2026 P Cr. L J 733

 2026 P Cr. L J 733

[Sindh]

Before Ali Haider Ada , J

MEHBOOB ALI MALLAH---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-526 of 2022, decided on 22nd September,

2025.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not

proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his

wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Prosecution case initiated

with the evidence of the complainant, who stated that they

proceeded to the house of the deceased, the wife of the appellant,

with whom she had two children---Prosecution's theory was founded

primarily on the alleged motive that the appellant, being annoyed

by the presence of the complainant (the father of the deceased) and

his son (the brother of the deceased), committed the murder of his

wife---However, this purported motive appeared inherently flawed

and questionable---Moreover, it was confusing why, if the appellant

was aggrieved by the presence of the complainant and his son, he

did not cause them any harm but instead targeted his wife---

Prosecution failed to explain this crucial inconsistency---According

to the prosecution's own narrative, the appellant was annoyed by

the complainant and his son, yet it was the deceased who suffered

fatal consequences, while the complainant and his son were left

unharmed---Said aspect strained the probability of the prosecution's

version and raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the

alleged motive---Furthermore, the complainant himself testified

before the Trial Court that the deceased had never expressed any

grievance or lodged any complaint against the appellant---There was

no evidence of any prior dispute between the husband and wife---

Said absence of any known animosity or motive weakened the

prosecution's case considerably---Even assuming that the statements

of the prosecution's ocular witnesses were accepted as truthful, the

question remained why did the appellant spare the complainant and

his son, who were unarmed and vulnerable, despite being allegedly

annoyed with them---Said fact that these witnesses survived without

harm and had given statements against the appellant undermined

the credibility of the prosecution's narrative and invited serious

scrutiny---Mode and manner of the occurrence, as presented by the prosecution, did not appeal to logic or reason---They were fraught

with improbabilities and inconsistencies, which rendered the entire

prosecution story suspected---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

Mehrullah v. The State 2025 YLR 761; Abdul Ghaffar and others v.

The State 2023 PCr.LJ 769; Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State

2024 SCMR 1449 and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The

State and others 2024 SCMR 1507 rel.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account

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

wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Complainant testified that

the deceased received multiple pellet injuries specifically eight

pellets on the left abdominal region, which, as per his testimony,

occurred while she was sitting with her baby on her lap---Said fact

raised a serious question of probability and credibility---If the baby

was indeed seated on the deceased's lap at the time of the incident,

it was highly improbable that the deceased could have sustained

multiple pellet injuries in the immediate abdominal area without

the baby sustaining any injury---Lap area, being directly beneath the

baby's position, would naturally expose the infant to similar harm in

such an event---However, the prosecution had not produced any

evidence indicating that the baby suffered even a single injury---

Such glaring discrepancy casted grave doubt on the prosecution's

version of events and undermined the reliability of the

complainant's testimony---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Inconsistency

in reporting the matter to police---Accused was charged for

committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---

Complainant, during his deposition, initially stated that he himself

informed the police about the occurrence---However, complainant

subsequently improved his version, asserting that the police were

actually called by the accused's uncle, DM , who brought the police

to the scene---In contrast, the Duty Officer on record testified that he

received information about the incident through a phone call from

one AB ---Duty Officer maintained that the Roznamcha Entry No. 7

was made on the basis of that call, which specifically mentioned that

the accused/appellant had committed the murder of his wife---Said

information was reportedly received at about 1:00 p.m. on the day of

the incident---Testimony of the Duty Officer further casted doubt on

the prosecution's case---In his examination-in-chief, Duty Officer stated that the complainant himself appeared at the police station

on 30-03-2019 and that the first entry was recorded accordingly---

However, a close scrutiny of the official entry revealed that it was

actually made on the basis of information received from AB ---Such

contradiction between the oral testimony of the Duty Officer and the

documentary record raised serious questions regarding the

reliability of his testimony---Inconsistency undermined the

prosecution's version of the sequence of events and further

weakened the chain of evidence---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of

doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of

occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder

of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that

the initial identification of the dead body before the Medical Officer

and subsequent post-mortem report exclusively referenced the

presence of AB ---Conversely, the presence of the complainant and

the alleged eye-witness was not reflected in any official record or

medical documentation---Said fact raised serious doubts about the

actual presence of the complainant and eye-witness at the crime

scene, particularly since they claimed to have come from their

native place and positioned themselves as eye-witnesses to the

occurrence---Furthermore, the prosecution had failed to clarify or

produce evidence regarding who informed AB about the incident,

creating a significant gap in the chain of information and

investigation---Omission of this crucial link severely undermined

the prosecution's case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd-

--Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness---Adverse

presumption---Accused was charged for committing murder of his

wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Most importantly, the

prosecution did not examine AB as a witness, despite his evidently

pivotal role as the first informer and a participant in the medical

identification process---Failure to produce such a vital witness, who

could have substantiated key aspects of the case, amounted to

withholding material evidence---Said omission invited an adverse

inference against the prosecution under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat, 1984, which empowered the Court to draw unfavorable

conclusions where a party suppressed or withheld evidence within

its control---Moreover, while the prosecution moved an application to summon the Tapedar, it conspicuously failed to seek permission

to produce AB , the most significant marginal witness in this case---

Said selective approach further highlighted the weakness in the

prosecution's evidence and raised doubts about the completeness of

the case presented against the appellant---Appeal against conviction

was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others 2025

SCMR 662 and Raisat Ali and another v. the State and another 2024

SCMR 1224 rel.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt-

--Delay of 21-hours in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged

for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing-

--Record revealed that the incident occurred on 30-03-2019, and the

first entry regarding the incident was made on the same day based on

information provided by one AB ---Subsequently, the police

approached the place of incident and initiated certain preliminary

formalities prior to the registration of the FIR---However, despite

those actions, the FIR was not lodged promptly; rather, there was an

unexplained delay of approximately more than 21 hours before its

registration---Such an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, without

