2026 P Cr. L J 511

2026 P Cr. L J 511

[Sindh (Mirpurkhas Bench)]

Before Amjad Ali Sahito and Jan Ali Junejo, JJ

AIJAZ and another---Appellants

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. D-140, Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 and

Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024, decided on 29th

September, 2025.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-

amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case--

-Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of

complainant---In the FIR, the complainant alleged that accused MH ,

armed with a hatchet, inflicted a blow with the right side of the

hatchet on the head of the deceased, while accused MU also caused a

hatchet blow to the right side of the head of the said deceased---

Specific role attributed to the present appellants was that accused A

struck the complainant on his forehead with a lathi, whereas

appellant J inflicted lathi blows upon the back of deceased---Both the

complainant and the eye-witness, during their examination-in-chief,

supported the version narrated in the FIR and assigned the role of

main assailant to MH ---However, when confronted during trial with

the video clips produced as evidence, the prosecution witnesses

made contradictory statements---Video recordings exhibited in Court

clearly depicted that MH was empty-handed and did not attack any

person---Video Clips No.12 and No.13 demonstrated that MH was

standing empty-handed among the crowd and did not cause any

injury to the deceased or the witnesses---Similarly, Video Clip No.17

showedthat MH was attempting to pacify the people rather than

participating in the assault, while Video Clip No.18 again depicted

him standing idle and unarmed, whereas a large number of other

individuals were engaged in fighting---Forensic Report of digital

evidence confirmed that the said video clips were genuine and un-

tampered---Investigating Officer deposed that the video of the

incident had gone viral on social media, whereupon he downloaded

the relevant clips onto a USB device---With the permission of the

SSP, he forwarded the said USB to the Forensic Science Laboratory

for examination and subsequently received the report, which was

deposited and exhibited, wherein the result confirmed that "no  editing features were observed in the visual contents of the eight

(08) videos ---Testimonies of the complainant and the eye-witness

revealed that there existed a prior dispute between the parties---

Both witnesses further conceded that at the time of the incident,

more than 150 armed individuals were present at the scene---

Significantly, in Video Clip No.17, which was uploaded by eye-

witness himself, there was no indication or specific allegation that

accused MH and MU were armed with hatchets, or that accused A

and J were armed with lathis and had participated in the

commission of the alleged offence---Omission of such material

details in the contemporaneous account of the incident, coupled

with the admitted presence of a large and armed crowd, casted

grave doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution's version and the

specific attribution of roles to the named accused---Said

contradictions and omissions materially undermined the credibility

of the prosecution witnesses, thereby rendering their testimony

unreliable and unsafe to form the basis of conviction in the absence

of independent and trustworthy corroboration---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

PLD 2019 SC 527; Atta Muhammad v. The State 2023 MLD 1795;

Abdul Aziz Bhatti v. The State 2019 YLR Note 49; Naeem alias Gunda v.

The State 2019 PCr.LJ 305; Ubedullah and 2 others v. The State 2019

YLR 1829; Ghulam Muhammad and others v. The State 2019 YLR 2037;

Sanaullah and another v. The State 2020 YLR Note 69; Muhammad

Kashif v. The State 2024 YLR 2433; Khamiso and another v. The State

2020 YLR Note 78; Muhammad Hashim Shah and others v. The State

and others 2023 YLR 1768; Muhammad Waris and others v. The State

and others 2019 YLR 1146; Muhammad Paryal v. The State 2019 YLR

2316; Altaf Hussain v. The State 2025 SCMR 1427; Aqil v. The State 2023

SCMR 831; Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State 2020 YLR 2543; Nasir

Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478; Imran Mehmood v. The State and

another 2023 SCMR 795; Amanullah v. The State and others 2023 SCMR

723; Ahtisham Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 975; Ansar Ahmed v. The

State and others 2023 SCMR 929; Aijaz Nawaz v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ

1775; Sikander Teghani v. The State 2016 YLR 1098; Ansar Mehmood v.

Abdul Khaliq and another 2011 SCMR 713; Nawab Ali v. The State 2014

P Cr. L J 885; Ghulam Ali and another v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ Note 91;

Muhammad Kashif v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1005 and Mohammad

Hassan v. The State 2016 MLD 1167 ref.

