IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.13-P/2015 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
13.02.2013 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court, Mingor Bench in Criminal Appeal 
No.97 of 2010). 
 
 
Wajahat 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Gul Daraz & another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC 
 
 
 
For the Respondent No.1 
: Mr. Abdul Munir Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, 
Additional Advocate General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 30.04.2019 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Touheed 
Begum met homicidal death in her home; Wajahat, appellant 
herein, was blamed for the crime by Gul Daraz, PW, no other 
than his father-in-law; domestic differences were cited as 
motive for the crime. The learned trial Court returned guilty 
verdict to the appellant; he was convicted under clause (b) of 
Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to 
imprisonment for life along side direction for payment of diyat 
to the tune of rupees six lacs to the legal heirs with benefit of 
Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vide 
impugned judgment dated 28.1.2010 affirmed by the learned 
Peshawar High Court vide judgment dated 13.2.2013, albeit 
with conversion of diyat into compensation.  
Criminal Appeal No.13-P/2015. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
judgments of the Courts below are erroneously premised on 
misconception of law inasmuch as in the absence of positive 
proof, the appellant could not have been convicted on the 
basis of presumptions or his failure to satisfactorily explain 
circumstances leading towards his wife’s death. Similarly, 
appellant’s absence from law cannot be equated with his guilt, 
complained 
the 
learned 
counsel, 
positions 
vehemently 
contested by the learned Law Officer.   
3. 
 
The complainant, though seemingly with no axe 
to 
grind, 
nonetheless 
has 
not 
himself 
witnessed 
the 
occurrence; crime report, is structured upon his strong belief 
that no one else other than the appellant could be the possible 
assassin, a conviction based upon hearsay queries, most 
important being one furnished by his second daughter 
Nazakat PW married in the same household; she appeared as 
PW-5 and in the witness box pleaded ignorance about the 
culprit, responsible for her sister’s death. She merely deposed 
about crime without reference to the assailant. Her evidence is 
not of much benefit to the prosecution leaving in the field 
suspicion alone to sustain the charge. Appellant’s belated plea 
of the suicide even if rejected outrightly by itself would not 
absolve the prosecution to drive home the charge, on its own 
strength and same goes for appellant’s absconsion; people 
avoid to face process of law or their adversaries for a variety of 
reasons, not necessarily inclusive of their guilt; Appellant’s 
reticence to satisfactorily explain as to what befell upon his 
better half under the same roof, though somewhat intriguing, 
however cannot be equated to qualify as evidentiary certainty, 
essentially required in order to saddle him with formidable 
corporal consequences; his failure would not give rise to an 
adverse presumption within the contemplation of Article 121 
of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and thus it would be 
grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction, without potential 
risk of error as well as diametrical departure from adversarial 
nature of criminal trial. The appeal is allowed, the impugned 
Criminal Appeal No.13-P/2015. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
judgment is set aside and the appellant shall be set at liberty 
forthwith, if not required in any other case. 
 
 
 
     
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Peshawar, the 
30th of April, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
