Double murder

2025 SCMR 1512 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 324Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amdRe-appraisal of evidenceDouble murderAccused was alleged to have committed murder of two persons and injured two othersTrial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to death on two countsAppeal against conviction was also dismissedValidityIn the instant case, the date and location of the incident were acknowledged factsIn the same vein, the appellant's attendance at the crime scene at the time of the incident was uncontested

Moreover, it was also undisputed that the appellant's residence was in close proximity to the residences of the deceased and injured individuals

Present appellant was identified as the primary perpetrator and a specific role was assigned to him in the FIR that was promptly lodged in response to the incident that occurred in broad daylight

Prosecution had presented three eye-witnesses in the Trial Court, who were natural witnesses

Said witnesses were inmates of the same street where the incident occurred and one of them was physically injured

No possibility of mistaken identification was there as the appellant and the witnesses were close relatives and inmates of the same street

Ocular account provided by the said eye-witnesses was adequately supported by the medical evidence and they had made consistent statements before the Trial Court

After conducting a thorough examination of the evidence on record, both the Courts below reached the unanimous conclusion that the appellant's guilt had been fully established, thus the Supreme Court had not been able to adopt a stance that differed from the concurrent stance of the Courts below

Allegedly, the appellant had acted under the influence of his father

Principle of influence of elders was limited to offenders of impressionable ages who were living under the influence of elders

Therefore, an accused of mature age and comprehension could not be considered to have acted on instigation

Under the guise of elders, including the father, no universal authority could be granted to adult and elderly individuals to commit brutal, gruesome and wanton murder

Appellant launched an attack with a firearm and hatchet over a trivial matter, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and mercilessly injured two innocent neighbours who were attempting to transport the injured individuals to a hospital in order to save their lives

Appellant did not deserve any sympathy regarding his death sentence

Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 SCMR 780 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdRe-appraisal of evidenceDouble murderMotive shrouded in mysteryBenefit of doubtAccused was alleged to have committed murder of two personsTrial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to deathValidityProsecution failed to prove any motive in the matter

It had nowhere been stated that as to what prompted accused to kill two brothers as neither was there any enmity alleged between the parties, nor there was any report with regard to any scuffle which took place between them prior to the incident

Matter was shrouded in doubt and in such eventuality, it would be legally and factually justified not to confirm death sentence awarded by two Courts below

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and by extended benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

2024 SCMR 1738 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F (v) & 337-A(i)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah hashimah and shajjah-i-khafifahBail, refusal ofDouble murderCross versionPositive report of Forensic Science LaboratoryPetitioner (accused) was alleged to have committed murder of two persons and made murderous assault upon complainantPetitioner accused sought his bail on the plea that it was a case of cross versionValidity

Seven crime empties of 7.62 bore and three crime empties of .30 bore were recovered from place of occurrence by investigating officer in cross-version case

Petitioner accused was arrested and during investigation, on his pointing a Kalashnikov (crime weapon) was recovered from house of his relative

There was positive report of firearm expert and incriminating material available on record

Petitioner accused was prima-facie involved in commission of heinous non-bailable offences for committing murder of two persons and making murderous assault upon complainant and his family members, therefore, he was not entitled for concession of post-arrest bail

Mere registration of counter version of occurrence by petitioner accused in Roznamcha (Daily Book) could not be made a basis to grant him post-arrest bail

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused and bail was denied.

2019 MLD 455 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 311Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right to qisas in qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceDouble murderSentence reduction in

Prosecution case was that the accused had murdered both the deceased persons by giving it the colour of Kara Kari and caused Fasad-Fil-Arz

Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses including complainant

Complainant while appearing had reiterated the contents of the crime report

Eye-witness had made consistent statement to that of the complainant on each and every minute detail of the incident in respect of time, date, place, mode and manner of the occurrence, name of the accused, the weapon of offence used and the role assigned to him for committing the murder of both the deceased persons

Admittedly, both the witnesses were Police Officials, had no relation or concern whatsoever with either party and they, being independent witnesses, had made straightforward statement what they had seen at the time of occurrence

Nothing favourable material could be extracted from their mouth by the defence during cross-examination

Both the witnesses of ocular account had no grudge, ill-will or animosity to falsely implicate the accused in the case

Even the accused, in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., had not questioned their being not independent or biased witnesses

Defence had claimed that incident had taken place at spur of the moment in the heat of passion on seeing both the deceased in compromising position

Record showed that the deceased lady was first paternal cousin of the accused and they were residing in the same compound in different rooms but it was quite possible for the accused to bolt the door from outside or to make both the deceased hostage on gun point, called other inmates of the house and then reported the matter to the police for taking them to task instead of taking the law in his own hands

Accused had not taken plea of killing both the deceased in the heat of passion either during cross-examination upon the eye-witnesses or in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Contention raised by the defence in that regard, subsequently, appeared to be afterthought had no legs to stand

Offence committed by the accused could not be considered to have taken place at the spur of the moment or in the heat of passion rather he had committed murders as Kara Kari on his own and on account of honour

Said fact had further been fortified by positive report of the Forensic Science Agency verifying that the swabs of deceased were found stained with semen, which showed that the motive behind the occurrence that both the deceased were in compromising position, was fully proved

Foundation of the occurrence that the accused had murdered both the deceased on account of Ghairat did not hit the provisions of S.302(c), P.P.C. as it fell within the exception clause of said provision

Seat of injuries, the number of injuries and the weapon of offence used and duration between the injuries and death as well as death and post-mortem examination were in consonance with the ocular account furnished by the prosecution

Circumstances suggested that the medical evidence lent full support to the ocular account furnished by the prosecution

Record transpired that the recovery of crime weapon remained inconsequential and the occurrence had taken place inside the bounds of the compound of accused in the adjacent room of his house and on seeing both the deceased in objectionable condition, he being paternal cousin of the deceased, lady, had reacted blindly without considering its consequences

Such factors constituted mitigating circumstances, thus appeal was dismissed by maintaining the sentence of the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., however his sentence of death was modified to the one of imprisonment for life on two counts.

