2026 PLP 1290 (YLR)

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Delay of five hours in lodging the FIR

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Record indicated that the incident occurred on 19-03-2022 at approximately 01:45 pm inside the shop situated in the main bazaar

First Information Report however, was lodged at 06:10 pm on the same day, reflecting a delay of about five hours

According to the prosecution, the deceased were inside the shop, whereas the complainant and real brother of the deceased and a relative of both the complainant and the deceased were present outside, allegedly engaged in the maintenance of a jeep

Statements of eye-witnesses, recorded before the trial Court, attempted to justify the delay in lodging the FIR

Said witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, claimed to have been outside shop at the time of the incident

According to said witnesses, immediately after the occurrence, they, along with other persons who had gathered at the scene, transported the injured deceased to hospital, located nearby

Complainant stated that he was Class-IV employee in hospital, while relative of deceased and complainant was a medical technician

Said witnesses further stated that first aid was administered at hospital before the deceased was shifted to other hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries en-route

Despite acknowledging that the police station was on the route, the witnesses admitted that they did not report the incident to the police

Said witnesses further acknowledged that their hands, clothes, and the jeep were smeared with the blood of the deceased, yet none of those were produced to the police

No medical chit, during investigation, treatment record, or any documentary evidence from hospital was produced, nor was any Medical Officer from the hospital examined

Complainant also failed to provide a description of the weapon of offence in the FIR

Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, combined with those omissions, contradictions, and the non-production of material evidence, seriously undermined the prosecution's case

Substantial and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicion, as it allowed opportunity for consultation, deliberation, and potential embellishment

In the present case, this delay gained further significance considering the complainant's own statement that the deceased had previous enmity with the appellant

In such circumstances, the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities casted serious doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prosecution case, particularly on the allegation of a premeditated act of violence by the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Amjad and another v. The State 2025 SCMR 1388 and Khizar Hayat v. The State 2025 SCMR 1339 rel.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Non-availability of 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 brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Principal reliance of the prosecution in the case was upon the statements of three closely related individuals, the complainant, brother of deceased and a relative of deceased

Said witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, could not be treated as independent eye-witnesses and their presence at the spot had not been established by the circumstances of the case

Evidence of chance or interested witnesses was always treated with caution

When such witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident, their presence must be independently corroborated by circumstances that rendered their testimony credible

In the present case, the prosecution had failed to place any material evidence on record to corroborate the claimed presence of eye-witnesses at the relevant time

During cross-examination, complainant and relative of deceased admitted that they were on duty at hospital, with brother of deceased serving as a medical technician and employed as Class-IV staff

Witness/brother of deceased, who was a driver, was accompanying the complainant at the hospital

Attendance of said witnesses was duly marked in the hospital records, indicating that it was highly improbable that they could have been present at a shop at the relevant time

Further contradictions emerged in the statements of said witnesses

One of the witnesses stated that complainant came to the spot only to deliver milk for his child, directly contradicting complainant's statement in the FIR that they had jointly come for the purpose of vehicle repair

Such a fundamental discrepancy regarding the reason for their presence at the scene seriously undermined the prosecution's version

Said factors demonstrated that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene of the occurrence remained unproved

Testimony of said witnesses could not, therefore, be relied upon without independent corroboration

Said inconsistencies, contradictions and failure to establish presence at the scene rendered the ocular account of three eye-witnesses inherently unreliable

Consequently, the prosecution had failed to establish the presence of its principal eye-witnesses, significantly weakening the foundation of its case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Abid Ali and 2 others v. The State 2011 SCMR 208 and Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State 2010 SCMR 949 rel.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Unnatural conduct of complainant

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Complainant did not accompany the Investigation Officer to the spot at the time of the site inspection, nor did he point out any place or mark of the occurrence

Investigation Officer conceded during cross-examination that the complainant was not present at the time of the site inspection

It further appeared from the prosecution evidence that material evidence, including the jeep allegedly involved and the blood-stained garments of the eye-witnesses smeared with the blood of the deceased, was never produced

Complainant admitted that his brother and other relatives of the witnesses did not communicate with one another before the occurrence, did not exchange any words and were not present with the Medical Officer during the preparation of the post-mortem report

Such conduct was wholly unnatural for a real brother of one of the deceased, who claimed to be eye-witness

Natural eye-witness, in such direct circumstances, would have insisted on accompanying the Investigation Officer to guide him regarding the precise details of the incident

