2026 P Cr. L J 685

 2026 P Cr. L J 685

[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]

Before Khalid Hussain Shahani, J

GHULAM AKBAR CHANDIO---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-47 of 2024, decided on 30th July, 2025.

(a) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single reasonable doubt arises

from the evidence, its benefit must unequivocally accrue to the

accused, leading to acquittal.

Muhammad Qasim v. The State 2025 SCMR 880 rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in

the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing

murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Prosecution's

ocular account revealed glaring contradictions, embellishments and

inconsistencies that collectively rendered the version unreliable---

Complainant and eye-witnesses, who were closely related to the

deceased, narrated the sequence of events, but their accounts

contradicted the physical evidence presented through the Tapedar's

sketch, which placed the assailants inside the shop, while the eye-

witnesses asserted that the accused fired from outside---Such a

material contradiction regarding the locus of occurrence impugned

the credibility of the entire account---Further, the name of one of the

accused appeared nowhere in the FIR but was introduced during the

trial---This was a classic example of dishonest improvement---

Material improvements not found in earlier versions rendered

subsequent statements unreliable---Moreover, the failure to

associate any independent witness, despite the incident occurring at

a public place, remained an un-rectified lapse---Testimony of

witnesses must be corroborated by independent evidence, which

was conspicuously missing here---Moreover, the Tapedar, who

prepared sketch depicted Point B, where the accused were "said to

be standing," as inside the shop---Said fact directly contradicted the

consistent ocular testimony of witnesses, who claimed the accused

fired from outside the shop or from the veranda---This was not a minor inconsistency but a fundamental contradiction concerning

the very scene and mechanics of the crime, which gravely impacted

the reliability of the prosecution's story---Such material

contradictions going to the root of the case could vitiate the entire

prosecution evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1731;

Ahmed Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 781; Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The

State 2025 SCMR 662 and Muhammad Jahangir v. The State 2024 SCMR

1741 rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence

doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the

brother of complainant by firing---Medical Officer explicitly

admitted that he was not designated as Medico-Legal Officer and he

had not produced any document authorizing the postmortem---Legal

validity of a postmortem conducted by an officer without proper

designation or official authorization was highly questionable---

Expert evidence, including medical opinion, must be from a duly

qualified and authorized person---Any doubt on authority could

affect the weight of the evidence---Moreover, said witness stated

that the "time of death as well as duration between injury and

death" was mentioned "as per police document"---Said fact indicated

that Medical Officer did not independently ascertain those crucial

timings but relied on the police version, thereby failing to provide

independent medical corroboration on that aspect---Medical Officer

admitted that he did not record temperature of the dead body" and

"did not use any measuring scale" for injury measurements, relying

solely on his "experience"---Said witness also did not specify the

length of injuries at different points or observe which injury was

owe of fracture---Such omissions diminished the scientific rigor and

evidentiary value of the postmortem report---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Improvement made

by complainant in his statement---Accused was charged for

committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---

Complainant made a most glaring improvement by way of  introduction of "M as an accused in his Court deposition---

Complainant clearly admitted in cross-examination that this was not

written in the FIR---Said fact constituted a material and dishonest

improvement, indicating an attempt to bolster the prosecution case

by introducing details not present in the earliest version---Moreover,

complainant failed to state when the dispute occurred, if it was

reported to the police, or if any faisla (settlement) was conducted---

Complainant also did not mention in the FIR that accused was part

of the earlier dispute, only voluntarily adding this in Court as an

afterthought to connect the appellant to the alleged motive---Said

omissions weakened the prosecution's stated motive---Complainant

did not mention in the FIR the conveyance used by witnesses,

voluntarily adding in Court that they came on motorcycle---

Complainant stated that he and witnesses were sitting in veranda in

its north corner, which contradicted other witness who stated that

they were in the centre and another witness who stated northern

side but also implied sitting together---Such discrepancies, though

seemingly minor, reflected inconsistent observations among the key

witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-

witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused

was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant

by firing---Complainant admitted that the accused did not cause any

injury to him and the witnesses, and they did not resist or call for

help---Such passive conduct from witnesses to a brutal murder,

especially when they claimed to be present during the entire

incident, was unnatural and raised questions about their actual

presence or ability to observe---Unnatural conduct could render eye-

witness testimony doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed,

in circumstances.

Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali v. The State 2025 SCMR 281

rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-associating

private witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of

the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant admitted that people were available at the time of incident and even named

several persons, but their names were not mentioned in the FIR---

Investigating Officer did not ask anyone being mashir, which was a

critical lapse when the place was described as "busy" and it

suggested a deliberate avoidance of independent evidence---Appeal

against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Nasarullah Khan v. The State 2022 YLR-N 205 rel.

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

----Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time

of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons,

unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Inconsistency

regarding sequence of events---Accused were charged for

committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---

Complainant confirmed that the Investigating Officer, was his

"neighbour and friend," which inherently compromised the

impartiality of the investigation---Complainant stated that he lodged

the FIR before burial of deceased, but later contradicted himself by

saying that after burial, he along with witnesses went to Police

Station at 05:00 p.m. and lodged the FIR---Apart from this all the

proceedings were held before the registration of the FIR---Such

fundamental inconsistency regarding the sequence of events at a

crucial stage (proceeding before FIR and subsequent FIR lodgment)

undermined his credibility---Appeal against conviction was allowed,

in circumstances.

(h) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single reasonable doubt arises

from the evidence, its benefit must unequivocally accrue to the

accused, leading to acquittal.

Habibullah G. Ghouri for Appellant.

Mazhar Ali Bhutto for the Complainant.

Sardar Ali Solangi, D.P.G for the State.

Date of hearing: 24th July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

KHALID HUSSAIN SHAHANI, J.---Appellant Ghulam Akbar Chandio

has challenged the judgment dated 08.08.2024, passed by the learned

I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Larkana, in Sessions Case No. 446

of 2021, emanating out of FIR No. 05 of 2021, registered at Police

Station Seehar, whereby convicted for offence under section 302(b)

P.P.C and sentenced to life imprisonment as Tazir; besides, to pay Rs.300000/ to the legal heirs of deceased as compensation, and in

default of payment thereof to undergo SI for six months. He was also

convicted for offence under section 148 P.P.C and sentenced to SI for

three years. Both the sentences to run concurrently, with benefit

under section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on

03.05.2021 at about 1130 hours, the complainant Ashiq Ali Chandio

along with his brother Meer Muhammad alias Dholo was present at

their general store in village Samtia. At the relevant time, their

relatives Aijaz Ali and Illahi Bux had also joined them. While they

were sitting outside the shop, accused Azizullah, Ghulam Akbar

(appellant), Muhammad Parial alias Paroo (all armed with pistols),

Riaz (armed with a repeater), and an unidentified individual, riding

on two motorcycles, arrived. Accused Azizullah allegedly instigated

the others to kill the complainant's brother. Thereafter, Ghulam

Akbar, Muhammad Parial and Riaz allegedly fired at the deceased,

causing him fatal head injuries, and he succumbed on the spot. After

the postmortem and burial, the FIR was lodged inter alia on above

facts.

3. Following registration of the case, the investigation was

conducted and challan was submitted, showing the appellant in

custody while co-accused Azizullah, Muhammad Parial, Riaz and an

unknown absconding. The appellant was charged for offence under

Sections 302, 114, 148, and 149 P.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses,

including the complainant, eye-witnesses, mashirs, medical officer,

and investigating officer. The defense produced ASI Mumtaz Ali from

PS Korangi as a witness and relied upon documentary entries showing

that the appellant had been arrested in Karachi on 23.06.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case

is built upon fabricated and contradictory evidence. He argued that

the ocular account was not supported by medical evidence, as the eye-

witnesses claimed the deceased was sitting when shot, while the

doctor stated the injuries indicated the deceased was lying down. He

further argued that the sketch of the scene prepared by the Tapedar

contradicts the location of the accused persons and the position of the

deceased. He submitted that the arrest and recovery are patently false

and stage-managed. The official record from PS Korangi shows that the

accused was arrested in Karachi on 23.06.2021, thereby negating the

alleged recovery of the weapon on 24.06.2021 in Seehar. He further

submitted that no independent witnesses were examined despite the

incident occurring in a market, and that all prosecution witnesses are

related to the deceased. He highlighted that the motive alleged by the prosecution i.e. dispute over children remained unproven, vague, and