(b) Criminal trial---

----Statement of a witness who deposes falsely---Reliance---Witness

who is found to have deposed falsely on any material aspect of the

case cannot be deemed credible with respect to any other portion of his testimony, as the presumption of veracity stands extinguished

once the witness is shown to be capable of perjury---Law does not

countenance partial or selective reliance upon the testimony of such

a witness.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-

amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of

evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 14-hours in lodging the FIR---

Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the

nephew of complainant---Record showed that the FIR was lodged

after an explained delay of approximately 14-hours, indicating due

deliberation and consultation---Said fact diminished the credibility

of the prosecution s case---In these circumstances, the ocular

account stood contradicted by the objective video evidence,

rendering it unreliable---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

Zafar v. The State 2018 SCMR 326 rel.

(d) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance

which creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then

the accused would be entitled to its benefit.

Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel.

Ishrat Ali Lohar, Zulfiqar Ali Korai and Kamran Ali Bhatti for

Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. D-140 of 2024).

Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in

Criminal Appeal No. D-140 of 2024).

Mir Pervez Akhtar Talpur for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal

No. D-140 of 2024).

Ishrat Ali Lohar and Zulfiqar Ali Korai for Respondent (in Criminal

Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024).

Nemo for Appellants (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024).

Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024).

Mir Pervez Akhtar Talpur for Applicant (in Criminal Revision

Application No. D-16 of 2024).

Ishrat Ali Lohar and Zulfiqar Ali Korai for Respondents (in Criminal

Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in

Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024).

Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025.

JUDGMENT

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.---Through this single judgment, we intend to

decide the captioned Criminal Appeal, Appeal against acquittal, as well

as Criminal Revision Application together as all arisen out of one and

same incident, FIR as well as a judgment passed by the learned trial

Court hence involve common questions of facts and law.

2. Through Criminal Appeal No.D-140 of 2024, the appellants/

accused Aijaz and Jakhro have impugned the judgment dated 20-07-

2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions

Case No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others),

emanated from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under

sections 302, 324, 506(2), and 34 P.P.C, whereby after full-fledged trial,

the learned trial Court convicted them under section 302(b) P.P.C and

sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302(b)

P.P.C, with fine of Rs.200,000/-, each to be paid to the legal heirs of the

deceased as provided under section 544-A Cr.P.C, and in default

thereof, to suffer S.I for six months more. The appellant/accused

Jakhro was also sentenced for the commission of the offence under

section 337-A(i) P.P.C for one year and also pay Daman of Rs.10,000/- in

default thereof, he shall suffer S.I for six months more. However,

benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to the appellants; while

accused Muhammad Hayat was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

3. Through Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-26/2024, appellant/

complainant Sadique Ali has challenged the judgment dated 20.07.2023

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case

No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others), emanated

from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under sections 302, 324,

506(2), and 34 P.P.C, whereby, the learned trial Court extending the

benefit of doubt acquitted the respondent/accused Muhammad Hayat.

4. Through Criminal Revision No.D-16/2024, applicant Sadique Ali

assailed the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20.07.2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions

Case No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others),

emanated from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under sections

302, 324, 506(2), and 34 P.P.C, praying therein to enhance the sentence

from imprisonment of life awarded to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to

death. 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per contents of FIR lodged by

complainant Sadique Ali son of Habibullah, by Caste Dars, resident of

Village near Mathoon, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar are that he used

to reside at the given address. There is dispute over the ownership of

the land of village with Muhammad Hayat Chaniho, due to which

Muhammad Hayat and others were annoyed and usually issuing

threats to vacate the village. On 08-08-2021, he, his nephew Imam Bux

son of Muhammad Ramzan Dars aged about 32/33 years and cousin

Muhammad Saleh son of Allahdino Dars were going towards

Jamalabad Stop and when at about 0830 hours reached at Hayatabad

Stop where saw that namely each Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad

Umar both sons of Faqeer Muhammad Chaniho carrying hatchets,

Aijaz son of Muhammad Hayat Chaniho and Jakhro son of Nabi Bux

Chaniho having lathis were standing and beside them one Corolla Car

No.BMR-755 white colour was standing, on seeing them by making

Hakal told that they have already told them so many times to vacate

their houses and migrate away so also why they are moving

applications against them, today they will teach lesson, by saying so

Muhammad Hayat caused right side hatchet blow over the head of

Imam Bux and accused Muhammad Umar caused right side hatchet

blow over the head of Imam Bux and accused Aijaz caused lathi blow

to him over his forehead and Imam Bux fell down and blood raised

from his injuries and accused Aijaz and Jakhro caused lathi blows to

Imam Bux over his back side.

