IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2016 
(Against the judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeals No. 271-J 
& 147 of 2008 and Murder Reference No. 37 of 2008) 
 
 
Nazir Ahmad 
  
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State  
     …Respondent 
 
                
 
For the appellant: 
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, ASC 
 
For the State:  
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
07.02.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: Nazir Ahmed appellant and 
another had allegedly murdered the appellant’s wife namely Mst. 
Anwar Bibi inside the appellant’s matrimonial home in Basti Haji 
Pura Dakhli, Chak No. 35/KB in the area of Police Station Sahuka, 
District Vehari at about 04.00 A.M. on 19.11.2006 in the backdrop 
of a motive based upon strained relations on account of exchange 
marriages. With the said allegations the appellant and his co-
accused were booked in case FIR No. 339 registered at the above 
mentioned Police Station during the ensuing morning and after a 
regular trial the appellant was convicted by the trial court for an 
offence under section 302(b), PPC read with section 34, PPC and 
was sentenced to death and to pay compensation whereas the 
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2016 
2 
appellant’s co-accused namely Bashir Ahmed was also convicted 
and sentenced by the trial court for the same offence. The 
appellant and his co-convict challenged their convictions and 
sentences before the High Court through separate appeals, the 
appeal filed by Bashir Ahmed co-convict was allowed by the High 
Court and he was acquitted of the charge whereas the appeal filed 
by the appellant was dismissed to the extent of his conviction for 
the offence under section 302(b), PPC but the same was partly 
allowed to the extent of his sentence of death which was reduced 
by the High Court to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present 
appeal by leave of this Court granted on 18.03.2016.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.  
 
3. 
The occurrence in this case had taken place in the small 
hours of the fateful night, i.e. at 04.00 A.M. in the middle of 
November. The place of occurrence was inside the house of the 
appellant and according to the site-plan of the place of occurrence 
there was no other house or shop situated anywhere close to the 
house of occurrence. An FIR in respect of the incident in question 
had been lodged after about three hours and forty minutes and, 
thus, a possibility regarding deliberations before lodging of the FIR 
could not safely be ruled out of consideration. The eyewitnesses 
produced by the prosecution, i.e. Nausher Ali complainant (PW6) 
and Muhammad Fayyaz (PW7) were very closely related to Mst. 
Anwar Bibi deceased inasmuch as the complainant was a brother 
of the deceased whereas the other eyewitness was a brother-in-law 
of the complainant. Both the said eyewitnesses were also chance 
witnesses and they had claimed to have been attracted to the place 
of occurrence upon hue and cry of the deceased. As already 
mentioned above, there was no house or shop of any person 
situated anywhere close to the house of occurrence and, thus, it 
was not readily believable that the above mentioned eyewitnesses 
would be attracted to the place of occurrence upon hue and cry of 
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2016 
3 
the deceased. Instead of providing support to the ocular account 
the medical evidence produced by the prosecution had gone a long 
way in creating dents in the case of the prosecution. Post-mortem 
examination of the deadbody had been conducted after about 13 
hours of the death of the deceased giving rise to an inference that 
time had been consumed by the complainant party and the local 
police in cooking up a story for the prosecution and in procuring 
and planting eyewitnesses. The time of death of the deceased 
stated by the eyewitnesses was materially different from that 
discernable from the medical evidence. Bashir Ahmed co-accused, 
attributed an active role during the incident in issue, had been 
acquitted by the High Court which established that the 
eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution were capable of 
falsehood. The High Court had categorically concluded that no 
independent proof of the alleged motive had been adduced by the 
prosecution. As if this were not enough, a son of the deceased and 
also of the appellant had appeared before the trial court as DW1 
and he had categorically stated that it was Nausher Ali 
complainant (PW6) who had murdered his mother and that the 
said murder had not been committed by the present appellant. 
That son of the deceased was a natural witness being a resident of 
the house wherein the occurrence had taken place and the time of 
occurrence was such that the said son of the deceased was likely 
to be present inside that house at the relevant time.  
 
4. 
It has been argued by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-
General, Punjab appearing for the State that the deceased in this 
case was a vulnerable dependent of the appellant and, thus, by 
virtue of the law declared by this Court in the cases of Saeed 
Ahmed v. The State (2015 SCMR 710) and Arshad Mehmood v. The 
State (2005 SCMR 1524) some part of the onus had shifted to the 
appellant to explain the circumstances in which his wife had died 
an unnatural death in his house during the fateful night which 
part of the onus had not been discharged by the appellant. We 
have attended to this aspect of the case with care and have found 
that when every other piece of evidence relied upon by the 
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2016 
4 
prosecution has been found by us to be utterly unreliable then the 
appellant could not be convicted for the alleged murder simply on 
the basis of a supposition. The principle enunciated in the above 
mentioned cases of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (2015 SCMR 710) 
and Arshad Mehmood v. The State (2005 SCMR 1524) was 
explained further in the cases of Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State 
(2017 SCMR 724) and Asad Khan v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 681) 
wherein it had been clarified that the above mentioned shifting of 
some part of the onus to the accused may not be relevant in a case 
where the entire case of the prosecution itself is not reliable and 
where the prosecution fails to produce any believable evidence.  It 
is trite that in all such cases the initial onus of proof always lies 
upon the prosecution and if the prosecution fails to adduce reliable 
evidence in support of its own case then the accused person 
cannot be convicted merely on the basis of lack of discharge of 
some part of the onus on him.  
 
5. 
For what has been discussed above a conclusion is 
irresistible and inescapable that the prosecution had failed to 
prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This 
appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the 
appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by 
extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from 
the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with 
any other case. 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
07.02.2018 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif     