any plausible or satisfactory explanation, seriously weakened the

prosecution's case---Said fact raised a strong presumption that the

delay was deliberate and planed, potentially to manipulate or

influence the narrative of the incident, which created a strong

inference that the legal heirs were perhaps induced or persuaded to

lodge the FIR after some consideration or external influence---

Consequently, the presence and involvement of the complainant and

the alleged eye-witness at the time of the incident became highly

doubtful---Moreover, it was probable that they were informed of the

incident after the fact and subsequently posed as eye-witnesses,

lodging the FIR with an afterthought narrative---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zafar v. The State 2018 SCMR 326 Muhammad Ashraf v. The State

2025 SCMR 1082 and Kashmir alias Soba Khan v. The State 2025 YLR

1401 rel.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Medical

evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of

his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---According to the

testimony of the Woman Medical Officer, rigor mortis and

postmortem lividity were both present on the body at the time of

examination---However, during cross-examination, the Woman Medical Officer deposed that she was unable to determine the time

between the occurrence of injuries and death---Rather, Woman

Medical Officer confined herself to merely noting the time of

examination of the dead body, without making any concrete effort to

assess the probable time of death or the timing of the injuries---

Postmortem examination, as per the report, commenced on 30-03-

2019 at 2:00 p.m. and was completed at 3:30 p.m.---If rigor mortis

had already developed by that time, it casted serious doubt on the

prosecution's claim that death occurred at 12:30 p.m. on the same

day---Presence of rigor mortis at the time of postmortem (2:00 p.m.

to 3:30 p.m.) suggested that death might have occurred significantly

earlier than 12:30 p.m., as claimed---Thus, if the presence of rigor

mortis at the time of examination was accepted, than the same

undermined the prosecution's asserted timeline and created a

serious doubt regarding the exact time of death---Such inconsistency

was material and would go to the root of the prosecution's case,

thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2024 YLR 222 and Sajid Mehmood v.

The State 2022 SCMR 1882 rel.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Non-production

of last worn clothes of deceased---Effect---Accused was charged for

committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---

Prosecution had notably failed to produce any conclusive evidence

regarding the last worn clothes of the deceased, which were

allegedly pierced by gunshot pellets---Chemical Examiner, despite

examining the said clothes, remained completely silent on the

critical aspect of the presence of holes or pellets on the garments---

Likewise, the Medical Officer did not address this point during her

testimony---Furthermore, the memo. prepared for the seizure of the

clothes did not mention any holes or pellet marks---In cases

involving capital punishment, it was the paramount duty of the

prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstances

with utmost clarity and precision---Absence of such forensic

evidence created a serious lacuna and broke the continuity of the

prosecution's case---Said failure to establish the presence of pellets

in the deceased's clothes casted doubt on the authenticity and

completeness of the prosecution's narrative, which weakened the

evidentiary value of the chain of circumstances relied upon for

conviction---In the present case, as per the Chemical Examiner's

report, human blood was detected on the clothes and the blood-

stained earth recovered---However, a significant lacuna in the

prosecution's case arose from the investigative agency's failure to determine and establish the blood groups of the deceased persons---

There was no evidence on record regarding their blood grouping,

nor had any attempt been made to match the blood stains found on

the exhibits with the blood group of the deceased---Prosecution had

also failed to obtain or produce any evidence concerning the blood

grouping of the deceased in order to rule out the possibility that the

blood found on the recovered clothes might have belonged to the

deceased herself---In such circumstances, the forensic report merely

stating the presence of human blood on the exhibits, without any

corroborative evidence linking it to the deceased through blood

group comparison, substantially weakened the probative value of

such forensic evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

Zahoor Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2022 YLR 189;

Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486 and Syed Jehanzaib and

another v. The State 2025 YLR 1321 rel.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of

weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Unnatural

recovery---Accused was charged for committing murder of his

wife/daughter of complainant by firing---Record showed that the

appellant was arrested on 31-03-2019 along with the crime weapon--

-However, after commission of the offence, an accused person could

not openly carry the weapon of offence while moving about in the

city---In most cases, such weapon was either concealed or disposed

of, by throwing it into a river or otherwise destroying the evidence--

-In the present case, the prosecution's stance that the appellant was

apprehended while roaming in the city coupled with the crime

weapon was against normal human conduct and the general course

of events, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the veracity of

the alleged recovery---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody

and safe transmission of the case property to the forensic laboratory

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

his wife/daughter of complainant by firing---As per record, the

concerned Station House Officer issued a letter dated 09-04-2019 to

the SSP seeking permission to send the crime weapon along with

empties for Forensic Science Laboratory examination---Said

correspondence indicated that the weapon was transmitted only

after obtaining such permission---However, the record further

reflected that the SSP had already issued a letter dated 02-04-2019 forwarding the property to the Forensic Science Laboratory for

examination---Such contradiction clearly created serious doubt as to

whether the property was already dispatched on 02-04-2019 under

the letter of the SSP, or whether it remained in police custody until

09-04-2019 when permission was sought---Such inconsistency raised

grave doubt regarding the availability and handling of the crime

weapon, thereby shattering the prosecution's claim of safe custody

and safe transmission of the case property to the Forensic Science

Laboratory---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of three

days in sending the case property to the Laboratory---Consequential-

--Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter

of complainant by firing---Record showed that the crime weapon

was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained

delay of three days---No plausible explanation had been offered for

such delay, nor was there any malkhana entry produced to show

that the property remained in safe custody during that period---

Prosecution also failed to examine the in-charge of the malkhana,

who could have explained the manner in which the property was

kept in safe custody and then transmitted to the Forensic Science

Laboratory---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State 2018 SCMR 577 and Zafar Ali

Abbasi and another v. Zafar Ali Abbasi and others 2024 SCMR 1773 rel.