6. The complainant intervened to rescue but Jakhro caused lathi

blow over his head and he fell down and blood raised, then

Muhammad Saleh requested the accused persons and accused persons

by issuing threats boarded in their car and went away towards their

houses. Muhammad Saleh by arranging vehicle took him and injured

Imam Bux brought at Taluka Hospital Khipro for treatment where the

doctor after seeing Imam Bux told that he is dead, meanwhile cousin

Anwar Ali Dars reached at hospital who informed to police and police

issued letter for treatment and after seeing dead body of Imam Bux

completed necessary formalities and got conducted postmortem report

and handed over dead body to them, then he after burying the dead

body appeared at PS and lodged FIR that the above said accused

persons duly armed with hatchets and lathis, in furtherance of their

common intention, due to previous dispute, caused hatchets and lathis

blows with intention to commit murder, caused hatchets and lathi

blows to Imam Bux and he died.

7. After usual investigation police submitted challan before the

court learned Judicial Magistrate, Khipro, by showing accused persons

in custody while accused Muhammad Umar as absconder. The learned

Magistrate carried out formalities as required under sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C against the above absconded accused, declared him

proclaimed offender and proceedings of his case in his absentsia as

provided under section 512 Cr.P.C.

8. Case papers were already supplied to accused, vide receipt at

Ex.03. Charge was framed against the present accused at Ex.04, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, vide their pleas

recorded at Ex.05 to 07, respectively.

9. Accordingly, the prosecution examined several witnesses. The

complainant, Sadique Ali (Exh.08), produced a copy of the FIR

(Exh.08/A). PW-02 Muhammad Saleh, an eye-witness (Exh.09), and PW-

03 Anwar Ali, a mashir (Exh.10), were also examined. Anwar Ali

produced: the memo. of injuries of Sadique Ali (Exh.10/A), Lash Chakas

form (carbon copy), original Danishtnama, memo. of inspection of the

dead body, memo. of the deceased s clothes, and receipt (Exh.10/B to

10/F). He further produced the memo. of place of incident (Exh.10/G),

memo. of arrest of accused Muhammad Hayat (Exh.10/H), memo. of

arrest of accused Aijaz and Jakhro (Exh.10/I), memo. of recovery

(Exh.10/J), memo. of photographs of the deceased, certain newspaper

clippings, report of Mukhtiarkar, and protection order of the ADJ

Court to police/IO (Exh.10/K), as well as the memo. of recovery of a

hatchet (Exh.10/L). PW-04 IO SIP Sultan Ahmed (Exh.11) produced:

order of SSP Sanghar (Exh.11/A), entry No.07 (Exh.11/B), entries Nos.

11, 12 and 16 (Exh.11/C), entries Nos. 7 and 8 (Exh.11/D), entries Nos. 9

and 10 (Exh.11/E), memo. of securing video clip with USB (Exh.11/F),

chemical report of bloodstained earth and deceased s clothes

(Exh.11/G), entries Nos. 30 and 02 (Exh.11/H), letter to Mukhtiarkar

(Exh.11/I), PS copy of application moved to learned Civil Judge and JM

Khipro (Exh.11/J), memo. of recovery of USB (Exh.11/K), report of

Punjab Laboratory with USB (Exh.11/L), permission letter of SSP

Sanghar, challan form of cost, letter for Punjab Forensic Agency

Lahore, and a separate Urdu letter to the laboratory (Exh.11/M). He

also produced the list of legal heirs of deceased (Exh.11/N), departure

entry No.19 and arrival entry No.19 (Exh.11/O), letter with receipt

(Exh.11/P), laboratory report consisting of two leaves (Exh.11/Q), and

corrigendum of laboratory report (Exh.11/R). PW-05 Dr. Haresh Kumar

(Exh.12) produced: carbon copy of police letter (Exh.12/A), Provisional

Medical Certificate of injured Sadique Ali (Exh.12/B), Final MLC

(Exh.12/C), police letter for postmortem (Exh.12/D), provisional

postmortem report (Exh.12/E), Final Postmortem Report (Exh.12/F),

and Chemical Report (Exh.12/G). PW-06 WPC Shah Nawaz (Exh.13)

produced attested copy of entry No.26 (Exh.13/A) and entry No.22

(Exh.13/B). PW-07 PC Sarfraz Ali (Exh.14) produced: letter (Exh.14/A),

entry No.29 (Exh.14/B), entry No.23 (Exh.14/C), carbon copy of letter

with receipt showing 08 properties (Exh.14/D), and entry No.04 (Exh.14/E). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its side, vide statement

at Exh.15.

