2026 S C M R 783

 2026 S C M R 783

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar

and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another ---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE and others ---Respondents

Criminal Petitions Nos. 346 and 417 of 2020, decided on 25th

November, 2025.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 04.03.2020, passed by the

Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Appeal

No. 500 of 2017 and Murder Reference No. 56 of 2017).

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

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Presence of eye-

witnesses and complainant at the spot doubtful---Accused was

charged for committing murder of the son of complainant through

firing---Claim of the alleged eye-witnesses that they were grazing

their cattle at the very fag end of the day seemed to be highly

improbable---Complainant's cross-examination further casted a

shadow of doubt on his presence at the spot---Complainant admitted

that someone from the spot informed him about the occurrence and

that people advised him not to approach the police station, as the

petitioner-convict was armed with a Kalashnikov and might kill him

as well---If the complainant had actually witnessed the incident, it

defied logic and normal human conduct that others would need to

apprise him of the petitioner-convict's presence or advise him not to

visit the Police Station---Petition was converted into an appeal and

was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in

circumstances.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Inconsistencies

and improbabilities in the prosecution case---Accused was charged

for committing murder of the son of complainant through firing---

Complainant himself stated that two daughters of the petitioner-

convict were married to his two sons---One daughter of accused

married to the deceased was living with complainant along with

their three children in an atmosphere described as cordial and

harmonious---Other daughter of the petitioner-convict was living in

her parental home due to strained relations with her husband H ---If deceased, against whom the petitioner-convict had no motive, was

wholly un-comprehensible---Complainant had offered no cogent

explanation as to why the petitioner-convict would commit such a

grave offence against a son-in-law with whom no animosity existed

so as to make his grand children orphans and daughter a widow---

Such inconsistencies and improbabilities made the prosecution's

case highly doubtful---Petition was converted into an appeal and

was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in

circumstances.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---No justification

for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of

occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused was

charged for committing murder of the son of complainant through

firing---Another purported eye-witness, in his examination-in-chief,

supported, in material terms, the version put forth by the

complainant---However, during cross-examination eye-witness

conceded that he was a resident of a village G and that his CNIC

reflected the same address---In these circumstances, eye-witness

clearly was a chance witness---Testimony of a chance witness was to

be relied upon after great care and caution and before reliance

could be placed upon it, such a witness must convincingly prove his

presence at the scene of occurrence through strong, natural, and

independent circumstances---Eye-witness admitted that there

existed a jungle on both sides of his house---Complainant had also

admitted the said fact by stating that eye-witness ordinarily grazed

his cattle in the jungle near his house, which was situated at a

distance of approximately 20-25 minutes' walk from the place of

occurrence---Therefore, it was highly improbable that eye-witness

would have been present at the spot at the relevant time for grazing

his cattle, particularly at that late hour of the evening---No plausible

explanation had been offered by eye-witness as to why, when

suitable grazing land existed near his own house, he chose to take

his cattle to a distant location at sunset time---Eye-witness, thus,

remained unsuccessful to prove his presence at the spot at the time

of occurrence through some strong and convincing evidence---

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused

was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Unexplained

delay of about more than five hours in lodging the FIR---

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

son of complainant through firing---As per the FIR, the occurrence took place on 14.09.2015 at 6:00 p.m., but the matter was reported to

the police at 11:20 p.m., after an unexplained delay of more than

five hours, despite the fact that the police station was merely 17

kilometers from the place of occurrence---Such delay, without any

satisfactory explanation, not only eroded the credibility of the

prosecution's case but also rendered the presence of the alleged eye-

witnesses at the time of occurrence highly doubtful---Complainant in

his report and statement had not furnished any explanation for the

said delay---Unexplained delay in reporting the occurrence created

doubt in the prosecution's case and its benefit had to be extended

and construed in favour of the accused---In absence of any plausible

explanation, the delay in lodging of FIR was always considered to be

fatal, as it casted suspicion on the prosecution story---Petition was

converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was

acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64; Zeeshan alias

Shani v. The State 2012 SCMR 428 and Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer

Khan 2010 SCMR 105 rel.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Unexplained

delay of one day in conducting the postmortem examination upon

the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was

charged for committing murder of the son of complainant through

firing---Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on

the following day of occurrence i.e. 15.09.2015 at 12:20 a.m. by

Medical Officer---No explanation, much less a plausible one, had

been furnished by the prosecution for this delay---Unexplained

delay in conducting a postmortem examination raised serious

doubts regarding the veracity of the ocular evidence and the

presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of

occurrence---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed

and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others 2017

SCMR 54; Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State 2012 SCMR 327;

Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2020 SCMR 192;

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

The State 2012 SCMR 419 rel.

