Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),324, 34

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 173,342,382-B, 544-A

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129(g)

Summary The Supreme Court examined the prosecution case arising from the murder of Jameel Khan (FIR No.49/2006) and found major contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, non-production of the injured eyewitness, discrepancies between police and eyewitness accounts, and absence of forensic linkage. The uniformity of wounds suggested a single assailant while prosecution alleged multiple attackers and failed to send recovered empties for analysis. The High Court’s reliance on alleged long absconsion was held unsustainable. Because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner’s convictions and sentences were set aside and he was acquitted. Core points Arrest and trial: Petitioner (Muhammad Iqbal) convicted by Trial Court under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; High Court upheld conviction; appeal to Supreme Court followed. Delay in FIR: Occurrence dated 29.04.2006 ~7:00 p.m.; FIR lodged 30.04.2006 at 12:10 a.m., delay ≈4.5 hours with no plausible explanation. Complainant not eyewitness: Complainant (Ismail Shah) was not present at scene; relied on accounts of others. Contradictory police testimony: SI Abdul Razzaq’s account (reaching hospital ~9:20 p.m., preparing inquest same night) contradicted complainant’s version of statements recorded at home and conflicted with timing of FIR. Eyewitness inconsistencies: Alleged eyewitnesses (Javed Khan, Khan Rauf) contradicted police testimony about presence of SI and recording of statements; neither they nor injured witness lodged FIR or explained delay. Non-production of injured witness: Injured eyewitness Waseem Qazi was withheld by prosecution without plausible explanation; court drew adverse inference per Article 129(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Forensic gaps: Five empties allegedly recovered were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory; postmortem showed four uniform entry wounds, suggesting single assailant contrary to prosecution’s multi attacker theory. Absconsion issue: High Court relied on petitioner’s long absence (arrest after ~14 years) as indicative of guilt; Supreme Court found no lawful proceedings shown…