2026 PLP 500 (YLR)

Amjad Ali Sahito, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mirpurkhas, in Sessions Case No.176 of 2012, arising out of the FIR No. 113/2012 for an offence under sections 302.34 P.P.C registered at Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad the appellants have challenged their conviction, whereby they have been sentenced to suffer R.I for life imprisonment for committing offence under section 302(b)/34 P.P.C. The benefit of section 382 B. Cr.P.C. was, however, extended in favour of the appellants.

2. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that nephew of complainant Umer Khan namely Hafiz Nizamuddin son of Zahooruddin was used to teach the Holy Quran to the students/children in Ashraf-ul-Madaris, Kot Ghulam Muhammad and was residing along with his family in the quarter situated on the upper storey of Ahle Hadees Masjid Kot Ghulam Muhammad town. On 26-07-2012 complainant along with his relatives namely Jamaluddin son of Razi Muhammad Meo and Muhammad Ali son of Sattu Meo went to the house of his nephew Hafiz Nizamuddin for meeting purpose and at 1200 hours when entered in the house, they saw that wife of Hafiz Nizamuddin namely Mst. Naheed (appellant) and Abdul Latif son of Noor Muhammad Meo (appellant) were strangulating him (Hafiz Nizamuddin) with a thin rope on the cot. Abdul Latif Meo was on the chest of Hafiz Nizamuddin and was strangulating him through rope while Mst. Naheed was standing by holding the hands of Hafiz Nizamuddin. They raised cries (hakkals), whereupon Abdul Latif fled away. Then they saw that one white coloured thin rope was tied in the neck of nephew Nizamuddin and he had been expired. They made inquiry from Mst. Naheed, she disclosed that her husband used to maltreat her, therefore, she with the help of son of her paternal aunt namely Abdul Latif had committed murder of Hafiz Nizamuddin by strangulating him through rope. Then they after making arrangement of vehicle, brought the dead body at Taluka hospital, Kot Ghulam Muhammad, where postmortem examination of deceased was conducted. After funeral ceremony, complainant came at police station and lodged instant FIR.

3. After completion of the usual investigation, the I.O submitted a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C before the trial court, showing appellants in custody. After supplying copies of necessary documents, charge was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six (06) witnesses, who produced numerous documents and thereafter, the prosecution closed its side. Thereafter, statements of the appellants under section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they denied the allegations being false and claimed their innocence. Appellant Abdul Lateef examined himself on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C while appellant Mst. Naheed though in her statement under section 342 Cr.P.C did not willing to examine herself on oath but subsequently her counsel moved application for examining her on oath, which application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26-09-2017. Appellant Abdul Latif firstly wanted to examine Muhammad Saleem and Noor Muhammad in his defence and appellant Mst. Naheed wanted to examine her father Ghulam Muhammad in her defence but subsequently their counsel closed the side without examining said defence witnesses. Later on, after hearing the parties' counsel, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