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Withholding testinomy of material witness

Adverse presumption

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Place of occurrence was situated in a busy commercial market

Site plan showed that the shop was surrounded by several other shops, a hotel, and a bank

Yet, not a single independent witness, including shopkeepers, vendors, passers-by, or residents, was produced to corroborate the prosecution version

More significantly, the prosecution withheld the testimony of the owner of the shop where the occurrence allegedly took place

Said owner was the most natural and independent witness, yet he was not produced at trial

Statement of said shop owner under S.161, Cr.P.C had been recorded

When this statement was read, it transpired that said shop owner did not support the version advanced by the prosecution

On the contrary, statement of said witness contradicted the prosecution narrative and revealed that complainant and his brother were not present at the spot at the relevant time

Furthermore, the record revealed that at the relevant time the witness/shop owner was positioned underneath a vehicle, a fact clearly reflected in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C

In that statement, he categorically stated that due to being under the vehicle he could neither see the surrounding situation nor observed who fired the shots

Withholding of such material evidence, which constituted the best evidence capable of establishing the truth, together with the unnatural conduct of the eye-witnesses, casted grave doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Imtiaz Hussain Shah alias Tajjay Shah and another v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 1110 rel.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Identity of the accused not proved

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Eye-witnesses claimed that two motorcycles were involved in the incident, and that all the accused, except the appellant, were masked

However, during cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he did not record the colour, make, model, registration number, or any distinguishing features of the motorcycles in the FIR

Investigation Officer also confirmed that neither the murasila nor any other investigation record contained such particulars

In the absence of these essential identifying details, any subsequent claim of recovery became inherently doubtful and artificial, as it could not be reconciled with the omissions in the original report

Credibility of the ocular witnesses was further undermined by their inability to provide any description of the masked assailants

Eye-witnesses did not furnish any information regarding the assailants' approximate height, age, build, complexion, clothing, or mannerisms

Investigation Officer also admitted that no such particulars were recorded in the FIR or the murasila

Said omissions were highly significant, as it was difficult to accept that eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen masked persons firing at them and their loved ones from close range would be unable to describe even basic features or clothing of the assailants

Further, the complainant, in a supplementary statement recorded on 12.04.2022, implicated six additional persons for vicarious liability under S.34 P.P.C and for abetment under S.109 P.P.C, without disclosing the source of his information and without conducting any identification parade

At the time of the original report, the complainant had stated that, except for the appellant, the other three accused were masked

Trial Court subsequently acquitted all other accused, leaving only the present appellant under conviction

Such fact casted a heavy shadow on the credibility of the ocular version

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Medical evidence contradicting the ocular account

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

According to all three ocular witnesses, the firing was done with a 12-bore firearm

Eye-witness specifically stated in cross-examination that two 12-bore cartridges were recovered from the scene one from inside the shop and one from outside

Said testimony suggested that the homicide was committed with a shotgun

However, the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem stated that he retrieved two metallic bullets from the bodies of each deceased, one from the inguinal region and another from the medial thigh area

A .12-bore shotgun, being a smooth-bore weapon, did not discharge metallic bullets; it fired pellets or, at most, a slug, but not metallic jacketed bullets

Such medical finding was, therefore, entirely inconsistent with the prosecution's claim that a 12-bore firearm was used

In a case of murder, where the type of weapon was a crucial factor, contradictory medical evidence completely weakened the prosecution's stance

Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not establish from where precisely the empty cartridges were recovered, nor did he prepare any sketch or measurement

There was no explanation for how metallic bullets were found in the bodies while only 12-bore empties were recovered

Said omissions were not minor; they strike at the heart of the prosecution case and demonstrated that the story of the eye-witnesses did not align with scientific and medical realities

When medical evidence directly conflicted with the ocular account and when the prosecution failed to resolve the inconsistency, the benefit would necessarily go to the accused

Here, the contradiction was not trivial; it was fundamental and structural, affecting the entire prosecution edifice

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 2025 SCMR 1053 rel.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Circumstantial evidence

Scope

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Allegedly, a motorcycle and two empty 12-bore shells were recovered from the spot, as well as one pellet from a wooden box at the place of occurrence, which were recorded; however, the appellant was not arrested until 31.05.2022, more than two months after the incident