unsupported by any documentary or oral evidence. He also pointed

out that the prosecution introduced the name of another accused

during trial, which was not mentioned in the FIR, reflecting dishonest

improvement. He further argued that the pistol allegedly recovered

from the possession of accused was not sent for forensic examination.

The FSL report produced by the prosecution only showing about the

emptie of 12 bore and 30 bore, however no cross-matching with the

alleged recovery of pistol from accused is available. He also argued

that the accused in that case is acquitted. He also argued that the

learned trial court has termed the arrest of accused as dubious and if

the arrest of accused is doubtful, the other testimonies cannot be

recorded as a reason for conviction, therefore the learned trial court

erred while passing the impugned judgment. In view of these

contradictions and omissions, he prayed that the appellant be

acquitted.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and

the learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution

had successfully established the guilt of the appellant through

consistent and trustworthy ocular account supported by medical

evidence. They submitted that the presence of the complainant and

witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and established, and

that the delay in lodging the FIR was justifiable on the ground that the

complainant had first attended the burial of the deceased. They

further argued that minor contradictions in statements of witnesses do

not affect the prosecution case and should not be given undue weight.

The learned DPG supported the conviction on the ground that the

evidence brought on record by the prosecution had not been shattered

in cross-examination.

6. This Court has undertaken a meticulous and comprehensive

scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the entirety of the trial record, the

evidentiary material adduced by both the prosecution and the defense,

and the cogent arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all

parties. The fundamental jurisprudential inquiry guiding criminal

adjudication is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as per the

dictum laid down in the recent judgment of the Honorable Supreme

Court in a case reported as Muhammad Qasim v. The State (2025 SCMR

880), wherein the Honorable Supreme Court was in a strict view that;

It is an axiomatic principle of law that the benefit of doubt is always

extended in favor of the accused. The case of the prosecution if

found to be doubtful then every doubt even the slightest is to be

resolved in favor of the accused. In this regard reliance may be placed on case titled, "Muhammad Mansha v. The State" (2018

SCMR 772) and case titled, "Abdul Jabbar v. The State and

another (2019 SCMR 129).

This principle dictates that if a single reasonable doubt arises from

the evidence, its benefit must unequivocally accrue to the accused,

leading to acquittal. It is within this crucial framework that the

learned trial court's judgment is being subjected to rigorous appellate

review.

7. A re-evaluation of the prosecution s ocular account reveals

glaring contradictions, embellishments, and inconsistencies that

collectively render the version unreliable. The complainant (PW-4)

and eye-witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6), who were closely related to the

deceased, narrated the sequence of events, but their accounts

contradict the physical evidence presented through the Tapedar s

sketch (Ex.9/B), which places the assailants inside the shop, while the

eye-witnesses assert that the accused fired from outside. Such a

material contradiction regarding the locus of occurrence impugns the

credibility of the entire account. Reliance is placed on the case of

Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731) and

Ahmed Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 781).

8. Further, the name of one of the accused Muhbat appears

nowhere in the FIR but is introduced during the trial. This is a classic

example of dishonest improvement. As enunciated in case of

Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State (2025 SCMR 662 SC) it was

enunciated that material improvements not found in earlier versions

render subsequent statements unreliable. Moreover, the failure to

associate any independent witness, despite the incident occurring at a

public place, remains an unrectified lapse. As per the case of Nasir

Butt (Supra), the testimony of witnesses must be corroborated by

independent evidence, which is conspicuously missing here.