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

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

weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential when ocular

account disbelieved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant through firing---Record showed that

Kalashnikov was recovered on the pointation of accused and crime

empties from the spot and there was a positive Forensic Science

Agency Report in respect thereof---However, the said recoveries

would not advance the prosecution's case because such piece of

circumstantial evidence, when the direct evidence of the

prosecution had already been disbelieved, could not form the basis

for conviction, particularly in a capital charge---Circumstantial

evidence derived its weight and efficacy only when considered in

conjunction with reliable direct evidence, and not in isolation---In

the present case, since the ocular evidence of the prosecution had

been disbelieved, therefore, the alleged recovery, by itself, could not

sustain a conviction of the petitioner-convict---Petition was

converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was

acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Ijaz Ahmed v. The State 1997 SCMR 1279; Asadullah v. The State PLD

1971 SC 541 and Saifullah v. The State 1985 SCMR 410 rel.

(g) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single circumstance which

created a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind would be sufficient to

entitle an accused to such benefit, not as a matter of grace or

concession, but as a matter of legal right.

Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah

v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel.

Basharat Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in

Criminal Petition No. 246 of 2020).

Sheikh Waqar Azeem Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for

Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 417 of 2020).

Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State (in

both cases).

Date of hearing: 25th November, 2025.

JUDGMENT

ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, J.---Muhammad Siddique, the petitioner,

charged for committing murder of Ghulam Fareed, the deceased, in

case FIR No.312 dated 14.09.2015, registered under section 302 of the

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ( P.P.C. ), at Police Station Pindigheb, District

Attock, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pindigheb. Upon

conclusion of trial, the Trial Court vide judgment dated Ol.06.2017,

convicted the petitioner under section 302(b) P.P.C. and sentenced him to death as Ta azir and to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation under

section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( the Code ) to

legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further undergo

six months simple imprisonment.

2. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi ( the High

Court ), while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-convict,

maintained his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., but commuted

the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Consequently, the High

Court answered Murder Reference No. 56 of 2017, forwarded by the

Trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence of the

petitioner-convict, in the negative vide its judgment dated 04.03.2020 (

impugned judgment ).

3. Through Criminal Petition No. 346 of 2020, the petitioner-convict

seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High

Court. Conversely, through Criminal Petition No. 417 of 2020, the

complainant-petitioner, Sikandar Din, seeks enhancement of the

sentence of the convict-respondent from imprisonment for life to the

normal penalty of death prescribed for the offence under section 302

P.P.C.

4. The prosecution s case, as unfolded in the First Information

Report (FIR) E;xh.PG/ 1, is that on 14.09.2015 Sikandar Din complainant

(PW.7) was grazing his cattle in the fields known as Ghoti Parri. At

some distance, Abdul Ghani and Rukhan Din were also grazing their

cattle. At about 06:00 p.m., Ghulam Fareed son of the complainant,

serving in Kohat Cement Factory, arrived at the spot and met his

father. When he proceeded towards Talikna, the petitioner-convict

Muhammad Sidduqe, allegedly ambushed in a Kassi armed with a

Kalashnikov, emerged and raised a Lalkara that he would teach a

lesson for desertion of his daughter Mst. Shazia and opened fire on

Ghulam Fareed, as a result, he got hit fell to the ground and died on

the spot. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by the complainant

as well as Abdul Ghani and Rukhan Din. The motive behind the crime,

according to the complainant, was that Mst. Shazia daughter of the

petitioner had been married to Muhammad Hanif, another son of the

complainant, but subsequently she was deserted from her husband s

home due to which the petitioner harboured animosity and, acting on

such grudge, committed the offence.