Purported recovery of a 12-bore and a 30-bore pistol from the house of the appellant, neither of which were in his personal possession and both were unlicensed, raised further doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution version

From a forensic standpoint, no evidence was produced to establish that the recovered firearms or ammunition were actually used in the commission of the crime

Similarly, no independent forensic report, ballistic analysis, or fingerprint, examination was made available to corroborate the recovery

Absence of such crucial forensic verification rendered the evidentiary value of these items highly questionable

From a circumstantial perspective, the chain of events linking the appellant to the recovered items was weak and uncorroborated

Delay in the arrest, the lack of immediate recovery from the accused's personal possession and the absence of independent witnesses or documentation to support the recovery, all weakened the prosecution narrative

Reliance on circumstantial evidence required a complete chain of facts connecting the accused to the offence beyond reasonable doubt

In the present case, the missing links in the forensic and circumstantial evidence raised doubts regarding the involvement of the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Motive not proved

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing

Motive alleged by the prosecution was the existence of previous criminal litigation between the parties

However, this assertion remained unsubstantiated

Not a single FIR, challan, judgment, rapat, or even a simple police roznamcha entry was brought on record to establish any hostility

Motive, therefore, remained completely unproved

Even otherwise, where the ocular account was unreliable and the circumstantial evidence was weak, failure to prove motive would become an additional and serious setback for the prosecution

If direct evidence was doubtful and motive was not established, the prosecution case could not stand

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Benefit of doubt

Principle

Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to the accused. Imtiaz Hussain Shah alias Tajjay and another v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 1110 rel. Shoaib Ali, Assistant A.G for the State. Atif Ali Jadoon for the Complainant. Judgment Aurangzeb, J.

Through this judgment we shall also decide Murder Reference No.04-A/2024, and Criminal Appeal No.189-A/2024 as all the three matters have emanated from same judgment dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balakot delivered in case FIR No.98 dated 19.03.2022 under Sections 302 / 109 / 34 P.P.C of Police Station Garhi Habibullah, whereby appellant Ajmal has been convicted under Section 302 (b) P.P.C and sentenced to death as Tazir on two counts. In addition to the aforesaid punishment, he has also been fined of Rs. 500,000/ each payable as compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of both the deceased and in default of payment thereof, he shall undergo six months as Simple Imprisonment.

2. Through same judgment, the learned trial Court recorded findings of acquittal in favour of accused Mir Afzal, Junaid Iqbal, Muhammad Iqbal, Anas Iqbal, Muhammad Naveed, Zartash, and Muhammad Yasir and their acquittal has been assailed by the complainant through connected Cr.A No. 189-A/2024.

3. The facts of the case, as narrated in the First Information Report (FIR), are that the complainant, Ashfaq Ahmed, accompanied by Waqas Ahmed, reported the matter at the Emergency Ward of Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, while carrying the dead bodies of his brother Mushtaq and of one Rowaid Ali. He stated that on the fateful day, at about 13:45 hours, he along with Muhammad Ahsan had gone to the shop of one Muhammad Khushal for mechanical repair of their jeep. The complainant and Muhammad Ahsan were standing outside the shop whereas Mushtaq and Rowaid were sitting inside. It is further alleged that in the meantime, four persons riding on two motorcycles arrived there, out of whom three had their faces muffled. One motorcycle stopped directly in front of the shop while the other halted at some distance. At that moment, accused Ajmal alighted from one of the motorcycles with a firearm (Asliha Aatisheen) in his hand. He stood in front of the shop, noticed Mushtaq and Rowaid, confronted them, and loudly proclaimed that he had been searching for them, asking them to recite the Kalma before suddenly opening indiscriminate fire. As a result, both Mushtaq and Rowaid sustained firearm injuries and collapsed on the ground. Thereafter, accused Ajmal, along with the two co-accused having muffled faces, fled the scene while continuing to fire. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Muhammad Ahsan and Nisar Ahmed. People from the surrounding area gathered, and with their assistance the injured, who later succumbed to their injuries, were shifted towards ATH Abbottabad but died on the way. The stated motive behind the occurrence is the existing criminal litigation between the parties. On these allegations, the complainant nominated Ajmal along with three unidentified co-accused, leading to the registration of the instant FIR.