5. It is mainly argued by learned counsel for the respective appellants that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but same were ignored by the trial court, that allegedly complainant and remaining two eye-witnesses saw the appellants while strangulating Hafiz Nizamuddin but surprisingly they did not try to save deceased though both the appellants were empty handed at the time of alleged incident, that as per prosecution case appellant Abdul Latif to see the complainant party fled away while appellant Mst. Naheed remained there, but complainant party did not apprehend her, which has created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, that though as per prosecution case, deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin died at the spot but complainant party did not inform the police immediately and in hurry manner brought the dead body at hospital; that the prosecution has not produced any family member of deceased to prove the motive as disclosed by the appellant Mst. Naheed at the spot that her husband used to maltreat her, that all P.Ws including I.O and M.L.O did not depose about blood stain on the clothes of deceased but surprisingly as per report of Chemical Examiner, the clothes of deceased were blood stained, that the prosecution has not examined material witnesses i.e. Muhammad Haroon (first mashir), ASI Pervez Lucas (who shown the place of incident to Tapedar), LPC Rehana (witness of arrest of appellant Mst. Naheed), WPC Chain Singh and WHC Asoo Mal (who prepared all documents including memo. and entries), PC Sarfaraz (who took the case property i.e. clothes of deceased, rope and other articles for chemical analysis, that there is delay of seven days in sending the case property to the Chemical Examiner, that I.O has neither recorded statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of PC Sarfaraz, who took the case property to the office of Chemical Examiner, nor examined him at trial, so also not produced his departure and arrival entries, hence safe custody of case property becomes highly doubtful and tempering with the case property cannot be ruled out; that there was no any mark of violence or abrasion/ bruises on the neck of deceased which makes the prosecution's case of strangulation doubtful and actually deceased had committed suicide; that no any struggle marks were noted by the I.O as per Danistnama and lash chakas form; that no any mark of nails scratches were noted on the arrest of both accused; that M.L.O deposed that he did not see fracture of laryngeal cartridge, injury to carotid arteries, blood or oozing of blood from mouth, nose and ears whereas as per Medical Jurisprudence of Parikh text book the signs of strangulation are fracture of laryngeal cartirles, injury to carotid arteries, blood from mouth, nose, ears, face with congestion having pronounced petchiae is common in case of strangulation; that the medical evidence is contradicting the ocular account; that in roznamacha entry No. 15 the complainant did not disclose that Mst. Naheed caught hold the hands of deceased and appellant Abdul Latif strangulated deceased through rope; that complainant made improvement in the FIR in order to find support from the medical evidence; that prosecution has not produced roznamcha entries regarding investigation; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; that impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record; hence they prayed for setting aside impugned judgment. In support of their contradictions, learned counsel for the respective appellants relied upon case of Ali Mir Shah v. The State (2024 YLR 1376), Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1507), Zafar Ali Abbasi and another v. Zafar Ali Abbasi and others (2024 SCMR 1773), Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State and others (2025 YLR 520), Babar alias Jani v. The State (2025 PCr.LJ 22), Muhammad Asif v. The State (2024 PCr.LJ 1691) and Noor Ahmad v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 1327).

6. On the other hand, learned Deputy PG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respective appellants and supporting the impugned judgment contended that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by producing consistent/convincing and reliable evidence and the contradictions whatever on record are of minor in nature and are not fatal to the prosecution case, hence they prayed for dismissal of instant Criminal Appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant at considerable length and perused the available record with their able assistance.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and upon careful consideration and meticulous examination of the available record and evidence, it is pertinent to observe that it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof of the allegations always lies upon the prosecution, which must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. In light of this fundamental touchstone of criminal administration of justice, perusal of the prosecution's evidence reveals that the entire case rests upon the testimony of three alleged eye-witnesses, namely, the complainant Umer Khan and prosecution witnesses Muhammad Ali and Jamaluddin. The relationship between the complainant Umer Khan and the deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin is on record, as the deceased was the nephew of the complainant. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred in a quarter situated on the upper floor of Ahle Hadees Mosque, Kot Ghulam Muhammad Town, whereas the complainant Umer Khan is resident of Deh 293, Taluka Kot Ghulam Muhammad. The witnesses Muhammad Ali and Jamaluddin are residents of Deh 298 and 10 Mile Mori, Taluka Kot Ghulam Muhammad, respectively.

10. During cross-examination, the complainant deposed that P.W. Jamaluddin, who is his brother-in-law, resides in Village Chutto Khan, which is situated at a distance of about 12 kilometers from the place of occurrence. He further admitted that P.W. Muhammad Ali, also brother in law of the deceased, is a resident of Village Bhoora Punjabi, located at a distance of about 6 kilometers from the house of the deceased. The complainant himself is resident of Deh 293, Taluka Kot Ghulam Muhammad, which is approximately 5 kilometers from the deceased's residence. Thus, it is manifest that the complainant and the above named prosecution witnessen are in fact "chance witnesses," and as such, were under a strict obligation to furnish convincing and plausible reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, and further to substantiate their presence by producing some tangible and rehable proof thereof