10. At the conclusion of trial, the statements of the accused under

Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exh.16 to 18, wherein they

professed innocence and prayed for justice. Accused Muhammad

Hayat stated that he intended to examine defence witnesses and

further explained that he owns a property market at Hayatabad, which

he had rented out to various persons, including members of the

complainant party. According to him, the complainant party sought to

usurp his property and, therefore, instituted this false case. He further

stated that there had been a free fight between shopkeepers belonging

to different castes and the complainant party; that he was present at

the spot empty-handed; and that he only urged the parties to maintain

peace and avoid fighting. He added that around 100 150 people were

present, and the incident was later made viral on social media. The

accused, however, did not examine themselves on oath, but led

evidence of one Hakeem in their defence at Exh.19.

11. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned

counsel for the parties and appraisal of evidence convicted the

appellants as stated above. The sentence awarded to the appellants has

been impugned by them before this Court by way of filling the instant

appeal.

12. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the

appellants that there exist material contradictions and discrepancies

in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and that the learned

Trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent/accused Muhammad

Hayat, as the video footage of the incident clearly depicts that he was

empty-handed at the relevant time. However, it is submitted that the

learned Trial erroneously convicted the appellants/accused Aijaz and

Jakhro. The learned counsel further argued that it is a well-settled

principle of law, as enunciated by the Honourable Apex Court, that

where one accused is acquitted on the same set of evidence, the co-

accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the same evidence. The

learned Trial Court, however, disregarded this settled principle and

proceeded to convict the appellants.

13. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not

properly evaluate the material contradictions and inconsistencies in

the prosecution evidence, and without proper appreciation of the

record, discarded the defence version in an arbitrary manner,

convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), P.P.C. No direct or

circumstantial evidence has been brought on record to connect the

appellants with the commission of the alleged offence; therefore, the

conviction and sentence are contrary to law and facts on record. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution

evidence is unreliable, suffers from material contradictions, and lacks

independent corroboration, rendering the impugned judgment liable

to be set aside. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court

committed serious irregularities and illegalities in passing the

impugned judgment dated 20.07.2023, whereby the appellants Aijaz

and Jakhro were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under

Section 302(b), P.P.C, despite the absence of cogent and trustworthy

evidence.

15. He further argued that it is a settled proposition of law that

even a single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case

must enure to the benefit of the accused; however, the learned Trial

Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. The

impugned judgment is thus based on conjectures and surmises,

passed in a cursory and haphazard manner, and therefore is not

sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed

for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of the

appellants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

respective appellants relied upon case law reported in PLD 2019 SC

527, unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh At Karachi,

unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh, Bench At Sukkur, case

of Atta Muhammad v. The State (2023 MLD 1795), unreported

judgment of High Court of Sindh Circuit Court, Hyderabad, case of

Abdul Aziz Bhatti v. The State (2019 YLR Note 49), case of Naeem alias

Gunda v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ 305), unreported judgment of High

Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, case of Ubedullah and 2 others

v. The State (2019 YLR 1829), case of Ghulam Muhammad and others

v. The State (2019 YLR 2037), case of Sanaullah and another v. The

State (2020 YLR Note 69), case of Muhammad Kashif v. The State (2024

YLR 2433), case of Khamiso and another v. The State (2020 YLR Note

78), case of Muhammad Hashim Shah and others v. The State and

others (2023 YLR 1768), case of Muhammad Waris and others v. The

State and others (2019 YLR 1146), case of Muhammad Paryal v. The

State (2019 YLR 2316) and The State through Advocate-General v.

Muhammad Ajmal alias Akram Lahori and 2 others.

16. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General

assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the

contentions raised by learned counsel for the respective appellants

and supporting the impugned judgment contended that the

prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants

beyond and reliable reasonable doubt by producing

consistent/convincing evidence and the contradictions whatever on

record are of minor in nature and are not fatal to the prosecution

case; hence they prayed for dismissal of instant Criminal Appeal. In support of his contentions learned Additional Prosecutor General

Sindh has relied upon case of Altaf Hussain v. The State (2025 SCMR

1427). However, in support of his contentions learned counsel for the

complainant has relied upon cases of Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR

831), Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State (2020 YLR 2543), Nasir Ahmed

v. The State (2023 SCMR 478), Imran Mehmood v. The State and

another (2023 SCMR 795), Amanullah v. The State and others (2023

SCMR 723), Ahtisham Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 975), Ansar Ahmed

v. The State and others (2023 SCMR 929), Aijaz Nawaz v. The State

(2019 PCr.LJ 1775), Sikander Teghani v. The State (2016 YLR 1098),

Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq and another (2011 SCMR 713),

Nawab Ali v. The State (2014 PCr.LJ 885), Ghulam Ali and another v.