Moreover, the PW-1 Ghulam Rabani (Tapedar) who was examined at

Ex.09 and he prepared sketch (Ex.9/B) depicts Point B, where the

accused were "said to be standing," as inside the shop. This directly

contradicts the consistent ocular testimony of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6,

who claimed the accused fired from outside the shop or from the

veranda. This is not a minor inconsistency but a fundamental

contradiction concerning the very scene and mechanics of the crime,

which gravely impacts the reliability of the prosecution's story. Such

material contradictions going to the root of the case can vitiate the

entire prosecution evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of

Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741). Apart from this,

PW-1 admitted that he did not produce any document suggesting that

the Mukhtiarkar directed him to prepare the sketch. He also failed to state in his examination-in-chief when he made the verbal request to

the police or how he precisely measured the distances. These

omissions indicate a lack of proper official procedure in preparing a

crucial piece of physical evidence, raising questions about its

authenticity and reliability.

9. PW-2 PC Nadeem, examined at Ex.10 initially stated Samtia village

is 3 K.M. from the PS, but then changed it to 5 K.M. Similarly, he stated

Taluka Hospital Dokri is 10 K.M. away, then altered it to 25/30 K.M.

These significant discrepancies concerning basic geographical facts

raise concerns about his truthfulness and memory. It is settled

principle of law that the falsus in uni is falsus in omnibus. In cross-

examination, PW-2 was directly confronted with the suggestion that he

"neither had received dead body nor I handed over same to brother of

deceased in fact all documents have been prepared at PS by WHC at

the time of preparation of challan." While he denied it, this suggestion,

when viewed alongside other procedural lapses by the IO, casts a

shadow on the genuineness of the documents he attested. He could not

remember the name of the medical officer to whom he handed over

the dead body for postmortem. Such a lapse concerning a critical step

in the chain of custody of the deceased's body is notable. Conversely,

the P.W-03 CMO Dr. Zulfiqar Ali explicitly admitted, "I am not

designated as Medico Legal Officer," and "I have not produced any

document authorizing to me to conduct postmortem," voluntarily

adding he was "verbally directed to do so." The legal validity of a

postmortem conducted by an officer without proper designation or

official authorization is highly questionable. Expert evidence,

including medical opinion, must be from a duly qualified and

authorized person. Any doubt on authority can affect the weight of the

evidence. Moreover, he stated that the "time of death as well as

duration between injury and death" was mentioned "as per police

document." This indicates he did not independently ascertain these

crucial timings but relied on the police version, thereby failing to

provide independent medical corroboration on this aspect. He

admitted he "did not record temperature of the dead body" and "did

not use any measuring scale" for injury measurements, relying solely

on his "experience." He also did not specify the length of injuries at

different points or observe which injury was fractured. Such

omissions diminish the scientific rigor and evidentiary value of the

postmortem report. P.W -3 stated that "deceased sustained injury No.1

while sitting while the person making fire was standing." He further

added, "The deceased was lying down when he received injury No.2."

and "Firing was made at the deceased from his front." These

statements about the deceased's position and the direction of firing ("from his front" for injury 2) introduce inconsistencies with the

singular narrative of sudden firing on a sitting person.

10. Moving further, PW-4 Ashiq Ali (Complainant - Ex. 12) make a

most glaring improvement by way of introduction of "Muhbat" as an

accused in his court deposition. He clearly admitted in cross-

examination, "It is true that this is not written in the FIR." This

constitutes a material and dishonest improvement, indicating an

attempt to bolster the prosecution case by introducing details not

present in the earliest version. Reliance is placed on the case of Javaid

Akber v. Muhammad Amjad alias Jameel alias Jeela (2016 SCMR 1241).

Moreover, he failed to state when the dispute occurred, if it was

reported to the police, or if any faisla (settlement) was conducted. He

also did not mention in the FIR that accused Ghulam Akbar was part of

the earlier dispute, only voluntarily adding this in court as an

afterthought to connect the appellant to the alleged motive. These

omissions weaken the prosecution's stated motive. He did not mention

in the FIR the conveyance used by witnesses, voluntarily adding in

court that "they came on motorcycle." He stated, "I and witnesses were

sitting in veranda in its north corner," which contradicts PW-5 who

stated they were in the "centre" and PW-6 who stated "northern side"

but also implied sitting together. Such discrepancies, though seemingly

minor, reflect inconsistent observations among the key witnesses. He

admitted, "the accused did not cause any injury to me and the

witnesses," and "we did not resist or call for help. Voluntarily says we

did not have the opportunity to do so." This passive conduct from

witnesses to a brutal murder, especially when they claim to be present

during the entire incident, is unnatural and raises questions about

their actual presence or ability to observe. Reliance is placed on the

case of 2025 SCMR 281 (case of Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias

Ghazali v. The State), wherein it was depicted that unnatural conduct

can render eye-witness testimony doubtful. Complainant admitted that

"people were available at the time of Incident" and even named

several (Muhammad Iqbal Kandhro, Shahnawaz Soomro, etc.), but

their names were "not mentioned in the FIR," and the Investigating

Officer "did not ask anyone being mashir." This is a critical lapse when

the place is described as "busy," and suggests a deliberate avoidance of

independent evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Nasarullah

Khan v. The State (2022 YLR-N 205), wherein Sindh High Court

observed that;

No explanation in this regard has been furnished by the prosecution

and so also no efforts were made by the complainant to secure

the independent witness. It is by now well-established principle

of law that despite of availability of independent/neutral

witnesses on spot, non-examination of such witnesses draws an inference in view of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,

1984, that if they had been examined, they would not have

supported the case of prosecution, therefore, non-compliance of

provision of Section 103, Cr.P.C. creates doubt in the prosecution

story. In this regard, we are supported with the cases of Mushtaq

Ahmed v. The State reported in PLD 1996 SC 574 and The State

through Advocate General, Sindh v. Bashir and others reported

in PLD 1997 SC 408.

11. Moving ahead, the complainant confirmed that the Investigating

Officer, ASI Sadaruddin Jiskani, is his "neighbour and friend," which

inherently compromises the impartiality of the investigation. He

stated, "I lodged the FIR before burial of deceased," but later

contradicted himself by saying, "After burial, I along with witnesses

went to PS at 1700 hours and lodged the FIR." Apart from this all the

proceedings were held before the registration of the FIR. This

fundamental inconsistency regarding the sequence of events at a

crucial stage (proceeding before FIR and subsequent FIR lodgment)

undermines his credibility.

12. PW-5 Illahi Bux (Eye-Witness - Ex. 13) likewise P.W-04 introduced

"Muhbat" as an accused, a name not present in the FIR. Similar to PW-

4, he did not state the date/time/place of the initial dispute, or the

names of the children involved, weakening the stated motive. He

stated, "We were sitting together in the center of veranda," which

contradicts PW-4's "north corner" and PW-6's vague "northern side."

He stated the deceased was sitting at "6/7 feet from the shutter,"

differing from PW-4's "12 feet" and PW-6's "3 or 4 feet." Such variations

on key observational details weaken the collective ocular account. He

admitted it's "not written in my statement before the police that the

accused overpowered us," and that "accused did not cause us any

harm except the deceased," and "we did not offer resistance or raise

cries." This reinforces the unnatural conduct observed in PW-4. He

stated, "My clothes did not have blood stains; complainant's clothes

had blood stains." This directly contradicts PW-4 who stated, "Clothes

of me and witnesses did not have blood stains." This is a significant

contradiction between two key prosecution witnesses. He admitted

that "many people gathered at the place of incident and witnessed the

incident. It is true that none from those people has been cited as

witness." This further exposes the selective collection of evidence.

Identically, PW-6 Aijaz Ali (Eye-Witness - Ex. 14) introduced "Muhbat"

as an accused, a name not in the FIR, he too failed to provide details on

the initial dispute, further undermining the motive, he stated, "We

were sitting in veranda from northern side," which conflicts with the

specific positions given by PW-4 and PW-5. He stated the deceased was

sitting at "3 or 4 feet from shutter of the shop," which is different from both PW-4 and PW-5. Similar to other ocular witnesses, he did not

state in his statement that they offered resistance or were

overpowered, reinforcing the unnatural conduct. He stated, "About

20/25 people gathered there; they saw the accused while going," yet

none were made witnesses, highlighting the investigative lapse.