11. However, it is observed with grave concern that the complainant and the said prosecution witnesses have utterly failed to provide any consistent or credible explanation as to their presence at the scene of occurrence. In the absence of any cogent justification for their presence at the house of the deceased, their testimonies become highly doubtful, particularly in light of their conduct as reflected from the prosecution case. Despite the allegation that they witnessed appellant Abdul Latif sitting on the chest of the deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin while strangulating him with a rope, with co-appellant Mst. Naheed holding the hands of her husband/deceased, they neither attempted to apprehend Abdul Latif nor restrained Mst. Naheed, who not only remained present at the place of occurrence but also allegedly confessed before them that, due to maltreatment by her husband, she, with the assistance of her cousin Abdul Latif, murdered the deceased by strangulation. The failure of the complainant and witnesses to act in such circumstances further renders their presence and testimony highly questionable.

12. The prosecution's eye-witnesses have deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, they were three in number, whereas the accused were only two. They further claimed to have witnessed accused Abdul Latif sitting on the chest of deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin and strangulating him, and that thereafter the accused fled from the scene. However, the conduct of the said in such witnesses appears to be highly unnatural, as in such circumstances they could have easily overpowered the accused within a few seconds, yet no effort whatsoever was made by them to avert the assault. Reliance, in this regard, is placed upon the dictum laid down in the case of Zaffar Ali Abbasi and others v. The State (2024 SCMR 1773).

13. Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses categorically stated during their depositions that neither the clothes of the deceased nor the rope (alleged weapon of offence) bore any bloodstains. Contrarily, the report of the Chemical Examiner explicitly reflects that both the aforesaid articles were stained with human blood, thereby creating a material contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence of the prosecution.

14. Roznamcha entry No. 15 (Exh 9-A) lodged on 26.07.2012 at 1410 hours, is the first information of the alleged incident, wherein it is mentioned that complainant Muhammad Umer appeared at the police station and disclosed that his nephew Hafiz Nizamuddin son of Zahooruddin, by caste Meo Rajput resident of Ahle Hadees Masjid's upper portion in a quarter, had been murdered by his wife Mst. Naheed and Lateef by way of strangulation through rope and they had brought the dead body at Taluka Hospital, Kot Ghulam Muhammad and request for necessary proceedings and that he will lodge case afterwards.

15. Bare reading of said roznamcha entry shows that there is no mention that appellant Mat. Naheed hold hands of deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin and appellant Abdul Lateef was strangulating deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin by sitting on his chest through rope. It is not out of place to mention here that FIR was lodged on the second day of alleged incident i.e. 27.07.2012 at 1330 hours, in which complainant stated that Abdul Latif Meo was on the chest of Hafiz Nizamuddin and was strangulating him through rope while Mst. Naheed was standing by holding the hands of Hafiz Nizamuddın; this clearly shows that after post mortem examination of deceased, which was conducted on the same day of incident i.e. 26.07.2012 at 5:30 p.m, wherein it is mentioned that there were marks of injuries on the hands of deceased and no mark of injury was found on the neck of deceased, the complainant made improvement in the FIR by disclosing that appellant Mst. Naheed caught hold the deceased from her hands and appellant Abdul Latif strangulated deceased through rope. By improving the facts as mentioned in the roznamcha entry No.15 recorded at the first instance, the complainant impeached his own credit. Both the remaining eye-witnesses i.e Muhammad Ali and Jamaluddin also deposed in the same improved version of the complainant.