The State (2023 PCr.LJ Note 91), Muhammad Kashif v. The State (2024

PCr.LJ 1005) and Mohammad Hassan v. The State (2016 MLD 1167).

17. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

perused the record.

18. Upon meticulous perusal of the material placed on record, it

transpires that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the ocular

account furnished through the testimonies of the complainant,

Sadique Ali, and the eye-witness Muhammad Saleh, which is further

supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. Upon analysis of

the depositions of the complainant and the eye-witnesses, it is

observed that both the complainant and the eye-witness Muhammad

Saleh have candidly admitted the existence of a prior dispute between

the parties. In the instant case, the principal accused Muhammad

Hayat was acquitted by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the

video recordings of the incident, which were captured by independent

persons.

19. The pivotal question now arising for consideration before this

Court is whether, on the same set of evidence on which the principal

accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court, the co-accused can

lawfully be convicted.

20. In the First Information Report (Ex. 08/A), the complainant

alleged that accused Muhammad Hayat, armed with a hatchet,

inflicted a blow with the right side of the hatchet on the head of the

deceased Imam Bux, while accused Muhammad Umar also caused a

hatchet blow to the right side of the head of the said deceased. The

specific role attributed to the present appellants was that accused

Aijaz struck the complainant on his forehead with a lathi, whereas

appellant Jakhro inflicted lathi blows upon the back of deceased Imam

Bux. Both the complainant, Sadique Ali (PW-1), and the eye-witness

Muhammad Saleh (PW-2), during their examination-in-chief, upported the version narrated in the FIR and assigned the role of

main assailant to Muhammad Hayat.

21. However, when confronted during trial with the video clips

produced as evidence, the prosecution witnesses made contradictory

statements. The video recordings exhibited in Court clearly depict that

Muhammad Hayat was empty-handed and did not attack any person.

Video Clips No.12 and No.13 demonstrate that Muhammad Hayat was

standing empty-handed among the crowd and did not cause any injury

to the deceased or the prosecution witnesses. Similarly, Video Clip

No.17 shows Muhammad Hayat attempting to pacify the people rather

than participating in the assault, while Video Clip No.18 again depicts

him standing idle and unarmed, whereas a large number of other

individuals were engaged in fighting. The Forensic Report of Digital

Evidence (Ex. 19/A) confirmed that the aforesaid video clips were

genuine and untampered.

22. The Investigating Officer, SIP Sultan Ahmed (Ex. 11), deposed

that the video of the incident had gone viral on social media,

whereupon he downloaded the relevant clips onto a USB device. With

the permission of the SSP Sanghar, he forwarded the said USB to the

Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and subsequently

received the report dated 06.11.2021. The report, along with the USB,

was deposited and exhibited as Ex. 11/L, wherein the result confirmed

that no editing features were observed in the visual contents of the

eight (08) videos mentioned from Sr. Nos. 1 to 8 contained in item No.1.

23. During cross-examination, the Investigating Officer admitted

that in Video Clips No.12 and No.13, accused Muhammad Hayat is

clearly visible as being empty-handed and that no act of causing injury

is attributed to him therein. He further acknowledged that the

complainant party had protested against the exclusion of Muhammad

Hayat from the list of accused persons. Moreover, accused Muhammad

Hayat examined defence witnesses in his support, and DW Hakeem

corroborated the defence version, affirming that Muhammad Hayat

was empty-handed and was only present at the scene in an attempt to

pacify the quarrel.

24. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that It is

correct to suggest that PW Muhammad Saleh in his video clip No.17

stated that on the day of incident there were more than 150 armed

persons available there. Voluntarily says this video clip is after

incident. It is correct to suggest that in this video PW Muhammad

Saleh also stated that those 150 persons attacked upon us . The eye-

witness/PW Muhammad Saleh did not conflict with the above

statement of the complainant and in his cross-examination he further

deposed that I uploaded two my videos on my social account on that day. Video No.17 is my video. It is correct to suggest that I have not

stated in this video clip that accused Muhammad Hayat and

Muhammad Umer were armed with hatchet and accused Aijaz and

Jakhro were armed with lathis and committed the alleged offence.