(l) Criminal trial---

----Ocular account not proved---Recovery---Conviction---Scope---

Where the ocular account becomes, doubtful or unreliable, any

alleged recovery made pursuant to such account could not, by itself,

be sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence of an accused.

Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2025 SCMR 1082 rel.

(m) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single loophole or reasonable

doubt emerges on the surface of the prosecution's case, the benefit

of such doubt must invariably be extended to the accused.

Qurban Ali v. The State 2025 SCMR 1344 rel.

Ms. Gul Hafsa for Appellant.

Nasrullah Malik for the Complainant. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for

the State.

Dates of hearing: 24th February, 23rd June, 4th and 18th August,

2025.

JUDGMENT

ALI HAIDER ADA , J.---Through this Criminal Jail Appeal, the

appellant has assailed the judgment dated 11.08.2022, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I / Model Criminal Trial Court,

Thatta (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), whereby the

appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for

life in connection with Sessions Case No. 306 of 2019, arising out of FIR

No. 75 of 2019, registered at Police Station Sujawal. By the same

judgment, the appellant was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.

200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand only) as compensation to

the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the provisions of

Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In case of

default in payment of the said compensation, the appellant was

ordered to undergo an additional term of six (06) months rigorous

imprisonment. The trial court also ordered that the compensation

amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue. However, the benefit

of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C was extended to the appellant, and the period

already undergone in custody was directed to be considered towards

the fulfillment of the substantive sentence.

2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the prosecution's case, are that the

First Information Report was lodged on 31.03.2019 at about 10:00

hours, while the alleged incident took place on 30.03.2019 at about

12:30 p.m. According to the FIR, the complainant, being the father of

the deceased Mst. Husna, stated that he, along with his son namely

Hussain, proceeded towards the house of his daughter, who was

married to the accused, Mehboob Ali. Upon reaching New Saeedpur,

they found the accused Mehboob Ali present at the house. The accused

confronted them and questioned why they had come to his house.

Thereafter, the accused retrieved a gun and fired a gunshot at his wife,

Mst. Husna, who sustained the injury, fell to the ground, and

succumbed to her injuries on the spot. After committing the offence,

the accused fled from the scene. The incident was then reported to the

police. The police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site

inspection report, and conducted necessary proceedings, including the

post-mortem examination of the deceased and other formalities.

Subsequently, the FIR was registered on the complaint of the deceased

s father. 3. After the registration of the FIR, the usual investigation was

carried out by the police. During the course of investigation, on

31.03.2019, the accused was arrested, and the crime weapon was

allegedly recovered from his possession. Upon completion of the initial

investigation and other codal formalities, the final challan was

submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the

matter was taken up by the learned trial Court. In compliance with

legal procedure, the requisite documents were supplied to the

accused/appellant under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898. Subsequently, on 18.01.2020, the learned trial Court

framed a charge against the appellant. Upon being confronted with the

charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Consequently, the learned trial Court permitted the prosecution to lead

its evidence, and the trial formally commenced.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined a total of eight

(08) witnesses, PW-1, complainant appeared as Prosecution Witness

No. 1 (PW-1) and reiterated the contents of the FIR. He also produced a

certified copy of the FIR as documentary evidence. The prosecution

next examined PW-2, Hussain, the son of the complainant and an

alleged eye-witness to the occurrence. He produced the receipt of

receiving the dead body after post-mortem examination. Dr. Saba was

examined as PW-3. She conducted the post-mortem examination of the

deceased and produced the documents: Letter requesting the medical

examination of the dead body, Dead Body Examination Form, Post-

Mortem Report, Receipt of receiving the dead body. The prosecution

also examined the Tapedar as PW-4, who was summoned on an

application filed under Section 540 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the

trial court. The said witness prepared and exhibited the sketch of the

place of incident. PW-5, Qamaruddin, who was the Duty Officer at the

relevant police station on the day of the incident, testified that: The

incident was first entered in Roznamcha Entry No. 7, He prepared and

exhibited the documents: Memo. of the scene of crime, Memo. of

securing blood-stained earth and crime empty, Photographs of the

deceased, Inquest Report (Danistnama), Memo. of injuries on the

deceased, Memo. of recovery of clothes of the deceased. The

prosecution examined PW-6, Muhammad Uris, a dispatch rider, who

testified that he delivered the sealed parcels containing blood-stained

earth and clothes of the deceased to the Chemical Examiner for

forensic analysis. PW-7, Hamzo, was examined as a Mashir (witness to

the recovery), who produced and exhibited the memo. of arrest of the

accused and the memo. of recovery of the crime weapon from the

possession of the accused. The Investigating Officer, Shah Nawaz,

appeared as PW-8. He produced and exhibited several documents

including: Relevant Roznamcha entries relating to his movements during the investigation, Copy of separate FIR registered under Section

23(i) of the Sindh Arms Act, Letter addressed to the Mukhtiarkar for

demarcation/sketch purposes, Letter dated 02.04.2019 from SSP to the

Forensic Science Laboratory for ballistic examination of the weapon

and crime empty, Letter dated 09.04.2019 from SSP seeking permission

for sending the weapon to the Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science