16. The witnesses stated that they shifted the dead body at the hospital while M.L.O deposed that police brought the dead body at the hospital and the dead body was identified by Zahoor Din Father of the deceased and Muhammad Haroon maternal uncle of the deceased. The eye-witnesses deposed that the incident took place on 26.07.2012 at 12 hours they shifted the dead body of the deceased Nizamuddin to Taluka Hospital Kot Ghulam Muhammad after the incident when the hospital is less than two Kilo Meter whereas the doctor deposed that on the day of the incident the dead body of the deceased at 2,40 PM and started conducting postmortem at 5;30 PM and completed at 7:PM. The duration between death and postmortem was about 6-7 hours.

17. It is a matter of record that the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Shamsul Haque (PW-5) at 5:30 pm on 26.07.2012 i.e. five and half hours after the alleged occurrence. As per Medical Officer the dead body was received in the hospital at 240 pm whereas he started post mortem examination at 5:30 p.m i.e. after about three hours and for such delay the Medical Officer has not given any explanation. Such unexplained delay in the post mortem of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously assess and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence. In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused and plant eye-witnesses of the crime. Reference in this regard may be made on the case of Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 108). In similar circumstances, august Supreme Court, in the case of Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCMR 1190) observed that;- noticeable delay in post mortem examination of the dead body is general suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in producing and planting eye-witnesses before preparing police papers necessary for the same. This view has been followed by august Supreme Court in case of Ulfat Hussain v. The State (2018 SCMR 313), Muhammad Yaseen v. Muhammad Afzal and another (2018 SCMR 149), Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2014 SCMR 198), Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2012 SCMR 419) and Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State (2012 SCMR 327).

18. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that "It is correct that male accused was not identified by us at the place of incident and female accused told the name of co-accused to us, show that they were not available at the place of incident at the time of alleged incident. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Usman alias Kaloo v. State (2017 SCMR 622) held that:- "the ocular account of the incident had been furnished by Zahoor Ahmed, Ghulam Farid and Manzoor Ahmed in the said case who were all residents of some other houses and they were not the inmates of the house wherein the occurrence had taken place and therefore the said eye-witnesses were, thus, declared chance witnesses and not worthy of reliance. Reliance is also placed on the case of Nasrullah alias Nasru v. The State (2017 SCMR 724).

19. The motive of the occurrence as stated in the FIR by the complainant is that after alleged incident appellant Mst. Naheed informed the complainant and remaining two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ali and Jamaluddin that her husband deceased Nizamuddin used to maltreat her, therefore, she with the help of her cousin appellant Abdul Latif committed murder of her husband deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin by way of strangulation. I have scrutinized the evidence of complainant and both the eye-witnesses and finds that the motive as alleged could not prove. During evidence complainant deposed that "We enquired from accused Naheed, who told us that a quarrel was taken in between her and her husband, so she called her paternal aunt's son namely Abdul Lateef and killed her husband. The remaining two eye-witnesses of alleged incident, however, did not depose any such fact in their evidence before the trial Court.

20. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer did not bring on record any material to substantiate the motive alleged by the complainant, namely, that the deceased habitually maltreated his wife, appellant Mst. Naheed. Even in his deposition, the Investigating Officer did not assert that subsequent to her arrest, appellant Mst. Naheed had disclosed such motive or fact to him. Consequently, the prosecution witnesses failed to adduce any credible evidence enabling this Court to ascertain the veracity of the alleged motive, or to establish that such motive was of a compelling nature that could have driven appellant Mst. Naheed, in collusion with her cousin, appellant Abdul Latif, to commit Qatl-i-Amd of her husband/deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin.

21. It is also noteworthy that although the residential quarter of deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin was situated on the upper portion of Ahle Hadees Mosque, Kot Ghulam Muhammad Town-an area admittedly surrounded by shops, hotels, and a meat market-yet neither any member of the mosque committee, nor any shopkeeper or hotel owner was produced or examined by the prosecution to corroborate the allegation that deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin subjected his wife, appellant Mst. Naheed, to maltreatment. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has enunciated the principle in the case of Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021), in the following terms: "The said related and chance witnesses had failed to receive any independent corroboration inasmuch as no independent proof of the motive set up by the prosecution had been brought on the record of the case."