4. After the arrest of the accused and completion of the investigation, a complete challan was submitted before the Court. The accused were formally indicted for the offences charged; however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to discharge its burden, the prosecution produced ten (10) witnesses in support of its case. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C, wherein they professed innocence and denied the allegations. After evaluating the evidence adduced during the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Ajmal of the charged offences and sentenced him while acquitting the remaining co-accused named above.

5. Arguments heard and record gone through.

6. Perusal of the entire case record reveals that the occurrence in question took place on 19.03.2022 at about 13:45 hours inside the shop of one Khushal, situated in the main bazar, Boi. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 18:10 hours, reflecting a delay of approximately five hours. According to the prosecution, the deceased Muhammad Mushtaq and Rawiad were sitting inside the shop, whereas PW-4 Ishfaq Ahmad (the complainant and real brother of the deceased Mushtaq), PW-5 Muhammad Ahsan, and PW-6 Nisar (a relative of both the complainant and the deceased) were present outside the shop for the purpose of jeep maintenance. The prosecution case is founded primarily on the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and certain circumstantial elements. A detailed examination of the record brings several important aspects to the forefront: the delay in setting the criminal law into motion; the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene despite their being chance witnesses whose presence requires reliable corroboration; the close relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, making their statements interested testimony requiring strict scrutiny; the degree of consistency between the medical evidence and the ocular version; the impact of the prosecution's failure to produce Khushal and other independent witnesses, who were natural witnesses to the occurrence; and the prosecution's assertion regarding the motive behind the incident. Points for Determination I. Whether the delay of approximately five emerge for hours in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained? II. Whether the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses stands established from the circumstances of the case, or they are chance witnesses requiring independent corroboration? III. Whether the eye-witnesses, being related or interested, have deposed truthfully and their testimony can safely be relied upon after careful scrutiny? IV. Whether the medical evidence supports the ocular account, and the non-production of Khushal and other independent witnesses creates doubt in the prosecution case? V. Whether the prosecution has successfully proved the motive behind the occurrence? VI. Whether the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused are sustainable in law? "At the very outset, we note that there was a considerable delay of more than 31-1/2 hours in lodging of the FIR. It is also a matter of record, rather it is an admitted position on the part of the complainant, that the FIR was registered consultation with after due Ghulam Mustafa, Ali Gohar and the local police. From the deposition of Ali Hyder (PW-1), it is evident that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted before lodging of the FIR. He has admitted that after leaving the dead body at the spot he did not go to the Police Station for lodging of the FIR rather he went to the Nekmard Ghulam Mustafa and his uncle Ali Gohar to inform them about the incident. Even after picking the dead body from the spot he made no effort to lodge the FIR as again he went to the Hospital and had the postmortem conducted and, finally after completing the burial of the deceased, thereafter he went to the Police Station for lodging the FIR, causing a delay of 31-1/2 hours. The word FIR, stands for "First Information Report", which is to be lodged at the very initial stage of the incident so that the legal process may be put into motion. In the instant case however, the FIR was registered after the abovementioned events i.e. informing Ghulam Mustafa and Ali Gohar so also the co-villagers, taking them to the spot, taking the deceased's body to the Hospital, getting postmortem and medical checkup done and finally the burial of the deceased. It was only after all these episodes that the FIR was lodged after due consultation and investigation/enquiry preliminary of the Police of the spot, which, in our opinion, has put a major dent on the case of the complainant as well as that of the prosecution." "The occurrence in this case had taken place during the night and although the prosecution had mentioned availability of torch with the prosecution witnesses at the spot yet admittedly no torch had been secured during the investigation of this case. Thus, the claim of the above alleged eye-witnesses regarding identification of culprits with graphic details of the incident appears to be a claim which can be accepted only with a lump of salt. Similarly, the occurrence which became the foundation stone of the case took place on 30.11.2009 at about 9:00 p.m. According to the record, the police station Haveli Karanga is situated at a distance of approximately 9 miles from the crime scene. However, the matter was brought to the notice of local statement police through the statement of Muhammad Ramzan (PW-10) recorded on 01.12.2009 at about 1:05 p.m. after a delay of about 14 hours without any justifiable explanation, thus, a possibility regarding deliberations before lodging of the FIR could not safely ruled out of consideration." "

19. We have thoroughly discussed the statements of two eye-witnesses claiming to be present at the scene of crime but they on their own admissions were chance witnesses and have admitted their enmity with the appellants. Both these witnesses could not reasonably explain their presence with the deceased Muhammad Azam rather their conduct runs against the natural behaviour of normal human, therefore, testimonies their appears to be unbelievable in the circumstances of the case. They are also belied by the site plan wherein blood was taken up from the ground and neither any cot having stained with blood was found at the spot by the Investigation Officer nor the same was produced before him.