Laboratory Report, Chemical Examiner s Report, Additional

Roznamcha entries regarding the dispatching of sealed parcels to the

relevant forensic departments. After recording the depositions of all

witnesses and exhibiting the relevant documents, the learned State

Counsel closed the prosecution side of evidence.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial

Court proceeded to record the statement of the accused/appellant

under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In his

statement, the accused denied all allegations, professed his innocence,

and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He did not

opt to record his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C, nor did

he produce any evidence in his defence. He, however, prayed for

acquittal. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court passed the

impugned judgment, whereby the appellant was convicted and

sentenced as detailed earlier. It is this judgment that is now under

challenge through the instant Criminal Jail Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution

case suffers from major contradictions and material inconsistencies,

particularly between the ocular account and other evidence on record.

It was argued that the motive, as alleged by the prosecution, remained

unsubstantiated, and no strong or convincing motive was established

against the appellant. She further submitted that there exists a clear

contradiction between the ocular version and the medical evidence,

rendering the prosecution's story highly doubtful. It was also argued

that the recovery of the alleged crime weapon is not sufficient to

sustain a conviction, especially when the manner and mode of

recovery is highly doubtful. Moreover, the prosecution failed to

establish the safe custody and secure transmission of the case

property, and there was an unexplained delay in sending the

recovered items to the forensic experts, which cast serious doubts over

the integrity of the evidence. She maintained that the case is riddled

with serious and material doubts, and therefore, the appellant is

entitled to the benefit of doubt. In conclusion, the learned counsel

prayed for the acquittal of the appellant.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant

vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that a specific and active role has been attributed to the appellant, that he shot and killed his

wife on account of his annoyance over the complainant party s visit to

his house. He submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence has

been duly established, including the recovery of the crime weapon

and the positive reports of forensic experts. He further contended that

there was no ill will or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant

to falsely implicate the appellant, and therefore, the learned trial

Court had rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of reliable and

trustworthy evidence.

8. Conversely, the learned Assistant Prosecutor General also

supported the findings of the learned trial Court and prayed for

dismissal of the appeal. He argued that the appellant was arrested the

very next day of the incident, and the recovery of the weapon was duly

effected in accordance with law. The FIR was lodged promptly, and in

the case of cold-blooded murder of a young woman, such promptness

negates the possibility of fabrication. He further submitted that the

prosecution has successfully established the chain of events linking

the appellant to the commission of the offence, and the role of the

appellant is specific and well-defined in the evidence led by the

prosecution. Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial Court was

based on sound appreciation of evidence, and no interference is

warranted by this Hon ble Court.

9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and

perused the material available on record with due judicial scrutiny.

10. The prosecution case initiates with the evidence of the

complainant, who stated that they proceeded to the house of the

deceased, Mst. Husna, the wife of the appellant, with whom she had

two children. The prosecution s theory is founded primarily on the

alleged motive that the appellant, being annoyed by the presence of

the complainant (the father of the deceased) and his son (the brother

of the deceased), committed the murder of his wife. However, this

purported motive appears inherently flawed and questionable. It is

confusing why, if the appellant was aggrieved by the presence of the

complainant and his son, he did not cause them any harm but instead

targeted his wife. The prosecution fails to explain this crucial

inconsistency. According to the prosecution s own narrative, the

appellant was annoyed by the complainant and his son, yet it is the

deceased who suffered fatal consequences, while the complainant and

his son were left unharmed. This aspect strains the probability of the

prosecution s version and raises serious doubts about the authenticity

of the alleged motive. In this context, reliance is made on the case of

Mehrullah v. The State 2025 YLR 761. Furthermore, the complainant

himself testified before the trial Court that the deceased, Mst. Husna, had never expressed any grievance or lodged any complaint against

the appellant. There was no evidence of any prior dispute between the

husband and wife. This absence of any known animosity or motive

weakens the prosecution s case considerably. Even assuming, for the

sake of argument, that the statements of the prosecution s ocular

witnesses are accepted as truthful, the question remains: why did the

appellant spare the complainant and his son, who were unarmed and

vulnerable, despite being allegedly annoyed with them? The fact that

these witnesses survived without harm and have given statements

against the appellant undermines the credibility of the prosecution s

narrative and invites serious scrutiny. The mode and manner of the

occurrence, as presented by the prosecution, do not appeal to logic or

reason. They are fraught with improbabilities and inconsistencies,

which render the entire prosecution story suspect. This position finds

support in the judgment of Abdul Ghaffar and others v. The State

(2023 PCr.LJ 769). Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Iftikhar Hussain

alias Kharoo v. The State (2024 SCMR 1449), wherein it was held that:

8. As far as motive is concerned, same stands disproved. Since, no

evidence was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the

motive of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased,

specifically in light of the fact that, petitioner/ accused has no

previous enmity with the complainant party, therefore motive

set up by the prosecution in the FIR was disbelieved by the High

Court.