Voluntarily says since we were disturbed perturbed and our persons

were injured, therefore, I did not say so in my video. Probably I might

have stated in my video clip that about 150 armed persons attacked

upon us. Voluntarily says I was disturbed and said so in such position

25. The testimonies of the complainant and the eye-witness

Muhammad Saleh reveal that there existed a prior dispute between

the parties. Both witnesses further conceded that at the time of the

incident, more than 150 armed individuals were present at the scene.

Significantly, in Video Clip No.17, which was uploaded by Muhammad

Saleh himself, there is no indication or specific allegation that accused

Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Umar were armed with hatchets,

or that accused Aijaz and Jakhro were armed with lathis and had

participated in the commission of the alleged offence.

26. The omission of such material details in the contemporaneous

account of the incident, coupled with the admitted presence of a large

and armed crowd, casts grave doubt upon the veracity of the

prosecution s version and the specific attribution of roles to the named

accused. These contradictions and omissions materially undermine the

credibility of the prosecution witnesses, thereby rendering their

testimony unreliable and unsafe to form the basis of conviction in the

absence of independent and trustworthy corroboration.

27. The Investigating Officer also deposed in his cross-examination

that It is correct to suggest that in video Nos.12 and 13 showing that

accused Muhammad Hayat is empty handed present there amongst

other people. It is correct to suggest that in that video accused Umar,

Aijaz and Jakhro are not visible. Both parties denied to this video

Nos.12 and 13 of the incident. It is correct to suggest that these both

videos 12 and 13 were download by me from social media. It is correct

to suggest that complainant is himself and stated in his video No.14

that thousand people attacked upon the shops of him. Video No.17 is

video of PW Muhammad Saleh stated in his video that accused

Muhammad Hayat with company of about hundred people attacked

upon the complainant party and caused injuries to them .

28. From the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, several

material aspects have emerged which substantially weaken the

reliability of the prosecution s evidence and bring to light significant

contradictions therein. In Video Clips Nos.12 and 13, the Investigating

Officer candidly admitted that accused Muhammad Hayat is seen

empty-handed, merely standing among other individuals, with no visible weapon or act of aggression on his part. This observation

directly negates the prosecution s allegation of his active participation

in the occurrence and, at best, indicates his mere presence at the

scene, which by itself does not constitute proof of guilt.

29. Furthermore, in Video Clip No.14, the complainant himself

asserted that approximately one thousand persons had attacked his

shops. Such a statement creates serious ambiguity regarding the

identification of specific accused persons, particularly when the videos

depict large crowds without clearly showing the named accused.

Conversely, in Video Clip No.17, prosecution witness Muhammad Saleh

alleged that Muhammad Hayat, accompanied by nearly one hundred

individuals, attacked the complainant party and caused injuries. This

glaring contradiction between the visual evidence, showing the

accused as empty-handed and passive (Videos Nos.12 and 13), and the

oral assertion of leading an attack with a hundred people (Video No.17

and PW statement) seriously undermines the consistency and

credibility of the prosecution s case.

30. In light of these material inconsistencies and the absence of

conclusive evidence establishing the appellants participation in the

alleged offence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to

the accused.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion, a pertinent question arises

as to whether the evidence recorded through a modern device

constitutes admissible evidence within the contemplation of law. It is,

therefore, appropriate to reproduce Article 164 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order for proper appreciation.

164. Production of evidence that has become available because of

modern devices, etc. In such cases, as the Court may consider

appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence

that may have become available because of modern devices or

techniques.

32. A bare reading of Article 164 makes it quite clear that the Courts

not only may allow any evidence, became available because of modern

devices or techniques but can also consider the same. At this point. We

would like to write here paragraph/passage taken from the book of

Electronic Evidence Second Edition by Stephen Mason.