20. The two courts below have held that P.W. Muhammad Javed is not dishonest witness. We could not agree with such findings of two Courts below on this issue because it has been admitted by this P.Ws. in crosse-xamination that his brother Ijaz was charged along with deceased Muhammad Azam for the murder of Muhammad Asif, therefore, he will be on inimical terms with the accused/appellants. Another aspect as we have considered is that he is a partisan witness because of his involvement in number of criminal cases wherein he was co-accused with deceased Muhammad Azam.

21. To believe or disbelieve a witness all depends upon intrinsic value of the statement made by him. Even otherwise, there cannot be universal principle that in every case interested witness shall be disbelieved or disinterested witness shall be believed. It all depends upon the rule of prudence and reasonableness to hold that a particular witness was present on the scene of crime and that he is making true statement. A person who is reported otherwise to be very honest, above board and very respectable in society if gives a statement which is illogical and unbelievable, no prudent man despite his nobility would accept such statement.

22. As a rule of criminal jurisprudence, prosecution evidence is not tested on the basis of quantity but quality of the evidence. It is not that who is giving the evidence and making statement; what is relevant is what statement has been given. It is not the person but the statement of that person which is to be seen and adjudged.

23. We for the above reasons are firmed to believe that the two eye-witnesses who claimed to be present at the scene of crime were not present there and their testimonies are not believable." "Complainant and other eye-witness were chance witnesses as they should not normally be present at the place of occurrence; it was difficult to rely upon statements of such witnesses being chance and interested witnesses

In order to convict accused for murder court must be satisfied first that the murder was committed then it must be satisfied that accused had committed murder--Question of sentence demanded utmost care on the part of court dealing with life and liberties of accused person

Prosecution withheld evidence of an eye-witness and real son of deceased did not make any statement about motive--No independent witness of locality, which was a Bazar, where incident took place, joined and the same had made prosecution case doubtful

Any genuine doubt arising out of circumstances of the case should be extended to accused as of right and not as concession

Prosecution failed to prove case against accused beyond shadow of doubt." "We started from Sargodha by train at about 4.35 P.M. for Malikwal and reached there at about 06.30 p.m. We had not taken meal in Malikwal. We had only taken cold drinks which were provided by the deceased from the shop of Muhammad Razaq. It seems quite improbable that the appellants were waiting for the arrival of the alleged eye-witnesses to reach the spot and then to initiate the occurrence so that they stood eye-witnesses against them. The inordinate delay in postmortem examination of the deceased coupled with the fact that none of the eye-witnesses is the identifier of the dead body of the deceased as well as their unnatural conduct like silent spectators at the time of occurrence are the strong circumstances which make their presence at the spot highly doubtful. The alleged eye-witnesses have not established their presence through some strong and circumstances. physical Medical evidence is also in conflict with the ocular account. According to the alleged eye-witness the deceased sustained four firearm entrance wounds whereas according to medical Officer he noticed three firearm entrance wounds on the person of the deceased. The occurrence took place in front of the shop of Muhammad Razaq, therefore, he was the most material and impartial witness of the occurrence and he could have at least confirmed the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence. However he was abandoned by the prosecution for no apparent reason. Under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an adverse inference can be drawn that if he had testified, his statement would not have supported the prosecution's case. Reliance is placed on the case of "Mst. Saima Noreen v. the State" (2004 SCMR 1310). Further reliance may also be placed on cases reported as (PLD 2011 SC 554, 2020 SCMR 1493, 2021 SCMR(sic)."