5. Upon arrest of the petitioner and completion of investigation,

report under section 173 of the Code was submitted against him before

the Trial Court. After facing regular trial, the petitioner was convicted

and sentenced by the trial Court as detailed in the initial part of the

judgment. The learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner commuted the death sentence into imprisonment for life

through the impugned judgment.

6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties

as well as the Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, appearing on behalf

of the State and perused the record, evidence and the judgments of the

Courts below.

7. Keeping in view the time of occurrence i.e. 6:00 p.m. in the month

of September, which ordinarily corresponds with sunset, the presence

of the complainant Sikandar Din (PW-7) and the other alleged eye-

witness Abdul Ghani (PW-8), in the fields for the purpose of grazing

their cattle, coupled with the arrival of the deceased purportedly to

meet them while he was employed at the Kohat Cement Factory,

appears highly improbable story on the part of the alleged eye-

witnesses. It is a matter of common rural experience that villagers take

their cattle for grazing early in the morning, return home around

noon, and then take them out again in the afternoon, ensuring their

return well before sunset. The claim of the alleged eye-witnesses that

they were grazing their cattle at the very fag end of the day thus seems

to be highly improbable. The complainant s cross-examination further

casts a shadow of doubt on his presence at the spot. He admitted that

someone from the spot informed him about the occurrence and that

people advised him not to approach the police station, as the

petitioner-convict was armed with a Kalashnikov and might kill him as

well. If the complainant had actually witnessed the incident, it defies

logic and normal human conduct that others would need to apprise

him of the petitioner-convict s presence or advise him not to visit

Police Station.

8. Another disturbing aspect that renders the prosecution s case

doubtful relates to the family relationship between the parties. The

complainant himself stated that two daughters of the petitioner-

convict were married to his two sons. The daughter married to the

deceased was living with him along with their three children in an

atmosphere described as cordial and harmonious. The other daughter

of the petitioner-convict, namely, Mst. Shazia, was living in her

parental home due to strained with her husband Hanif. If this was the

prevailing domestic situation, the alleged murder of the deceased,

against whom the petitioner-convict had no motive, is wholly

uncomprehensible. The complainant has offered no cogent

explanation as to why the petitioner-convict would commit such a

grave offence against a son-in-law with whom no animosity existed so

as to make his grand children orphans and daughter a widow. The

inconsistencies and improbabilities, referred above makes the

prosecution s case highly doubtful. 

9. Another purported eye-witness, Abdul Ghani, appeared as PW-8.

In his examination-in-chief he supported, in material terms, the

version put forth by the complainant. However, during cross-

examination he conceded that he was a resident of village Guliyal,

Tehsil Jhand, and that his CNIC reflected the same address. In these

circumstances, Abdul Ghani clearly was a chance witness. It is a well-

settled principle of law that the testimony of a chance witness is to be

relied upon after great care and caution, and before reliance can be

placed upon it, such a witness must convincingly prove his presence at

the scene of occurrence through strong, natural, and independent

circumstances. We have gone through the testimony of PW Abdul

Ghani. He admitted that there existed a jungle on both sides of his

house. The complainant has also admitted the said fact by stating that

PW Abdul Ghani ordinarily grazed his cattle in the jungle near his

house, which was situated at a distance of approximately 20 25

minutes walk from the place of occurrence. It is, therefore, highly

improbable that PW Abdul Ghani would have been present at the spot

at the relevant time for grazing his cattle, particularly at that late hour

of the evening. No plausible explanation has been offered by PW

Abdul Ghani as to why, when suitable grazing land existed near his

own house, he chose to take his cattle to a distant location at sunset

time. PW Abdul Ghani, thus, remained unsuccessful to prove his

presence at the spot at the time of occurrence through some strong

and convincing evidence.

10. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is yet another strong

circumstance making the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the

spot at the time of occurrence highly doubtful. As per the FIR, the

occurrence took place on 14.09.2015 at 6:00 p.m., but the matter was

reported to the police at 11:20 p.m, after an unexplained delay of more

than five hours, despite the fact that the police station Pindigheb was

merely 17 kilometres from the place of occurrence. Such delay,

without any satisfactory explanation, not only erodes the credibility of

the prosecution s case but also renders the presence of the alleged eye-

witnesses at the time of occurrence highly doubtful. Complainant

Sikandar Din (PW.7) in his report and statement has not furnished any

explanation for the said delay. It is settled law that unexplained delay

in reporting the occurrence, creates doubt in the prosecution s case

and its benefit has to be extended and construed in favour of the

accused. In case titled, Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others (P L D

2019 Supreme Court 64), this Court has held that in absence of any

plausible explanation, the delay in lodging of FIR is always considered

to be fatal, as it casts suspicion on the prosecution story. In case of

Zeeshan @ Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), this Court observed

that unexplained delay of more than one hour in lodging the FIR give rise to the inference that occurrence did not take place in the manner

projected by prosecution and the time was consumed in making effort

to give a coherent attire to the prosecution s case, which hardly proved

successful. Same is the view of this Court in case of Muhammad Fiaz

Khan v. Ajmer Khan (2010 SCMR I05).

11. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on

the following day of occurrence i.e. 15.09.2015 at 12:20 a.m. by Dr. Ijaz

Ahmed (PW-4). No explanation, much less a plausible one, has been

furnished by the prosecution for this delay. It is also well-settled that

unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination raises

serious doubts regarding the veracity of the ocular evidence and the

presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of

occurrence. This Court, in Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias

Billa and others (2017 SCMR 54), held that such delay in the

postmortem examination may indicate that the eye-witnesses were not

present at the spot and that the intervening time was consumed in

procuring their attendance. Further reliance may also be placed on the

judgments of this Court in Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The

State (2012 SCMR 327), Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and

others (2020 SCMR 192), Zafar v. The State and others (2018 SCMR 326)

and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2012 SCMR 419).

12. The prosecution has failed to establish the alleged motive against

the petitioner-convict. As regards the recovery of twelve (12) empties

from the crime spot and the Kalashnikov (Exh.P-5) on the pointation of

the appellant-convict, and positive PFSA report (Exh.PN) in respect

thereof, the same would not advance the prosecution s case because it

is well-settled that such piece of circumstantial evidence, when the

direct evidence of the prosecution has already been disbelieved,

cannot form the basis for conviction, particularly in a capital charge.

Circumstantial evidence derives its weight and efficacy only when

considered in conjunction with reliable direct evidence, and not in

isolation. In this context, reliance may be placed on the principles laid

down by this Court in Ijaz Ahmed v. The State (1997 SCMR 1279) and

Asadullah v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 541), wherein it was held that

circumstantial evidence must supplement credible direct evidence to

sustain a conviction. Similarly, in Saifullah v. The State (1985 SCMR

410), it was observed by this Court that when there is no eye-witness

evidence of reliance, then there is nothing which can be corroborated

by the recovery. in the present case, since the ocular evidence of the

prosecution has been disbelieved, therefore, the alleged recovery, by

itself, cannot sustain a conviction of the petitioner-convict.

13. Upon an independent appraisal of the evidence on record, we

have reached the irresistible conclusion that the courts below, by failing to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and by

overlooking the contradictions, improbabilities, and infirmities in the

testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses, have arrived at an erroneous

conclusion in holding the petitioner-convict guilty of the offence. The

prosecution case is replete with doubts, the benefit of which must, in

law, accrue to the petitioner-convict. It is a well-settled principle of law

that for extending the benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that multiple

circumstances creating doubt should exist; even a single circumstance

which creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to

entitle an accused to such benefit, not as a matter of grace or

concession, but as a matter of legal right. Reliance in this regard may

be placed on the judgments of this Court in Muhammad Mansha v. The

State (2018 SCMR 772) and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736).

14. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Petition No.346 of 2020 is

converted into an appeal and allowed. The conviction and sentence of

the petitioner/appellant recorded by the courts below are set-aside and

he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He shall be released

forthwith if not confined in any other case.

Criminal Petition No.417 of 2020

15. On acquittal of the respondent-convict, the instant petition for

enhancement of his sentence has become infructuous, therefore, the

same is dismissed.

JK/M-1/SC Petition dismissed.

this was the prevailing domestic situation, the alleged murder of the