10.46. Audiotapes were also accepted as a discoverable document in

Grant v. Southwestern and Country Properties Ltd, in which the

meaning of a document was defined by its quality to convey

information, as determined by Walton J at 198: I conclude that a

tape recording, provided of course that what is recorded is

indeed information relevant sounds of some description is a document. Television film is also considered a document, as is

the output of facsimile transmissions, data stored on a computer

(in this instance, a database) constitute a document for the

purposes of the obligation to discover under the provisions of

Order 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and a label on a

bottle containing a specimen of blood provided by the accused/

the material may sometimes determine the admissibility of the

evidence, but the definition is considered wide enough to bring

any medium into its ambit without causing difficulties. The term

document is something upon which information is stored. This

must be correct, because if the information is not stored, the

content is not available, and therefore, remains oral evidence.

10.91. Surveillance cameras are very much part of life in the twenty-

first century, the foundations of which began in the latter

decades of the twentieth century. Evidence of images from

security cameras can be very helpful in identifying the

perpetrators of crimes, and the enhancement of the images,

together with the use of more advanced techniques such as

facial mapping, can help to identify parties to an offence. Such

evidence has been admitted in English Courts, mainly in

criminal cases.

The above book is available at the given below website:-

http://humanities-digital-library.org/index.php/hdl/

catalog/view/electronicevidence/16/93-1

33. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the evidence comprising

CCTV footage, DVD cassette/video recordings, and USB devices

produced before the learned Trial Court is admissible under Article

164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, subject to the condition that

the report issued by the Forensic Science Agency confirms that no

editing feature was observed in the visual contents. Accordingly, such

evidence is relevant for the purpose of proving the asserted fact.

34. The Investigating Officer categorically confirmed that the

accused namely Umar, Aijaz, and Jakhro are not visible in video clips

marked as Nos. 12 and 13. This omission raises serious doubt

regarding the prosecution s allegation of their participation in the

occurrence and suggests the possibility of mistaken identity or false

implication. Moreover, upon careful examination of the video

evidence and the forensic report (Ex.19/A), it was established that

accused Muhammad Hayat was not responsible for causing the fatal

injury. Consequently, the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge

against him beyond reasonable doubt, leading the learned Trial Court

to acquit the said accused by extending the benefit of doubt. 35. It is a well-settled principle of law that a witness who is found to

have deposed falsely on any material aspect of the case cannot be

deemed credible with respect to any other portion of their testimony,

as the presumption of veracity stands extinguished once the witness is

shown to be capable of perjury. The law does not countenance partial

or selective reliance upon the testimony of such a witness.

36. Furthermore, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after

an unexplained delay of approximately fourteen (14) hours, indicating

due deliberation and consultation, thereby further diminishing the

credibility of the prosecution s case. In these circumstances, the ocular

account stood contradicted by the objective video evidence, rendering

it unreliable.

37. As pointed out above the contradictions in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, they have discarded the veracity of their

statements, which are sufficient to render the entire case of the

prosecution to be highly doubtful. In this context, the reliance is

placed upon case of Zafar v. The State (2018 SCMR 326), wherein the

Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

11. Having discussed all the aforesaid aspects of the case, it has been

observed by us that medical evidence, motive, recovery and for

that matter absconding of appellant are merely

supportive/corroborative piece of evidence and presence of eye-

witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has

been found by us to be doubtful, no reliance can be placed on

the supportive/ corroborative piece of evidence to convict the

appellant on capital charge.

38. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has

miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt and it is a settled proposition of law that for giving

the benefit of the doubt to an accused there doesn't need to be many

circumstances creating doubts if there is a single circumstance which

creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the

accused will be entitled to the benefit. In this respect, reliance can be

placed upon the case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State reported in

2018 SCMR 772, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has

held that:-

4. 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. It is based on the maxim, it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be

convicted . Reliance in this behalf can be made upon 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).

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, Criminal Appeal No.S-140 of

2024 was allowed vide short order dated 29.09.2025. Consequently, the

impugned judgment dated 20.07.2023, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No. 557 of 2021 (Re:

The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others), arising out of Crime No. 36

of 2021 registered at Police Station Khahi under Sections 302, 324,

506(2), and 34, Pakistan Penal Code, was set aside.

40. Accordingly, the appellants namely Aijaz and Jakhro were

acquitted of the charge. Since the appellants were confined in jail, it

was further directed that they be released forthwith if not required in

any other custody case.

41. However, Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024, filed

against the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Hayat, as well as

Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024, filed for enhancement

of sentence, stand dismissed. The case law cited by the learned counsel

for the complainant was found to be distinguishable on facts and

circumstances and, therefore, inapplicable to the present matter.

42. These are the reasons for our short order dated 29.09.2025.

JK/A-97/Sindh Appeal allowed.