2019 YLR 1260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6 & 23Act of terrorismTransfer of caseRobberyDouble murderAccused were aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court declining to transfer case to court of ordinary jurisdictionValidity

Accused persons had planned and robbed the deceased at his shop with firearms and robbery took place in broad daylight in bazaar where members of public were present and when owner of shop resisted the robbery, he was shot in cold blood in front of members of public

When other members of public tried to intervene, they were warned off by accused persons, threatening them with pistols

Another person who tried to intervene was again shot dead in cold blood by accused persons in front of public

While making their escape good, accused persons deliberately made aerial firing in order to scare off and terrorize public and in particular, minority community to whom victims belonged

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as same was based upon valid and sound reasons and was in consonance with provisions of relevant law

Accused persons failed to point out any legal infirmity in same as act of terrorism was carried out by accused persons during robbery, murders and aerial firing and same fell within purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 YLR 2410 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Ghayr-jaifah Mutalahimah and rioting armed with deadly weaponsAppreciation of evidenceDelay in registration of FIRWithholding of evidencePresumptionDouble murder

Delay in reporting matter at first available opportunity; refusal of witnesses (injured) to record their statements to investigating officer and considerable delay in recording FIR were sufficient to widen the rope to involve accused with whom enmity was proved as stated by the injured prosecution witness

No active role was assigned to accused except that of instigation

High Court declined to uphold the conviction when allegation of instigation was not backed/supported by any corroborative pieces of evidence

Even cause of dispute i.e. expelling buffaloes from wheat crop, was not of such consideration to have motivated accused to instigate others for killing

Complainant party did not claim arrival of accused party to be armed with any weapon or in a manner to have given rise to any apprehension to accused towards his life etc.

Formation of unlawful assembly was not with the only object to commit murder

Section 149, P.P.C., therefore, not applicable to the present case

Convictions and sentences awarded to all accused persons by Trial Court were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 513 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417Qatl-i-amd and terrorismAppeal against acquittalAppreciation of evidenceDouble murderEvidence of child witnessRetracted confessionAccused was acquitted by the Trial Court by disbelieving prosecution evidence in a case where two persons were murderedValidityMedical reports available on record fully corroborated prosecution case

Injuries sustained by male deceased on front side of his body corroborated statement of an eye-witness, similarly, injuries sustained by female deceased on backside of her body corroborated site plan as well as story depicted in FIR

Forensic Science Laboratory reports, regarding blood-stained earth/sand collected from two spots of occurrence and blood-stained clothes of two deceased, was in positive which further strengthened prosecution version

Witnesses of recovery memos prepared in such regard by Investigating Officer were consistent in their deposition and their testimony was intact despite lengthy cross-examination

Both sets of recovery memos, i.e., Kalashnikov and empty shells were examined through Forensic Science Laboratory which report was available on record

According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, 14 empty shells from two spots of occurrence were fired from 7.62 mm bore SMG rifle which was recovered at the behest of accused

Such evidence fully supported prosecution case which should have been considered by Trial Court

Conduct of accused did not conform to the ordinary course of nature as in case of murder of his wife, at whosoever hand and for whatever reason, he neither lodged FIR nor took his deceased wife to hospital

Such was a relevant fact for drawing an adverse inference

Prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against accused and Trial Court did not properly appreciate evidence available on record

Statement of child witness coupled with retracted confession, though corroborated on material points, was a mitigating circumstance for not awarding capital punishment to accused

High Court set aside judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 MLD 446 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtDouble murderMedical evidence

Medical reports showed that injuries on the persons of both the deceased were of different sizes and four of alleged empties did not match with crime pistol recovered on pointation of accused

Such facts suggested that dual murders were not the doing of a single person

Medical Board constituted during trial suggested that accused was an insane person suffering from Schyphonzi, a disease allegedly caused at the spur of moment

Motive put forward by prosecution was not proved according to law, as no independent person was produced regarding alleged extension of threats on pistol point to brother of deceased and there was no report to such effect

Prosecution suppressed material facts and occurrence was shrouded in mystery as to under what circumstances, in what manner, at what time and by whom deceased were injured and done to death

Either it was case of no evidence or occurrence did not take place in the manner as suggested by prosecution

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

High Court extended benefit of doubt, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2013 SCMR 1602 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417Qatl-e-amd and terrorismReappraisal of evidenceAppeal against acquittalDouble murderBenefit of doubtRecoveryProof

Conviction and sentence awarded to both accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and they were acquitted of the charge

Validity

No weapon of offence had been recovered from both the accused and recovery at their instance was not worthy of reliance as complainant was resident of same house where incident had taken place but he did not mention in complaint that certain articles were taken away by accused persons

Articles alleged to be recovered from accused were easily available in market and no specific mark was found on the articles to connect recoveries with commission of crime

For awarding conviction to accused persons, prosecution needed corroboration which was lacking and both accused were rightly acquitted by High Court

Interference in appeal against acquittal was a rare phenomenon

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.