2026 S C M R 798

 2026 S C M R 798

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Athar Minallah, Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and

Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ

RASHEED AHMAD alias Sheeda ---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE ---Respondent

Jail Petition No. 559 of 2017, decided on 20th August, 2025.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 29.05.2017 passed by the

Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 261-J of 2014 and

Murder Reference No. 162 of 2014).

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

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

witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Chance

witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged for

committing murder of wife of his brother/daughter of complainant

by firing---Ocular account of the prosecution had been brought on

the record through complainant and an eye-witness---As per

contents of the FIR, on 30.07.2012 the said witnesses came to the

house of daughter of the complainant/deceased---At about 6.30 p.m,

deceased went out of her house towards a shop in order to purchase

grocery---In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was brother-in-law

(husband's brother) of deceased emerged at the spot and started

abusing the deceased---On hearing the noise, the complainant came

to the spot and witnessed that the petitioner, who was holding a 30-

bore pistol in his hand, made a fire shot, which landed on the chest

of deceased, which went through and through---Both the eye-

witnesses were residents of a village, whereas the occurrence of this

case took place in another town----Daughter/sister of the said

witnesses/deceased was married 16/17 years prior to the occurrence

in the village---Both the eye-witnesses had not stated any reason for

their visit to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence---As

the eye-witnesses were not residents of the area, where the

occurrence took place and they had not given any reason for their

presence at the spot at the relevant time, therefore, they were

chance witnesses and it was not safe to rely upon their evidence---

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was

acquitted of the charge.

Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015

SCMR 1142 and Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others 2017

SCMR 142 rel.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Site plan of the

occurrence not supporting prosecution story---Accused-petitioner

was charged for committing murder of wife of his brother/daughter

of complainant by firing---As per site plan, the place where the

occurrence took place was a passage in-front of an open plot---House

of deceased and her husband had not been shown in the site plan

though the house of one GM and one SM had been shown therein---

Both the eye-witnesses stated that they were present inside the

house of deceased, when they heard the noise coming from outside

the said house and they came out of the said house and witnessed

the occurrence but no such house had been shown in the site plan---

It was evident from the perusal of the site plan that it was a sheer

chance that the accused, the deceased and the witnesses all

simultaneously reached at the said passage situated in-front of an

open plot, where the occurrence took place and where the

prosecution's eye-witnesses had no house or place of business---

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an

appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was

acquitted of the charge.

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

----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Delay of 15 hours

and 20 minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the

dead body of the deceased due to delay in receiving police papers---

Consequential---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing

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

Occurrence in the case took place on 30.07.2012, at 06.30 pm,

whereas the postmortem examination on the dead body of the

deceased was conducted on 31.07.2012, at 09.50 am and as such

there was delay of fifteen (15) hours and twenty (20) minutes in

conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the

deceased---Medical Officer stated during her cross-examination that

on 30.07.2012, she was on call for the postmortem examination, up

till the postmortem examination was conducted---Medical Officer

further stated that the dead-body was received in the mortuary on

30.07.2012, however, the complete police documents were received on 31.07.2012, at 9.45 am and thereafter, she conducted autopsy at

9.50 am---Said witness further stated that on account of the said

reason (non-availability of complete police documents), the delay in

conducting autopsy had taken place---Medical Officer further stated

that she was bound to conduct postmortem examination

immediately after receiving the dead-body, however, she

volunteered that the postmortem examination could only be

conducted after receiving the police papers---It was evident that the

delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of

deceased was result of the delay in handing over the police

documents to the Medical Officer---Said delay in conducting

postmortem examination on the dead- body of the deceased was also

suggestive of the fact that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not

present at the spot, at the time of occurrence and the said delay was

consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses of the

occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was

converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and

accused was acquitted of the charge.

Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others 2017

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

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

rel.

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

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

-Reappraisal of evidence---Withholding material witnesses from

giving evidence---Adverse presumption---Accused-petitioner was

charged for committing murder of wife of his brother/daughter of

complainant by firing---Record showed that neither husband of

deceased, nor any child out of the four children of the deceased had

appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution case---As per

contents of the FIR, deceased had been married with ZH for the last

16/17 years and she had four children from the said wedlock---

Husband of deceased and children of the deceased were the natural

eye-witnesses of the occurrence being inmates of the area, where

the occurrence took place but none from them appeared in the

witness box---Said fact had also created another dent in the

prosecution story because the prosecution had withheld the best

evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of

Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the

prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the

evidence, they would have not supported the prosecution case---

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an

appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was

acquitted of the charge.

Lal Khan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1846; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010

SCMR 846; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 and Riasat Ali v.

The State 2024 SCMR 1224 rel.

(e) Criminal trial---

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

which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same will be

sufficient to acquit the accused.

Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v.

The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel.

Muhammad Zahid Mahboob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for

Petitioner.

Ms. Memoona Ehsan-ul-Haq, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for

the State.

Assisted by: Ghulam Muhammad Adnan, Law Clerk.

Date of hearing: 20th August, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda,

petitioner was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad,

pursuant to a case FIR No.502, dated 30.07.2012, under section 302

P.P.C., registered at Police Station Raza Abad, District Faisalabad. The

learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.04.2014, convicted the

petitioner under Section 302 P.P.C. and sentenced him to death. He was

also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the

legal heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544-A Cr.P.C or

in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six

months. In appeal, the learned High Court while maintaining the

conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 P.P.C., altered the

sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The amount of

compensation and the sentence in default thereof were maintained.

Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the

petitioner.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. The ocular account of the prosecution has been brought on the

record through Noor Ahmad complainant (PW-1) and Jaabar Hussain

(PW-2). As per contents of the FIR, on 30.07.2012, the abovementioned witnesses came to the house of daughter of the complainant namely

Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased). At about 6.30 p.m, Mst. Naseem Bibi

(deceased), went out of her house towards a shop in order to purchase

grocery. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was brother-in-law

(husband s brother) of Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased), emerged at the

spot and started abusing Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased). On hearing the

noise, the complainant came to the spot and witnessed that the

petitioner, who was holding a 30-bore pistol in his hand made a fire

shot, which landed on the chest of Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased), which

went through and through.

4. We have noted that both the abovementioned eye-witnesses were

residents of village Kokian Wala, situated in Chak No.219/R.B of

District Faisalabad, whereas the occurrence of this case took place in

the area of Salamat Town of Chak No.219/R.B, District Faisalabad. The

daughter/sister of the above-mentioned witnesses namely Mst. Naseem

Bibi (deceased), was married 16/17 years prior to the occurrence in the

abovementioned village. Both the eye-witnesses had not stated any

reason for their visit to the house of the deceased on the day of

occurrence. As the above-mentioned eye-witnesses were not residents

of the area, where the occurrence took place and they had not given

any reason for their presence at the spot at the relevant time,

therefore, they are chance witnesses and it is not safe to rely upon

their evidence as observed in the judgments reported as Mst. Sughra

Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) and

Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others (2017 SCMR 142).

5. As per site plan, the place where the occurrence took place was a

passage in-front of an open plot. The house of Mst. Naseem Bibi

(deceased) and her husband namely Zawar Hussain has not been

shown in the site plan though the house of one George Masih and one

Shamoon Masih have been shown therein. Both the abovementioned

eye-witnesses stated that they were present inside the house of Mst.

Naseem Bibi (deceased), when they heard the noise coming from

outside the said house and they came out of the said house and

witnessed the occurrence but as mentioned above, no such house has

been shown in the site plan (Ex.PE). It is further evident from the

perusal of the site plan (Ex.PE) that it was a sheer chance that the

accused, the deceased and the witnesses all simultaneously reached at

the abovementioned passage situated in-front of an open plot, where

the occurrence took place and where the prosecution s eye-witnesses

had no house or place of business.

6. We have further noted that there is a delay of about fifteen (15)

hours and twenty (20) minutes in conducting postmortem examination

on the dead-body of Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased). The occurrence in

this case took place on 30.07.2012, at 6.30 p.m (evening), whereas the postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was

conducted on 31.07.2012, at 9.50 a.m and as such there was delay of

fifteen (15) hours and twenty (20) minutes in conducting postmortem

examination on the dead-body of the deceased. Dr. Tehmina Hassan

(PW-7), stated during her cross-examination that on 30.07.2012, she

was on call for the postmortem examination, up till the postmortem

examination was conducted. She further stated that the dead-body was

received in the mortuary on 30.07.2012, however, the complete police

documents were received on 31.07.2012, at 9.45 a.m and thereafter,

she conducted autopsy at 9.50 a.m. She further stated that on account

of the abovementioned reason (non-availability of complete police

documents), the delay in conducting autopsy had taken place. She

further stated that she was bound to conduct postmortem examination

immediately after receiving the dead-body, however, she volunteered

that the postmortem examination can only be conducted after

receiving the police papers. It is, therefore, evident that the delay in

conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of Mst. Naseem

Bibi (deceased), was result of the delay in handing over the police

documents to the abovementioned medical officer. The above-referred

delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the

deceased is also suggestive of the fact that the prosecution eye-

witnesses were not present at the spot, at the time of occurrence and

the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-

witnesses of the occurrence. Reference in this context may be made to

the cases reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa

and others (2017 SCMR 54), Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The

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

others (2020 SCMR 192).

7. It is further noteworthy that neither Zawar Hussain, who was

husband of Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased), nor any child out of the four

children of the deceased had appeared in the witness to support the

prosecution case. As per contents of the FIR, Mst. Naseem Bibi

(deceased), had been married with Zawar Hussain from the last 16/17

years and she had four children from the said wedlock. Zawar

Hussain, who was husband of Mst. Naseem Bibi (deceased) and

children of the deceased were the natural eye-witnesses of the

occurrence being inmates of the area, where the occurrence took place

but none from them appeared in the witness box. The said fact has

also created another dent in the prosecution story because the

prosecution has withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse

inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, can

validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the abovementioned

witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would not have

supported the prosecution case. Reference in this context may be made

to the judgments reported as Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Abdul Qadeer v. The State

(2024 SCMR 1146) and Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224).

8. Learned Courts below have rightly disbelieved the prosecution

evidence qua the motive and recovery of 30-bore pistol at the pointing

out of the petitioner, as well as, positive report of PFSA (Ex.PL) due to

valid reasons mentioned in the impugned judgments.

9. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, we have come to

this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its

case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt. It is by now

well settled that if there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt

in the prosecution case then the same is sufficient to acquit the

accused, whereas the instant case is replete with number of

circumstances, which have created serious doubts in the prosecution

story. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments

reported as Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and

Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230). Consequently, this

petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the

High Court dated 29.05.2017 and the Trial Court dated 25.04.2014, are

set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge while giving him the

benefit of doubt. He shall be released from the jail forthwith unless

required to be detained in any other case.

JK/R-11/SC Appeal allowed.