2026 P Cr (PLP)

Inaam Ameen Minhas, J.

Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the above mentioned jail appeal and the jail appeals, criminal appeals and murder reference mentioned in Annexure-A as the same have arisen out of same case FIR No.223, dated 23.09.2020, under sections 376, 411, 302, 380, 34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad.

2. Through the jail appeals and the criminal appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 16.04.2022 ( Impugned Judgment ), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge West-Islamabad/GBV Court, East/West ( Trial Court ), whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under section 302-B, P.P.C to death and to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- each in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default in payment of the compensation, they shall further undergo 06 months Simple Imprisonment ( SI ), under section 376, P.P.C to death and to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- each in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default in payment of the compensation they shall further undergo 06 months SI, under section 380, P.P.C to 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment ( RI ) and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in case of default in payment of the fine, they shall suffer 01 month SI and under section 411, P.P.C to 1 year RI. The appellants were also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C and all the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The learned Trial Court after convicting and sentenced the appellants filed a reference under section 374, Cr.P.C for confirmation of death sentence.

3. The transient facts of the case are that on 23.09.2020 the complainant Muhammad Yousaf PW-12 made a verbal statement before the police by alleging that he is resident of Chajar Barri Imam and works as a labourer/mason, whereas his wife Batool Bibi works as a maid in different houses at Melody. At about 7:30 a.m, he and his wife left the house for work leaving alone the children behind. On getting free at about 3:30 p.m, he and his wife went to the house of his mother at Mohallah New Noori Bagh. At about 4:00 p.m, he and his wife left for their home, on the way he met his friend Aziz Rasool Bukhsh and both of them went to a local hotel for a cup of tea, whereas his wife went to her home. At about 4:30 p.m his neighbourer namely Zameer Ahmed called him through cell phone and asked him to immediately come to home as some unknown persons have killed his daughter, who is hanging with iron rod through her Dupatta. He rushed to his mother s house, from where he along with his younger brother Wafadar Ali reached to his house on a motorcycle, his younger daughter Maria aged about seven years told him that she along with other brothers and sisters went to Barri Imam Darbar to take Langer and when she returned, her younger brother Muhammad Ali aged about 1 years was present outside the room and the door of the room was latched. When she opened the latched she saw her elder sister Aqsa Bibi aged about 11 years was hanging with iron rod through a Dupatta, she rushed to the house of neighbourer Zameer. In the meantime, his wife also came to the house, took down Aqsa and when he and his brother reached the house, saw his daughter dead lying on the cot.

4. Initially, the FIR was registered under section 302, P.P.C. However, on 28.09.2020 and 13.10.2020, vide Diary Nos. 06 and 14, offences under sections 380, 411 and 34, P.P.C were added and report under section 173, Cr.P.C was submitted before the learned Trial Court on 01.12.2020. Later on the I.O collected evidence of rape with the deceased, therefore, on 02.07.2021 another report under Section 173, Cr.P.C while adding section 376, P.P.C was submitted.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the charge, recorded evidence and after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the appellants through the Impugned Judgment, hence, this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective; that the prosecution evidence is not credible as there are contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws; that there is no direct evidence against the appellants to link them with the offence; that whole of the prosecution case is based on hearsay evidence; that one Irfan Karim said to have seen the appellants while coming out of the house of the complainant was produced as a Court Witness (CW-1), who disassociated himself from the case weakening the prosecution s case; that the medical evidence is not align with the circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution with malicious intent produced a Parna allegedly containing the hairs of appellant Muhammad Khursheed to falsely link him with the crime by suggesting his presence at the scene as such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

7. The learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State Counsel contended that the appellants with common intention committed cold blooded murder of eleven years old girl by using a Dupatta as a weapon. They while referring the circumstantial and medical evidence, particularly the DNA analysis submitted that the same corroborates the narrative of the crime and connect the appellants with the commission of the offence; that the P.Ws in their statements supported the recovery process; that no prior enmity was alleged by the appellants to falsely implicate them in this case; that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court, through the Impugned Judgment, therefore, conviction and sentenced awarded to them may be upheld.

8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

9. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant Muhammad Yousaf PW-12 in his complaint Exh.PW alleged that on reaching his home her younger daughter Maria aged about 07 years told him that she along with other brothers and sisters went to Barri Imam for Langer and when she returned, her younger brother Muhammad Ali aged about 1 year was sitting outside and door of the room was locked and when she opened the door, she found that her elder sister Aqsa Bibi aged about 11 years was hanging with iron rod through a Dupatta. The first person, who discovered this tragic scene was younger sister of the deceased merely seven years old at that time. Upon seeing her sister hanging, the young girl immediately ran to inform a neighbourer, Zameer Ahmed. In turn, Zameer Ahmed promptly called the complainant PW-12 and told him over the phone about the death of his daughter. Shortly thereafter, the deceased s mother also arrived at the scene, she saw her daughter hanging with the iron rod and she herself brought down the dead body. However, astonishingly none of these three key persons, Maria the younger sister of the deceased, Zameer Ahmed the neighbourer and the mother was produced before the Court as a witness to testify regarding what they had seen. The prosecution did not put forward the explanation for what reasons it failed to produce these crucial witnesses before the Court, thus it withheld the necessary evidence that could have directly established the circumstances, in which the deceased was found. Due to this omission, there is no direct, firsthand evidence available on the record to conclusively prove that the deceased was indeed found hanging with the iron rod by a Dupatta as claimed. Therefore, the failure to produce these primary witnesses creates serious doubts in the prosecution case. Moreover, adverse inference is drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that had such witnesses been produced by the prosecution during the trial, they would not have supported the prosecution s case. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others, (2025 SCMR 662).

