2026 S C M R 852

 2026 S C M R 852

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Muhammad Shafi

Siddiqui and

Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ

GHULAM MUSTAFA ---Appellant

Versus

The STATE ---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2020, decided on 13th March, 2025.

(Against the order/judgment dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Lahore

High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Criminal Appeals. Nos. 281, 303,

320, 321, 367 of 2012 and M.R. No. 47 of 2012).

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit

qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, unlawful

assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused

along with his companions allegedly committed murder of the

brother of complainant and also caused injuries to other members

of the complainant party---Occurrence in this case had taken place

after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the

prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot---In

the FIR, 13 culprits, including the present appellant, had been

nominated whereas 7/8 other culprits had been described as

unknown---Motive set up by the prosecution was based upon land

dispute between the parties and, thus, the said motive cut both ways--

-If the said background could provide a motive to the accused party

to launch such a horrific attack on the complainant party, then the

same motive could equally push the complainant party to spread the

net very wide so as to falsely trap some innocent members of the

accused party---On the basis of same statements made by the eye-

witnesses, co-accused had been acquitted by the Courts below

despite the fact that the said eye-witnesses had tarnished the said

co-accused with the same brush---When 12 co-accused attributed the

role of causing injuries to the deceased and other members of the

complainant party had been acquitted in this case, it was incumbent

upon the Courts below to look for independent corroboration to the

ocular account before convicting and sentencing the present

accused---Accused was allegedly armed with 'Sota' at the time of

occurrence and caused injury on the skull of the deceased with the

said 'Sota' and the same had also been recovered from his

possession but it was astonishing and disturbing to observe that the

appellant was not confronted with the said piece of evidence at the

time of recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C.---If a piece

of evidence or a circumstance was not put to an accused person at

the time of recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., then the same could not be considered against him for the purpose of

recording his conviction---In the absence of any independent

corroboration or confirmation of the allegations levelled against the

appellant, particularly when some co-accused who were attributed

the same roles had already been acquitted by the Courts below, the

Supreme Court was compelled to observe that the complainant party

had no regard for the truth and the eye-witnesses produced by it

had been established to be untruthful regarding many innocent

persons who had been implicated by them and who had

subsequently been acquitted---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

Khizar Hayat v. State PLD 2019 SC 527 rel.

Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat

Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.

Ms. Memoona Ihsan-ul-Haq, D.P.G for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th March, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---The appellant, Ghulam

Mustafa, was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to

death along with an order to pay compensation of Rs.200,000/- to the

legal heirs of the deceased, Faiz Ahmed, under section 544 Cr.P.C. and

in default thereof to further undergo SI for six month. He was also

convicted and sentenced under sections 149, 324, 337, and 452 P.P.C.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 281/2012

before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which was

dismissed by means of the impugned judgment whereby his conviction

under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however, his sentence was

altered from death to imprisonment of life.

2. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day at about 8/9 p.m.

the complainant, Mumtaz Ahmed, alongwith his brother, Faiz Ahmed,

and sons, Mazhar Abbas, Fayyaz, Riaz, and nephew, Mushtaq, was

present in his house. Accused Sahib Yar and his companions, equipped

with hatchets and sticks, in collusion with each other entered his

house and started to beat the complainant party. Consequently,

brother of complainant, namely, Faiz Ahmed, fell down due to severe

injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was land dispute. With

these allegations the appellant and his co-accused were booked in case

FIR No. 549/2009, registered at Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim

Yarkhan.

3. Leave to appeal was granted in this case in order to reappraise

the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the

parties we have undertaken that exercise.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going

through the record, we have observed that the occurrence in this case

had taken place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at

the spot. In the FIR, 13 culprits, including the present appellant, had

been nominated whereas 7/8 other culprits had been described as

unknown. The motive set up by the prosecution was based upon land

dispute between the parties and, thus, the said motive cut both ways. If

the said background could provide a motive to the accused party to

launch such a horrific attack on the complainant party, then the same

motive could equally push the complainant party to spread the net

very wide so as to falsely trap some innocent members of the accused

party. The upsetting part of the ocular account is that on the basis of

same statements made by the eye-witnesses, co-accused Muhammad

Iqbal, Imtiaz, Riaz Ahmed, Sahib Yar, Shabir Ahmed, Muhammad

Sadiq, Muhammad Nawaz, Abdul Sattar, Muhammad Ajmal, Shaukat

Ali had been acquitted by the courts below despite the fact that the

abovementioned eye-witnesses had tarnished the said co-accused with

the same brush. When 12 co-accused attributed the role of causing

injuries to the deceased and other members of the complainant party

had been acquitted in this case, it was incumbent upon the courts

below to look for independent corroboration to the ocular account

before convicting and sentencing the present appellant. In this regard

we note that the appellant was allegedly armed with Sota at the time

of occurrence and caused injury on the skull of the deceased with the

said Sota and the same had also been recovered from his possession

but it is astonishing and disturbing to observe that the appellant was

not confronted with the said piece of evidence at the time of recording

his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. rather the record shows that

the following question was asked:

It is further in the prosecution evidence that while in police custody,

you himself brought out the crime weapon i.e. hatchet P.3, and

presented to the I.O who took into possession vide recovery

memo Ex.P.D in presence of the recovery witnesses. The PWs

then proved the same against you in the witness-box. What do

you say in this respect? The law is settled by now that if a piece of evidence or a

circumstance is not put to an accused person at the time of recording

his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. then the same cannot be

considered against him for the purpose of recording his conviction.

5. The High Court observed that the complainant party had falsely

implicated numerous innocent individuals in the current case.

Consequently, in the absence of any independent corroboration or

confirmation of the allegations levelled against the appellant,

particularly when some co-accused who were attributed the same

roles have already been acquitted by the courts below, we are

compelled to observe that the complainant party had no regard for the

truth and the eye-witnesses produced by it had been established to be

untruthful regarding many innocent persons who had been implicated

by them and who had subsequently been acquitted. In the case of

Khizar Hayat v. State (PLD 2019 SC 527) this Court has determined that

witnesses found to be false in a material aspect are not to be trusted

regarding other aspects they have deposed about.

6. For the aforesaid discussion, the convictions and sentences of

appellant recorded and upheld by the courts below are set aside and

he is acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt.

The appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged.

JK/G-3/SC Appeal allowed.