10. The prosecution evidence regarding the occurrence suffers from serious omissions and inconsistencies, particularly concerning the motorcycles, the description of the assailants, and the investigation process. The eye-witnesses claimed that two motorcycles were involved in the incident, and that all the accused, except the appellant Ajmal, were masked. However, during cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he did not record the colour, make, model, registration number, or any distinguishing features of the motorcycles in the FIR. The investigation officer also confirmed that neither the murasila nor any other investigation record contained such particulars. In the absence of these essential identifying details, any subsequent claim of recovery becomes inherently doubtful and artificial, as it cannot be reconciled with the omissions in the original report. The credibility of the ocular witnesses is further undermined by their inability to provide any description of the masked assailants. PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 did not furnish any information regarding the assailants' approximate height, age, build, complexion, clothing, or mannerisms. The investigation officer also admitted that no such particulars were recorded in the FIR or the murasila. These omissions are highly significant, as it is difficult to accept that eye-witnesses who claim to have seen masked persons firing at them and their loved ones from close range would be unable to describe even basic features or clothing of the assailants. Further, the complainant, in a supplementary statement recorded on 12.04.2022, implicated six additional persons for vicarious liability under Section 34 P.P.C and for abetment under Section 109 P.P.C, without disclosing the source of his information and without conducting any identification parade. At the time of the original report, the complainant had stated that, except for the appellant Ajmal, the other three accused were masked. The learned trial court subsequently acquitted all other accused, leaving only the present appellant under conviction. Another important aspect of the investigation concerns the CCTV footage. The investigation officer filed an application, Ex. PW8/8, for obtaining the CCTV footage installed in front of the National Bank, which is shown on the site plan. However, the investigation officer neither collected the CCTV footage nor produced it before the court. The non-production of such potentially material evidence further casts doubt on the thoroughness and reliability of the prosecution case.

11. These cumulative deficiencies, unexplained presence, contradictory reasons for presence, non-production of the Jeep, unnatural conduct, withholding of independent witnesses, and absence of identifying particulars, cast a heavy shadow on the credibility of the ocular version. When the entire prosecution is based primarily on direct eye-witness account, and such account does not pass the test of reliability, it cannot safely be made the basis of conviction. "Reason mentioned by prosecution eye-witnesses for their presence at place of occurrence, which was situated in a different village could not be established

It was not safe to rely upon such evidence--Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence showed that infact prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time

If eye-witnesses had been present at the time of occurrence they should have given correct number of injuries sustained by deceased

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt

Even a single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case, is sufficient to acquit accused

Case against accused was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story."

13. The prosecution case is further weakened when considered in the context of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Several key pieces of circumstantial evidence were either not produced or were withheld by the prosecution without any satisfactory explanation. The alleged recovery of a motorcycle and two empty 12-bore shells from the spot, as well as one pellet from a wooden box at the place of occurrence, were recorded; however, the appellant Ajmal was not arrested until 31.05.2022, more than two months after the incident. The purported recovery of a 12-bore and a 30-bore pistol from the house of the appellant, neither of which were in his personal possession and both unlicensed, raises further doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution version. From a forensic standpoint, no evidence was produced to establish that the recovered firearms or ammunition were actually used in the commission of the crime. Similarly, no independent forensic report, ballistic analysis, or fingerprint examination was made available to corroborate the recovery. The absence of such crucial forensic verification renders the evidentiary value of these items highly questionable. From a circumstantial perspective, the chain of events linking the appellant to the recovered items is weak and uncorroborated. The delay in the arrest, the lack of immediate recovery from the accused's personal possession, and the absence of independent witnesses or documentation to support the recovery, all weaken the prosecution narrative. In criminal jurisprudence, reliance on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of facts connecting the accused to the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the missing links in the forensic and circumstantial evidence create serious doubt regarding the involvement of the appellant. In view of these factors, the alleged recovery and related circumstantial material cannot be treated as reliable evidence to sustain a conviction, and without independent corroboration, reliance on such evidence would be unsafe and unjust.

14. Lastly, the motive alleged by the prosecution was the existence of previous criminal litigation between the parties. However, this assertion remained unsubstantiated. Not a single FIR, challan, judgment, rapat, or even a simple police roznamcha entry was brought on record to establish any hostility. Motive, therefore, remained completely unproved. Even otherwise, where the ocular account is unreliable and the circumstantial evidence is weak, failure to prove motive becomes an additional and serious setback for the prosecution. It is well-settled that if direct evidence is doubtful and motive is not established, the prosecution case cannot stand. "On reappraisal of the evidence on record we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of the appellants through cogent and confidence inspiring direct circumstantial and evidence. The prosecution's evidence is riddled with doubts, benefit of which must be extended to the appellants not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right. It is settled principle of law that for giving the benefit of the doubt it is not necessary that there should be multiple circumstances rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to an accused. Reliance is placed on the cases of "Muhammad Mansha v. The State" (2018 SCMR 772) and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736)."