13. PW-7 Sajjan Ali (Mashir - Ex. 15/A) is the complainant's uncle and

explicitly stated, "I acted as mashir as complainant asked me to." This

immediately renders his testimony as an interested mashir requiring

independent corroboration, which is absent. The evidence of an

interested mashir requires substantial corroboration in view of Saeed

Noor v. State (2024 PCr.LJ 1021). He confirmed that despite "people of

different communities were available at the time of preparation of

memo. Ex.15/A," the police "did not ask the people who had gathered

to act as mashir." This points to a deliberate failure by the IO to follow

proper procedure. He stated that PC Bakhat Ali wrote the memos, but

then admitted, "memos do not show that the same were written by

Bakhat Ali" and "none of the document bear signature of Bakhat Ali."

This seriously undermines the authenticity and integrity of the

mashirnamas. He stated that "point B is shown in the sketch Ex.9/B

inside shop and point A is at the counter of the shop," which is a clear

admission of the discrepancy between the sketch and the ocular

account regarding the accused's position. He admitted, "I don't know

the procedure of sealing," and when asked if police did not seal in his

presence, he said, "It is incorrect to suggest that police did not seal the

case property in my presence," implying doubt. He also stated the SIO

sealed clothes and obtained "only one signature of me," indicating

improper attestation.

14. The important and foremost evidence of PW-8 SIP Saddaruddin

(Investigating Officer - Ex. 16) is also not free from fatal contradictions

and fabrication in arrest and recovery of the accused. This witness's

testimony is the most damning for the prosecution's case, revealing

blatant fabrications regarding the appellant's arrest and the alleged

recovery of the weapon. Who Wrote Memo. of Arrest? He claimed "PC

Oshaq wrote the memo. of arrest" but then stunningly admitted that

"PC Oshaq was not the member of arresting party." This is a direct

admission of fabrication of an official document by the IO himself. He

asserted, "It is true that number is visible from the pistol," directly

contradicting the memo. of recovery (Ex.16/L) which states, "the

number of pistol was erased." This is a material contradiction on a

crucial piece of physical evidence. He stated he saw the accused from

"3 or 4 paces" and "I apprehended him," contradicting PW-9 PC Nazir's

version of "10 paces" and "I and PC Naeem apprehended him." When

directly asked if "SHO Altaf Hussain arrested accused Ghulam Akbar

from Karachi on 23.6.2021 and maintained entry at PS Korangi," he dishonestly replied, "I don't know." This denial is utterly false, as the

defense witness DW-1 ASI Mumtaz Ali later firmly established this

prior arrest with official records (Ex.21/A, Ex.21/B). This demonstrates

a deliberate attempt by the IO to conceal the truth and perpetuate a

false narrative and a dishonest denial. Such deliberate falsehoods by

the IO, particularly concerning arrest and recovery, undermine the

entire investigation. He admitted, "I did not ask independent persons

to act as mashirs," despite acknowledging that the "place of incident is

at busy road in a populated village [and] Various people were

available." This deliberate omission, combined with the IO's close ties

to the complainant, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the

recovery and other memos were managed. The failure to associate

independent witnesses from a populated area where they were

available renders the recovery highly doubtful and suspicious. He

admitted that memos (like Lash Chakas Form and Danishnama) did not

denote who wrote them, despite him claiming PC Bakhat Ali wrote

them. He also admitted "time of entry and FIR is same," which suggests

a mechanical and potentially pre-written FIR, devoid of natural flow of

events. The other biasness showing in his evidence when he confirmed

the complainant was his "neighbour and friend," further strengthening

the defense's claim of a managed investigation.

