Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 302(b), 324, 34

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, (XXIII of 2013)

Section: 15

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 382-B

REMARKS

(a) If the testimony of ocular witnesses, who are deemed to be chance witnesses, remains uncorroborated by independent or circumstantial evidence, it would be legally unsafe to place implicit reliance thereon. In such circumstances, their presence at the scene of occurrence must be established beyond suspicion, and in the absence of satisfactory explanation or corroboration, their evidence cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
(b) The incident is alleged to have occurred at 08:30 hours, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at 11:40 hours—reflecting an unexplained delay of over three hours. According to the contents of the FIR, the distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station is merely 17–18 kilometers, which could reasonably have been covered within 20 to 25 minutes. The prosecution has failed to offer any plausible explanation for this delay in lodging the report. Such inordinate and unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version and suggests the possibility of deliberation, consultation, or fabrication on the part of the complainant.
(c) The delayed dispatch of case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) significantly undermines the evidentiary value of such material, rendering it unreliable. Consequently, no weight can be attached to the positive FSL report, as the possibility of tampering or substitution of the recovered empties and the alleged crime weapon cannot be ruled out. The unexplained delay of five days in sending these items to the FSL has materially compromised the integrity of the recoveries.
(d) Motive, in the present case, appears to be a double-edged weapon—capable of being used by either side, whether to support a genuine claim or to fabricate a false implication. The motive put forth by the prosecution reflects a history of enmity between the parties, which, rather than strengthening the prosecution’s case, equally raises the possibility of false implication of the petitioner.

Summary:Murder Acquittal
The case involved an appeal by two accused (Zardad and Sheraz) against their conviction by the trial court for murder, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony, motive (cow theft dispute), medical evidence, and weapon recovery. The High Court found major contradictions, delays in FIR registration, doubtful eyewitness presence, unproven motive, and compromised recovery evidence. Applying the benefit of doubt principle, the court acquitted both appellants and dismissed the complainant’s revision for a death penalty enhancement.