| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1307 2026 SLD 1307 = 2026 SCP 1 = 2026 SCMR 783 |
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NO.346 AND 417 OF 2020 (On appeal against the judgment dated 04.03.2020, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Appeal No.500/ 2017 anti Murder Reference No.56 of 2017)
JUSTICE MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM
Mr. Basharat Ullah Khan, ASC (in Criminal Petition No.246/2020) Sheikh Waqar Azeem Siddiqui, ASC (in Criminal Petition No.417/2020)
Muhammad Siddique nn Criminal Petition No.346/2020) Sikandar Din (in Criminal Petition No.417/2020} ........Petitioner
VERSUS
The State etc ..........Respondent
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 544-A,173
Summary
In this Supreme Court judgment, petitioner Muhammad Siddique, convicted of murdering Ghulam Fareed under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death by the Trial Court (later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court), successfully appealed his conviction. The Court acquitted him after finding the prosecution's case unreliable due to improbable eyewitness presence at 6:00 p.m. in September, family ties undermining motive, chance witness testimony, unexplained 5-hour FIR delay, delayed postmortem, and insufficient circumstantial evidence like weapon recovery, which cannot standalone without credible ocular evidence.
Core Points
- Improbable Eyewitness Presence: Grazing cattle at sunset (6:00 p.m. September) defies rural norms; complainant (PW-7) admitted being informed post-incident, contradicting direct witnessing.
- Family Relationships: Petitioner's daughters married to complainant's sons; no animosity toward deceased son-in-law, making murder motive illogical.
- Chance Witness Flaws: PW-8 Abdul Ghani from distant village failed to justify presence 20-25 minutes away at late hour, with jungle grazing nearby.
- FIR and Postmortem Delays: 5+ hour unexplained FIR delay (despite nearby police station) and next-day postmortem erode credibility, suggesting fabricated story.
- Motive and Recovery Insufficient: No established grudge; Kalashnikov recovery and empties irrelevant without reliable direct evidence.
- Benefit of Doubt: Single reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal; lower courts erred in overlooking infirmities.
Laws and Sections
| Law/Section | Context/Principle |
|---|---|
| Section 302(b) PPC | Conviction for murder (qatl-i-amd); death sentence as Ta'zir, later commuted to life. |
| Section 544-A CrPC | Compensation of Rs. 500,000 to deceased's heirs, with 6 months SI in default. |
| Section 173 CrPC | Submission of challan/report after investigation. |
| PLD 2019 SC 64 (Mst. Asia Bibi v. State) | Unexplained FIR delay fatal to prosecution. |
| 2012 SCMR 428 (Zeeshan v. State) | FIR delay infers story fabrication. |
| 2010 SCMR 105 (Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan) | Same as above. |
| 2017 SCMR 54 (Muhammad Ityas v. Muhammad Abid) | Postmortem delay doubts eyewitness presence. |
| 2012 SCMR 327 (Khalid v. State); 2020 SCMR 192 (Sufyan Nazir v. State); 2018 SCMR 326 (Zafar v. State); 2012 SCMR 419 (Muhammad Ashraf v. State) | Postmortem delays undermine ocular evidence. |
| 1997 SCMR 1279 (Ijaz Ahmed v. State); PLD 1971 SC 541 (Asadullah v. State); 1985 SCMR 410 (Saifullah v. State) | Circumstantial evidence (e.g., recovery) cannot sustain conviction without credible direct evidence. |
| 2018 SCMR 772 (Muhammad Mansha v. State); 2021 SCMR 736 (Najaf Ali Shah v. State) | Single doubt entitles accused to acquittal as legal right. |
JUDGMENT