15. Another aspect of the case that PW-9 PC Nazir Ahmed (Mashir of

Arrest/Recovery examined at Ex. 17) He stated, "ASI received spy

information at about 1545 hours," contradicting the IO's earlier

testimony of "1.50 or 1.55 pm" and arrest at "1400 hours." He stated he

saw the accused from "about 10 paces" and "I and PC Naeem

apprehended him," contradicting the IO's "3 or 4 paces" and "I

apprehended him." His testimony that "WPC Oshaq wrote memo. of

site inspection" is inconsistent with the IO's testimony about PC Oshaq

writing the arrest memo, and the fact that Oshaq was not part of the

party. These internal inconsistencies within the police party's evidence

are destructive to its credibility. He falsely claimed, "No one was

available that is why ASI did not induct any private person as mashir,"

despite the complainant and PW-7 confirming the presence of

numerous people at the busy location. This is a clear attempt to cover

up a procedural flaw. His denial that "we have falsely Implicated

accused showing his arrest on 24.6.2021" directly clashes with the

compelling defense evidence (DW-1) and the IO's own admissions. P.W-

10 Sada Hussain admitted that, "my name is not mentioned in the

R.C.," which is a significant procedural flaw in maintaining the chain

of custody for crucial case property. He stated, "It is true that I have

deposited the case property or dates then those of R.Cs." This indicates

discrepancies in the timeline of depositing evidence, further weakening the chain of custody and casting doubt on the integrity of

the collected items.

16. The overwhelming evidence pointing to a fabricated arrest and

recovery of the alleged crime weapon is the gravest infirmity in the

prosecution's case. The direct evidence of DW-1 ASI Mumtaz Ali, an

independent police officer with no discernible motive to lie,

demonstrating that the appellant was arrested a day earlier by PS

Korangi and handed over to Seehar police, completely discredits the

prosecution's narrative of arrest and recovery on 24.06.2021. The IO's

(PW-8) and Mashir's (PW-9) material contradictions, outright

falsehoods regarding the memo. writer, and the pistol's features, all

confirm the fabrication. When the very act of arrest and the purported

discovery of a crucial piece of evidence (the weapon) are

demonstrably proven to be manipulated or false, it creates an

insurmountable reasonable doubt regarding the entire prosecution

story. This is not merely a technical defect but a profound indication of

a dishonest investigation aimed at securing a conviction by any means.

The superior courts of Pakistan have consistently held that a doubtful

recovery cannot be used to corroborate ocular evidence, and if a

recovery is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit must

unequivocally go to the accused. A false recovery tends to cast a

serious doubt on the entire prosecution case.

17. The cumulative effect of the multitude of contradictions,

significant omissions, dishonest improvements, embellishments, and

blatant fabrications by the prosecution witnesses, particularly the

Investigating Officer, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the

prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular account, though appearing

consistent on the surface, emanates from interested witnesses whose

presence is dubious given their distant residences and the conspicuous

absence of independent public witnesses from a busy locality. This

account is further tainted by dishonest improvements not found in the

FIR and material contradictions with the physical evidence (Tapedar's

sketch). The medical evidence, while confirming death by firearm, is

from a doctor whose authority and procedural adherence are

questionable.

18. Most critically, the entire edifice of the prosecution's

corroborative evidence collapses with the unequivocal proof that the

appellant's alleged arrest and the recovery of the crime weapon were

fabricated. Such a profound flaw in the investigation inherently

infects the entire prosecution case, rendering it unsafe to rely upon

any part of its evidence for conviction. The benefit of these

insurmountable doubts must, by all canons of criminal justice, be extended to the appellant. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law

that if a single reasonable doubt arises from the evidence, its benefit

must unequivocally accrue to the accused, leading to acquittal.

19. For the aforementioned reasons, and the foregoing detailed

discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to

establish the charge against the appellant Ghulam Akbar beyond

reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of the material contradictions

in the ocular account, the dishonest improvements made by the

prosecution witnesses, the fundamental discrepancies between the

ocular account and the site plan, and most critically, the utterly

dubious and fabricated nature of the appellant's arrest and the alleged

recovery of the crime weapon, creates an insurmountable reasonable

doubt in the prosecution's narrative. The benefit of this doubt must, by

all canons of justice, accrue to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is

allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I-

Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Larkana, vide judgment dated

08.08.2024, are hereby set aside. The appellant Ghulam Akbar is

acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required

in any other case. The case against other absconding co-accused shall

be kept on dormant file till finalization. The case property order will

remain in field.

JK/G-23/Sindh Appeal allowed.