Additional, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa

and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1507), wherein the

Apex Court held as follows:

9. As far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution alleged that the

appellants murdered the deceased because he forbade appellant

Muhammad Ijaz from coming to his house due to an illicit

relationship with his wife, Mst. Naseem Akhtar. Primarily, the

prosecution has failed to establish the fact of the alleged illicit

relationship between the appellants. Therefore, the alleged

motive lacks the force necessary to connect the appellants with

the commission of the offence. Without concrete evidence

proving the illicit relationship, the motive claimed by the

prosecution remains unsubstantiated and cannot be relied upon

to support the conviction. This fundamental gap in the case of

the prosecution casts significant doubt on its narrative and the

alleged motive behind the crime. 11. Another significant and troubling aspect emerging from the

deposition of the ocular set that the complainant testified that the

deceased received multiple pellet injuries specifically eight pellets on

the left abdominal region, which, as per his testimony, occurred while

she was sitting with her baby on her lap. This fact raises a serious

question of probability and credibility. If the baby was indeed seated

on the deceased s lap at the time of the incident, it is highly

improbable that the deceased could have sustained multiple pellet

injuries in the immediate abdominal area without the baby sustaining

any injury. The lap area, being directly beneath the baby's position,

would naturally expose the infant to similar harm in such an event.

However, the prosecution has not produced any evidence indicating

that the baby suffered even a single injury. This glaring discrepancy

casts grave doubt on the prosecution s version of events and

undermines the reliability of the complainant s testimony.

12. An additional critical aspect that casts serious doubt on the

prosecution s case pertains to the inconsistent versions regarding the

reporting of the incident to the police. The complainant, during his

deposition, initially stated that he himself informed the police about

the occurrence. However, he subsequently improved his version,

asserting that the police were actually called by the accused s uncle,

namely Dadoo Mallah, who brought the police to the scene. In contrast,

the duty officer on record testified that he received information about

the incident through a phone call from one Allah Bux. The duty officer

maintained that the Roznamcha Entry No. 7 was made on the basis of

this call, which specifically mentioned that the accused, Mehboob Ali,

had committed the murder of his wife. The information was

reportedly received at about 1:00 PM on the day of the incident. The

testimony of the duty officer, examined as PW-5, further casts doubt

on the prosecution s case. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that

the complainant himself appeared at the police station on 30-03-2019

and that the first entry was recorded accordingly. However, a close

scrutiny of the official entry reveals that it was actually made on the

basis of information received from Allah Bux. This contradiction

between the oral testimony of the duty officer and the documentary

record raises serious questions regarding the reliability of his

testimony. The inconsistency undermines the prosecution s version of

the sequence of events and further weakens the chain of evidence.

Given the crucial role of the first information in criminal

investigations, such discrepancies are significant and detract from the

credibility of the prosecution s case. This glaring contradiction

between the versions given by the complainant and the official police

record creates a serious question mark over the accuracy of the

prosecution s narrative. An important aspect that emerges from the record is that the first information regarding the incident was

reportedly provided by one Allah Bux Mallah. Notably, there is no

evidence on record indicating that any member of the complainant s

party formally did not inform the police of the incident, nor does any

documentation reflect such communication from their side. The initial

identification of the dead body before the medical officer and

subsequent post-mortem report exclusively reference the presence of

Allah Bux Mallah. Conversely, the presence of the complainant and the

alleged eye-witness, Hussain, is not reflected in any official record or

medical documentation. This raises serious doubts about the actual

presence of the complainant and Hussain at the crime scene,

particularly since they claimed to have come from their native place

and positioned themselves as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to clarify or produce evidence

regarding who informed Allah Bux Mallah about the incident, creating

a significant gap in the chain of information and investigation. The

omission of this crucial link severely undermines the prosecution s

case. Most importantly, the prosecution did not examine Allah Bux

Mallah as a witness, despite his evidently pivotal role as the first

informer and a participant in the medical identification process. The

failure to produce such a vital witness, who could have substantiated

key aspects of the case, amounts to withholding material evidence.

This omission invites an adverse inference against the prosecution

under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which

empowers the court to draw unfavorable conclusions where a party

suppresses or withholds evidence within its control. Moreover, while

the prosecution moved an application to summon the Tapedar, it

conspicuously failed to seek permission to produce Allah Bux Mallah,

the most significant marginal witness in this case. This selective

approach further highlights the weakness in the prosecution s

evidence and raises doubts about the completeness of the case

presented against the appellant. In this Context support is drawn from

the cases titled Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and

others 2025 SCMR 662 and Raisat Ali and another v. The State and

another 2024 SCMR 1224.

13. The record reveals that the incident occurred on 30-03-2019, and

the first entry regarding the incident was made on the same day based

on information provided by one Allah Bux. Subsequently, the police

approached the place of incident and initiated certain preliminary

formalities prior to the registration of the FIR. However, despite these

actions, the FIR was not lodged promptly; rather, there was an

unexplained delay of approximately more than 21 hours before its

registration. Such an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, without any

plausible or satisfactory explanation, seriously weakens the prosecution s case. It raises a strong presumption that the delay was

deliberate and plan, potentially to manipulate or influence the

narrative of the incident. This creates a strong inference that the legal

heirs were perhaps induced or persuaded to lodge the FIR after some

consideration or external influence. Consequently, the presence and

involvement of the complainant and the alleged eye-witness at the

time of the incident become highly doubtful. It is probable that they

were informed of the incident after the fact and subsequently posed as

eye-witnesses, lodging the FIR with an afterthought narrative. The

Honourable Supreme Court s decision in Zafar v. The State (2018 SCMR

326) is instructive in this regard, wherein it was held that an

unexplained and unjustified delay in the registration of the FIR casts

serious doubt on the prosecution s story and the reliability of the

ocular account. In view of the above, the delay in lodging the FIR

seriously dents the prosecution s case and significantly impacts the

credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In this regard, guidance may

be drawn from the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan

in the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2025 SCMR 1082),

wherein the Court observed:

4. We have noted that as per contents of the FIR, the occurrence took

place on 28.12.2012 at 7.00 a.m. but the FIR was lodged on the

said day at 12.00 (noon) and as such there is delay of about five

(05) hours in lodging the FIR. The distance between the police

station and the place of occurrence was only two furlongs. The

complainant has categorically stated in the contents of the FIR

that Moula Bakhsh succumbed to the injuries at the spot, hence it

cannot be held that the abovementioned delay in lodging the FIR

was consumed for the medical treatment of Moula Bakhsh

(deceased), in order to save his life. The complainant has further

conceded during his cross-examination that after the occurrence,

he informed his relatives namely Irshad, Ali Dost and

Muhammad Rafique through telephone about the incident, who

reached at the spot at 8.15 a.m. He further stated that the police

was also informed after arrival of his relatives at the place of

occurrence and the police reached at the spot at about 9.15 or

9.30 a.m. but even then the FIR was not lodged till 12.00 (noon).

All the above mentioned facts show that FIR was lodged after

consultation/deliberation and there was no plausible explanation

for the gross delay in lodged the FIR. The abovementioned gross

delay in lodging the FIR has created doubt regarding the

truthfulness of the prosecution story as observed in the cases

reported as "Shaukat Hussain v. The State through PG Punjab and

another" (2024 SCMR 929) and "Khial Muhammad v. The State"

(2024 SCMR 1490). underline emphasis Further, in this context reliance is placed upon the case of Kashmir

alias Soba Khan v. The State 2025 YLR 1401, as held that:

"...Even otherwise, the alleged report was lodged delay without any

explanation. The police officials reached the place of occurrence

on 29.05.2021 at 8:30 pm before the lodgment of the FIR, which

was confirmed by Abdul Hakeem IP (PW-10), who conducted the

investigation of the case. He also prepared the inquest report of

the deceased under section 174 Cr.P.C and thereafter sent the

dead bodies to civil hospital Hub, which were then examined by

PW-12 Dr. Yseen Zehri and PW-13 Dr. Reena Kohli on 29.05.2021

at 9:43 am. It was the duty of the police who should have lodged

the FIR when they reached the place of occurrence for the first

time at 8:30 am, but the concerned SHO did not do so and waited

for the complainant. Under such circumstances, the element of

deliberation and consultation cannot simply be ruled out of

consideration.

14. According to the testimony of the Lady Medical Officer, rigor

mortis and postmortem lividity were both present on the body at the

time of examination. However, during cross-examination, the doctor

deposed that she was unable to determine the time between the

occurrence of injuries and death. Rather, she confined herself to

merely noting the time of examination of the dead body, without

making any concrete effort to assess the probable time of death or the

timing of the injuries. It is noteworthy that the postmortem

examination, as per the report, commenced on 30-03-2019 at 2:00 PM

and was completed at 3:30 PM. If rigor mortis had already developed

by that time, it casts serious doubt on the prosecution's claim that

death occurred at 12:30 PM on the same day. In support of this

contention, reference is made to the judgment in Muhammad Hanif v.

The State, reported in 2024 YLR 222, wherein it was held that:

Another troubling aspect of the case is that the WMO in her

examination has admitted that rigor mortis was visibly present

in the body and it is established position having supported by

the Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology with A

Concise Medical Dictionary, that usual duration of rigor mortis is

24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer. As the

incident took place in winter and dead body already showed

signs of rigor mortis, it suggests that the death must have taken

place any time in the past 24 to 48 hours, which contradicts

prosecution's story. Another important aspect of the case is that

WMO did not mention time of the death as well as she did not

indicate that what was the gap between the incident and death,

as she only mentioned the date and time of starting of post mortem and finishing the same, meaning thereby she neither

bother to find out what was the exact time of the death, nor

chose to mention it in the post mortem, this unholy alliance with

prosecution is confidence bulldozing, least to say. In all such

cases, benefit will naturally go to the accused.

Given this guidance, and assuming the prevailing season was

summer, the presence of rigor mortis at the time of postmortem (2:00

PM to 3:30 PM) suggests that death may have occurred significantly

earlier than 12:30 PM, as claimed. Thus, the presence of rigor mortis at

the time of examination, if accepted, than the same undermines the

prosecution's asserted timeline and creates a serious doubt regarding

the exact time of death. This inconsistency is material and goes to the

root of the prosecution's case, thereby entitling the accused to the

benefit of doubt. In Sajid Mehmood v. The State (2022 SCMR 1882), the

Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan elaborated on the medico-legal

concept of rigor mortis in the context of determining the approximate

time of death, as held in the cited case that:

The phrase rigor mortis is latin with rigor meaning stiffness and

mortis meaning death. Rigor mortis is a temporary condition.

Depending on body temperature and other conditions, rigor

mortis lasts approximately for 72 hours. The phenomenon is

caused by the skeletal muscles partially contracting. The muscles

are unable to relax, so the joints become fixed in place. Factors

that affect rigor mortis include (i) temperature/weather, (ii)

physical exertion, (iii) age, (iv) body fat, (v) any illness the

person had at the time of death, (vi) sun exposure, (vii) gender,

(viii) body structure, (ix) genetics, (x) tribe and (xi) inhabitation.

