distinguishing facial features. This degradation is further exacerbated by poor lighting, which reduces the visual 'signal' reaching the eye, making it biologically harder to perceive accurately. Scientific studies on visual perception indicates that beyond a certain range, the ability of a witness to accurately identify a person deteriorates sharply and approaches a level akin to mere guesswork. A pivotal study1 published in Law and Human Behavior on the reliability of eyewitness identification examines the impact of distance through the lens of diagnosticity. Diagnosticity refers to the probative reliability of eyewitness identification, namely, the extent to which an identification is capable of distinguishing the actual offender from an innocent person. The higher the diagnosticity ratio, the more likely the suspect identification is reliable. The research demonstrates a sharp decline in accuracy as distance increases, finding that at 40 meters, diagnosticity was already 50% lower than it was at 5 meters, and with increased distance, this reliability continued to taper off until it reached a value of 1 (±0.5) at 100 meters for all age groups. In scientific terms, a diagnosticity of 1 means the identification has no evidentiary value, as the witness is statistically just as likely to pick an innocent person as they are the guilty party. Consequently, at a distance of 240 feet (approximately 73 meters), the witness's ability to provide a reliable identification is severely compromised, moving away from factual recognition and toward a result that is mathematically

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

equivalent to a random guess. Similar view was adopted in Ameeruddin v. State [PLD 2025 SC 383], where this Court discarded the eyewitness testimony on the grounds of physical impossibility, ruling that a perpetrator cannot be reliably identified from a long distance such as 500 meters.

9.We are of the view that to ensure a fair assessment in criminal cases, the court must evaluate eyewitness testimony by carefully weighing the specific circumstances surrounding the observation such as the distance between the witness and the perpetrator, the exposure duration, the quality of the opportunity to see the perpetrator, the prevailing lighting conditions, the physical condition of both the witness and the accused, and so on. By scrutinizing these estimator variables, the court can determine the reliability and diagnostic value of the identification, ensuring that the testimony is adequately assessed against the required standards of criminal justice.

32.It is noteworthy that PW-14 described firing from all directions, and PW-17 recovered empties from several locations. The forensic analysis, as stated, did not match the weapons recovered from the accused with the recovered crime empties. A weapon which the forensic evidence does not connect with the relevant empties cannot be used as positive forensic corroboration of the ocular account.

33.The FIR records registration at 09:00 a.m., whereas Nasir stated that the complaint was made at 10:30 a.m. If he referred to the complaint on which that FIR was registered, the timings cannot both be correct. As to the journey to hospital, Nasir’s assertion that the vehicle was not bloodstained contradicts Azhar’s version of blood oozing from the deceased and injured when they were placed inside the vehicle. The initial omission of firing by the complainant’s side, the non-examination of injured Shafi, the unresolved medical description of his injury, the distance and twilight conditions, firing

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

from multiple directions, and the lack of a forensic match to the recovered accused weapons all concern who fired the shots charged against these appellants.

34.The prosecution has proved that Abdul Salam died of a firearm injury and that others sustained injuries during the occurrence. It has not proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the evidence discussed, that Ashfar Ahmed fired the fatal shot or that the individual injuries and common intention forming the basis of the remaining convictions are safely attributable to Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran. The defence was under no obligation to establish which other participant fired a particular shot. The reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution’s own evidence must go to the appellants as a matter of right.

35.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Muhammad Mansha v. The State” (2018 SCMR 772), has held that “Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. Reliance is also placed on the cases of Tarique Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Muhammad Zaman v. The State

(2014 SCMR 749).”

CONCLUSION:

36.Accordingly, the convictions and sentences of Ashfar Ahmed, Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran cannot be maintained. The complainant’s

Crl. Appeals No.142/2023 and connected matters.

appeal against the acquittal of Ibrar Ahmed and Farhat Mehmood cannot succeed on the same deficient account as their acquittal carries double presumption of innocence, being acquitted after a full-fledged trial. Likewise, for the same reasons, the petitions seeking enhancement of the sentences of Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran are also without merit.

37.For the foregoing reasons, Crl. Appeals Nos. 142/2023, 150/2023 and 149/2023 are allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against Ashfar Ahmed, Tabraiz Hussain and Asad Imran vide judgment dated 01.04.2023 are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt. Murder Reference No.08/2023 is answered in the negative. Crl. Appeal No.200/2023 and Crl. Revision No.84/2023 filed by the complainant are dismissed. The acquitted appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE JUDGE

Announced in the open Court on 30th day of September, 2026.

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Tanveer Ahmed/*