10. During cross-examination, Muhammad Athar Khan, Inspector, I.O PW-13, admitted that the place of occurrence was a small house, measuring approximately 2 / 3 Marlas and complainant Muhammad Yousaf PW-12 during cross-examination also confirmed the same and further admitted that all the family members including one sister, three brothers, mother, wife and four children are residing in the small house. Although the complainant explained his absence and that of his wife on the day of the occurrence, there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution or any other evidence to establish that the other family members, who were also living in the same house, were absent at the time of the occurrence. In a so small and crowded house, it is highly unlikely that such a tragic incident could take place without the knowledge or presence of other family members. The prosecution s failure to address this critical point seriously undermines the credibility of its case, making the entire prosecution story suspicious.

11. On 28.09.2020, Muhammad Athar Khan Inspector I.O PW-13 received a written complaint Exh.PAH from the complainant PW-12, alleging the theft of certain jewellery items. Acting on this information, he visited the place of occurrence. During this visit, the complainant handed over a white handkerchief that reportedly contained human hair, saliva stains and sweat marks. However, this alleged evidence was not discovered or recovered by the I.O PW-13 through any independent or professional means. Instead, the complainant PW-12 claimed that he had personally collected the handkerchief with the help of one Irfan Karim, who was later examined as Court Witness (CW-1). The handkerchief was formally taken into possession vide a recovery memo. Exh.PAJ and both the complainant PW-12 and Irfan Karim signed this memo. The I.O PW-13 also recorded statement of Irfan Karim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The said Irfan Karim was placed in the column of the PWs but he did not appear before the Court, therefore, he was summoned by the Court and he while appearing as CW-1 did not support the recovery process rather he denied having any knowledge about the incident altogether. This contradiction raises serious doubt about the authenticity of the recovery of the handkerchief, which allegedly contained key forensic evidence and the recovery of the stolen artificial jewellery. Since the recovery is not supported by any independent witness or credible evidence and appears to rely solely on the complainant s version, contradicted by CW-1, it casts a shadow of suspicion over the prosecution s version. The recovery process, therefore, seems to be artificial and possibly fabricated. When the evidence lacks independent corroboration and raises significant doubts, it cannot be deemed reliable or safe to form the basis for a conviction or to support the prosecution s case.

12. CW-1 Irfan Karim appeared before the Court as a chance witness who, according to prosecution s version, happened to be present at the complainant s house at about 12:30 p.m. on the day of the alleged incident. It was claimed that Irfan Karim observed one door of the house to be locked and the other slightly opened. He allegedly saw appellants Muhammad Khurshid, Syed Hammad Naqvi and Shah Sawar leaving the house through the back side of the courtyard. However, Irfan Karim in his statement as CW-1 contradicted the prosecution s version entirely. He clearly denied any knowledge of the incident and stated that he had no connection whatsoever with the case. This sharp contradiction between what the prosecution claims, what CW-1 Irfan Karim witnessed and what he said under oath significantly undermines the reliability of the prosecution s story. The fact that a key witness disowns the very events, he was purported to have witnessed, creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution s version. Such a material discrepancy damages the case s credibility, reflecting either a false implication or manipulation of facts. Therefore, testimony of CW-1, instead of supporting the prosecution, raises major concerns about the authenticity of their narrative and renders their case highly doubtful.

13. According to the post mortem report Exh.PT, the cause of death was concluded to be by strangulation. However, while examining the physical condition of the deceased s body by Dr. Shazia Nazir PW-7 certain typical signs usually seen in such cases such as bruising around the neck, protrusion of the tongue, petechial hemorrhages (tiny red spots in the eyes or face) were not found and absence of such signs raises doubts about the accuracy of the medical conclusion. Therefore, the mismatch between the medical opinion and the actual condition of the body creates serious uncertainty regarding the real cause of death. This discrepancy must be carefully considered, as it weakens the reliability of the prosecution s claim that the death was resulted from strangulation.

14. It is an admitted fact that the incident in the present case was not witnessed by anyone, meaning thereby that there is no direct evidence against the appellants. As a result, the entire case presented by the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence. However, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt as the circumstances presented do not form a complete, consistent and unbroken chain that connect the appellants with commission of the offence. On the contrary, the events appear disjointed and the evidence is riddled with contradictions and gaps. Because of these serious shortcomings, the case does not meet the strict legal standard required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Reliance is placed upon Fayyaz Ahmed v. State, (2017 SCMR 2026), wherein it was held that to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly established and all the circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable possibility of innocence.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the captioned jail appeal well as the jail appeals and the criminal appeals mentioned in Annexure-A are allowed. The Impugned Judgment is set aside and the appellants Syed Hammad Naqvi, Shah Sawar and Muhammad Khursheed are acquitted from case FIR No.223, dated 23.09.2020, under sections 376, 411, 302, 380, 34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Secretariat Islamabad. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The murder reference mentioned in Annexure-A is answered in negative. Annexure-A

1. Murder Rference No. 05 of 2022 The State v. Syed Hammad Naqvi and others

2. Jail Appeal No. 174 of 2022 Muhammad Khurshid v. The State

3. Jail Appeal No. 175 of 2022 Shah Sawar v. The State

4. Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2022 Muhammad Khursheed and others v. The State and another

5. Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2022 Shah Sawar v. The State and another JK/220/Isl. Appeals allowed.