15. The prosecution has also notably failed to produce any

conclusive evidence regarding the last worn clothes of the deceased,

which were allegedly pierced by gunshot pellets. The chemical

examiner, despite examining the said clothes, remained completely

silent on the critical aspect of the presence of holes or pellets on the

garments. Likewise, the medical officer did not address this point

during her testimony. Furthermore, the memo. prepared for the

seizure of the clothes does not mention any holes or pellet marks. In

cases involving capital punishment, it is the paramount duty of the

prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstances with

utmost clarity and precision. The absence of such forensic evidence

creates a serious lacuna and breaks the continuity of the prosecution s

case. This failure to establish the presence of pellets in the deceased s

clothes casts doubt on the authenticity and completeness of the

prosecution s narrative. It weakens the evidentiary value of the chain

of circumstances relied upon for conviction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Zahoor Ahmed and others v. The State and others

(2022 YLR 189), wherein it was held that:

19. On 31.03.2013 at 10:00 p.m. Dr. Furqan Hussain held the autopsy

and observed three injuries including two entry wounds and the

other was exit of injury No.2. During the cross-examination, the

Medical Officer admitted that he observed no corresponding

holes on the clothes of the deceased and had he seen any hole,

he would have definitely mentioned the same in postmortem

examination report. His statement further reflected that it was

possible that fire shots strike the body of the deceased in naked

condition.

16. In the present case, as per the Chemical Examiner's report,

human blood was detected on the clothes and the blood-stained earth

recovered. However, a significant lacuna in the prosecution's case

arises from the investigative agency s failure to determine and

establish the blood groups of the deceased persons. There is no

evidence on record regarding their blood grouping, nor has any

attempt been made to match the blood stains found on the exhibits

with the blood group of the deceased. The prosecution has also failed

to obtain or produce any evidence concerning the blood grouping of

the deceased in order to rule out the possibility that the blood found

on the recovered clothes may belong to the deceased themselves. In

such circumstances, the forensic report merely stating the presence of

human blood on the exhibits, without any corroborative evidence

linking it to the deceased through blood group comparison,

substantially weakens the probative value of such forensic evidence.

Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017

SCMR 486, wherein it was held that:

19. We have noticed that the Punjab Police invariably indulge in

such a practice which is highly improper because unless the

blood stained earth or cotton and blood stained clothes of the

victim are not sent with the same for opinion of serologist to the

effect that it was human blood on the crime weapons and was of

the same group which was available on the clothes of the victim

and the blood stained earth/cotton, such inconclusive opinion

cannot be used as a piece of corroboratory evidence.

Further, in this context, reliance is placed on the judgment in Syed

Jehanzaib and another v. The State (2025 YLR 1321), wherein it was

held that

16. An important gap in the prosecution story has been caused by

the failure of the investigative agency to obtain the blood groups

of the deceased persons. There is no evidence at all with regard to their blood grouping or whether it matched the blood stains

on the exhibits which were sent for forensic examination. The

prosecution has also not cared to obtain the blood grouping of

the deceased so as to rule out the possibility of blood on the

clothes which were allegedly recovered being their own. In this

background, the report of laboratory that human blood was

found on the exhibits without any material evidence on other

important aspects loses significance.

17. It is a surprising and significant fact that the Tapedar s sketch

produced in evidence does not indicate the positions of either the

accused or the complainant party. Instead, it merely shows the

location where the dead body of the deceased was found. The sketch

fails to depict the sequence of events or the chain of occurrence.

Support for this contention is drawn from the case of Muhammad

Shaukat and others v. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note 170). The sketch fails

to depict the spatial arrangement or sequence of events relevant to the

occurrence, thus undermining its evidentiary value.

18. While, according to the prosecution's version, the blood-stained

earth and clothes were secured on the day of the incident, it is evident

from the record that the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner

after an unexplained and abnormal delay of 10 days. No justification

or explanation for this delay has been provided by the prosecution. In

this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment titled Abdul Majeed

alias Jawa v. The State reported as 2022 YLR 1938, wherein the Hon ble

Court categorically held that:

13. The blood stained clothes and blood stained earth received to FSL

on 28th October, 2019 with the delay of more than 60 days without

any plausible explanation that where the material was kept and in

whose custody. The positive report in such circumstances cannot

benefit the prosecution. No evidence is available whether the

blood group of blood-stained clothes of deceased/injured were the

same or not. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Asif v.

The State 2017 SCMR 486, wherein it was held:--

18. Before parting with this judgment, we deem it essential to point

out that, mere sending the crime weapons, blood stains to the

chemical examiner and serologist would not serve the purpose

of the prosecution nor it will provide any evidence to inter link

different articles.

Thus, in the present case, the prosecution cannot derive any benefit

from the positive report of the Chemical Examiner due to the

inordinate and unexplained delay, which casts serious doubt on the

sanctity and chain of custody of the evidence. 19. As major discrepancies have come to the surface in the

prosecution case, it is evident from the testimony of the mashir, who

was attracted to the place of incident after its occurrence and acted as

mashir of the case. He deposed before the trial Court that he had

knowledge of the incident at about 12:00 noon and reached there at

about 12:30 p.m., by which time the incident had already taken place.

Conversely, the complainant party asserted 12:30 p.m. as the time of

the incident. Furthermore, the medical officer, in her post-mortem

report, recorded the presence of rigor mortis. All these aspects clearly

indicate that the prosecution has no definite knowledge or awareness

regarding the exact time of death of the deceased.

20. Further, according to the prosecution evidence, one Muhammad

Uris has been shown as the dispatch rider who allegedly deposited the

case property with the Chemical Examiner as well as the Forensic

Science Laboratory, for examination of clothes, blood-stained earth,

and the weapon with empties. However, the documentary record

presents an entirely different picture. The letter of the concerned SSP,

as well as the forwarding letter of the Investigating Officer, reflect that

the dispatch rider was in fact HC Sher Muhammad, and not

Muhammad Uris. Moreover, the Chemical Examiner s report itself

indicates that one HC Muhammad Yousif had handed over the sealed

parcels to the Chemical Examiner, instead of Muhammad Uris or Sher

Muhammad. Such material contradictions in the chain of custody of

the case property cast serious doubt upon the safe transmission and

sanctity of the same.