22. Moreover, it is a well-recognized principle in the appreciation of evidence that motive is merely a corroborative circumstance; if the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable, motive by itself cannot be made the sole basis for recording a conviction.

23. With regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., the rope, serious doubts arise. As per mashirnama (Exh 5-C), the Investigating Officer, SIP Shahmir Khan, purportedly recovered a thin white-coloured rope tied around the neck of deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin, which he sealed in the presence of mashirs. However, during cross-examination, the said Investigating Officer contradicted himself by deposing that "the doctor had given me the rope in the hospital."

24. Further contradictions are evident in relation to the length of the rope. According to the mashinama, the rope measured 2 1/2 feet, whereas PW. Muhammad Ali, during cross-examination, stated that "the rope was 2 to 2 1/2 feet in length," and PW/mashir Jamaluddin deposed that the rope was 4 to 5 feet in length. Moreover, while the complainant, the two eye-witnesses, and the Investigating Officer unanimously stated that the rope was not blood-stained, the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.9-B) categorically records that the rope was stained with human blood.

25. Another material discrepancy is the unexplained delay in forwarding the case property to the office of the Chemical Examiner. The record reflects that the property was dispatched through PC Sarfraz vide letter dated 01-08-2012, but was deposited in the Chemical Examiner's office only on 03-08-2012. The prosecution has neither furnished any plausible explanation for this delay nor examined PC Sarfraz to clarify the circumstances. In such a scenario, the possibility of tampering with the case property, i.e, the rope, cannot be ruled out.

26. It is very astonishing fact that when the complainant and alleged eye-witnesses arrived at the place of incident, appellant Abdul Latif was strangulating deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin through thin rope, but surprisingly they did not remove the rope from the neck of deceased and at the time of examination of the dead body by the I.O, same was tied with the neck of deceased and was removed by the I.O and sealed the same. Moreso, as per prosecution case, complainant and alleged eye-witnesses brought the dead body of deceased at the hospital, but medical officer in his evidence so also in the post mortem report deposed/ mentioned that dead body of deceased Hafiz Nizamuddin was brought at the hospital by SHO P.S Kot Ghulam Muhammad. This further strengthen the contention of learned defence counsel that complainant and alleged eye-witnesses were not available at the place of incident and they were subsequently set up by the prosecution.

27. As pointed out above the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they have discarded the veracity of their statements, which are sufficient to render the entire case of the prosecution to be highly doubtful. In this context, the reliance is placed upon case of 'Zafar v. The State' (2018 SCMR 326), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

11. Having discussed all the aforesaid aspects of the case, it has been observed by us that medical evidence, motive, recovery and for that matter absconding of appellant are merely supportive/corroborative pieces of evidence and presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time has been found by us to be doubtful, no reliance can be placed on the supportive/ corroborative piece of evidence to convict the appellant on capital charge.

28. In view thereof, it appears that the learned trial Court has not evaluated all these factors, discrepancies and the evidence in true perspective and thus reached to an erroneous conclusion by holding the appellants are guilty of the offence and awarded sentence to them.

29. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and it is a settled proposition of law that for giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused there doesn't need to be many circumstances creating doubts if there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon the case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State reported in 2018 SCMR 772, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

4. Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". Reliance in this behalf can be made upon the cases of Tarique Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749).

30. By taking the guideline from the case laws cited at (supra), I am of the view that in the present case, the prosecution story is overwhelmed under the thick clouds of doubt and the learned trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective and thus arrived at an erroneous conclusion by holding the appellants guilty of the offence. Thus, the instant Criminal Appeal was allowed vide short order dated 12.08.2025. Consequently, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Abdul Latif and Mst. Naheed by learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 17-10-2017 were set aside. They were acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of the doubt. Further order was passed that they shall be released forthwith in the present crime/case if they are not required in any other custody case/crime.

31. These are the reasons of my short order dated 12-08-2025. JK/A-84/Sindh Appeal allowed.