21. Now, coming to the point of recovery of the alleged weapon, it is

on record that the appellant was arrested on 31-03-2019 along with the

crime weapon. However, it is a well-settled principle of natural

conduct that ordinarily, after commission of the offence, an accused

person does not openly carry the weapon of offence while moving

about in the city. In most cases, such weapon is either concealed or

disposed of, for example by throwing it into a river or otherwise

destroying the evidence. In the present case, the prosecution s stance

that the appellant was apprehended while roaming in the city coupled

with the crime weapon is against normal human conduct and the

general course of events, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the

veracity of the alleged recovery.

22. Another surprising aspect is that the concerned Station House

Officer issued a letter dated 09-04-2019 to the SSP seeking permission

to send the crime weapon along with empties for FSL examination.

This correspondence indicates that the weapon was transmitted only

after obtaining such permission. However, the record further reflects

that the SSP had already issued a letter dated 02-04-2019 forwarding the property to the FSL for examination. This contradiction clearly

creates serious doubt as to whether the property was already

dispatched on 02-04-2019 under the letter of the SSP, or whether it

remained in police custody until 09-04-2019 when permission was

sought. Such inconsistency raises grave doubt regarding the

availability and handling of the crime weapon, thereby shattering the

prosecution s claim of safe custody and safe transmission of the case

property to the FSL.

23. It is also on record that the crime weapon was sent to the

Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained delay of three (03)

days. No plausible explanation has been offered for such delay, nor is

there any malkhana entry produced to show that the property

remained in safe custody during this period. The prosecution also

failed to examine the in-charge of the malkhana, who could have

explained the manner in which the property was kept in safe custody

and then transmitted to the FSL. Law is well-settled by now that

prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the safe custody of the

recovered weapon and its safe transmission to the Forensic Science

Laboratory as held by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of

Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State (2018 SCMR 577). Further Reliance

is placed upon the case of Zafar Ali abbasi and another v. Zafar Ali

Abbasi and others (2024 SCMR 1773), as it was held that:

9. Furthermore, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, it is

the legal obligation of the prosecution to prove each and every

link of the chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the

instant case, the alleged recovery was effected on 12.01.2017,

while the same was received at the Forensic Science Laboratory

on 16.01.2017, indicating an unexplained delay of four days. The

prosecution has failed to offer any plausible explanation for this

delay. More importantly, the prosecution has not produced any

evidence to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of

the recovered weapon. Neither the concerned malkhana official

nor the dispatch rider was examined to prove the chain of

custody. The relevant entry in Register No. 19, which is provision

under the Police Rules, 1934, was also withheld. Not a single

prosecution witness deposed that after the recovery, the case

property was kept in safe custody or entered into the

Roznamcha. It is a settled principle of law that mere production

of a positive forensic report is not sufficient to sustain a

conviction unless the prosecution establishes the integrity of the

case property through unbroken and reliable chain of custody.

In the present case, the recovery proceedings are jammed with

serious doubts and procedural lapses, which cast a shadow over

the credibility of the evidence. In such circumstances, where material inconsistencies exist and the recovery itself is rendered

doubtful, a conviction cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed

upon the case of Haji Nawaz v. The State (2020 SCMR 687).

10. Furthermore, the appellant's case is fortified by the following

case law, wherein the Superior Courts have consistently held

that where the prosecution's case is marred by major

inconsistencies, procedural flaws, and doubtful recovery, the

accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The settled principle

of law is that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt

in the mind of a prudent person, the benefit of such doubt must

be extended to the accused, as a matter of right and not of

concession.

24. It is well-established in law that where the ocular account

becomes doubtful or unreliable, any alleged recovery made pursuant

to such account cannot, by itself, be sufficient to uphold the conviction

and sentence of an accused. In the present case, the recovery is not

only incapable of corroborating the prosecution s version due to the

doubtful nature of the ocular evidence, but the recovery proceedings

themselves are riddled with serious procedural and evidentiary

lacunae. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of

Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2025 SCMR 1082), has categorically

held that:

9. Insofar as the recovery of blood stained hatchet and positive

report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.No.18/B), are concerned,

without discussing the merits and demerits of these pieces of the

prosecution evidence, it is noteworthy that as we have already

disbelieved the direct prosecution evidence, therefore, the

conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained

merely on the basis of alleged recovery of hatchet and positive

FSL report. Reference in this context may be made to the

judgments reported as "Dr. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz

(2007 SCMR 1427), 'Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others

v. The State and others' (2009 SCMR 436), 'Abdul Mateen v. Sahib

Khan and others' (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 538) and 'Nek

Muhammad and another v. The State' (PLD 1995 Supreme Court

516).

25. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if a

single loophole or reasonable doubt emerges on the surface of the

prosecution s case, the benefit of such doubt must invariably be

extended to the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

judgment of Qurban Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 1344). 26. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, and upon

thorough examination of the record, it has become crystal clear that

the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant

beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant

Mehboob Ali son of Muhammad Ayub, by caste Mallah is hereby

acquitted of the charge under Section 302, P.P.C, arising out of FIR No.

75 of 2019, registered at Police Station Sujawal. Consequently, the

conviction and sentence awarded to him through judgment dated 11-

08-2022 passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 306 of

2019 are hereby set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if

not required in any other custody case.

JK/M-116/Sindh Appeal allowed.