IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
MR. JUSTICE ATHAR MINALLAH 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 27.06.2016 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Murder Reference No. 40/2013 
and Criminal Appeal No. 338/2013) 
 
Amir Muhammad Khan 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mrs. Kausar Irfan Bhatti, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
For the Complainant: 
Nemo 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
18.01.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant was tried by the learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, pursuant to a case registered vide FIR No. 
8 dated 06.02.2013 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Lawa, Tehsil 
Talagang, District Chakwal for committing murder of Adam Khan, father of the 
complainant.  The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.07.2013 
convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death. 
He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.500,000/- to the 
legal heirs of each deceased. In appeal the learned High Court while 
maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC, altered 
the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. Benefit of Section 382-B 
Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned 
judgment, the appellant filed Jail Petition No. 454/2016 before this Court 
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2020 
-: 2 :-
wherein leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2020 and the 
present appeal has arisen thereafter.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment reads 
as under:- 
“2. 
Brief facts of the case as per the complaint (Ex.PA) filed by Zafar Ali, 
complainant (PW-8) are that he was resident of Dhoke Chaki Dakhli Dhurnal 
and on 06.02.2012, he was grazing the cattle, at about 9.00 am, he heard 
noise. He went to his Dhoke, where his sister-in-law (Bhabi) Mst. Ansar Bibi 
(PW-9) told him that his father Adam Khan was getting ready to go to the 
village Dhurnal, when Amir Muhammad Khan while armed with hatchet came 
in the room and gave repeated hatchet blows on the neck and rear side of left 
hand of Adam Khan, deceased, who died at the spot. 
3. 
The motive behind the occurrence was alleged a dispute over land and 
construction of house.” 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order to prove 
its case produced eleven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 
342 Cr.P.C, the appellant pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations 
leveled against him. He did not opt to appear as his own witness on oath as 
provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the allegations leveled 
against him. However, he produced certain documents in his defence.  
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants argued 
that it was an unseen occurrence and the prosecution witness of the ocular 
account was not present at the spot. Contends that there are glaring 
contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statement of the eye-
witness, which escaped the notice of the learned courts below. Contends that 
the ocular account is negated by the medical evidence and the statement of 
Zahid Iqbal, Halqa Patwari (PW-6), therefore, the same has lost its sanctity and 
the conviction cannot be based upon it. Contends that the prosecution has not 
been able to prove motive as alleged, which causes serious dent in the 
prosecution case. Contends that the recovery of weapon of offence is 
inconsequential because it was allegedly recovered from an open place, as 
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2020 
-: 3 :-
such, it cannot be made basis to sustain conviction of the appellant. Lastly 
contends that the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain 
conviction of the appellant are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, 
the impugned judgment may be set at naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed this 
appeal on the ground that the eye-witness had no enmity with the appellant 
to falsely implicate him in this case. It has been contended that the medical 
evidence is also in line with the ocular account, therefore, the appellant does 
not deserve any leniency from this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length 
and have perused the evidence available on the record with their able 
assistance.  
7. 
 
A bare perusal of the record reflects that the instant case, 
wherein the father of the complainant was done to death, took place at 09:00 
am on 06.12.2012 whereas the crime report was lodged at 02:10 pm i.e. after 
more than five hours of the occurrence. The distance between the place of 
occurrence and the Police station was 21 kilometers. Nowhere in the entire 
evidence, the prosecution has explained the reason for the delay in reporting 
the matter to the Police with such a delay. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty 
on the part of the complainant and that it was lodged with deliberation and 
consultation. The prosecution case mainly hinges upon (i) the statement of  
Mst. Ansar Bibi (PW-9), who is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, (ii) 
medical evidence, (iii) motive, and (iv) recovery on the pointation of the 
appellant. According to the Mst. Ansar Bibi, the occurrence took place at 09:00 
am; the appellant inflicted two hatchet blows on the neck of the deceased and 
one blow on the back of left hand of the deceased. According to her, the 
occurrence took place in the house and the head of the deceased was 
decapitated from the rest of the body. She further stated during her cross-
examination that both the head and the body were separately picked up by 
the Police. However, her stance is negated by the medical evidence. According 
to Dr. Rizwan Shahid (PW-10), the occurrence took place at 05:00 am and the 
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2020 
-: 4 :-
deceased was not beheaded. He further stated that there is every possibility 
that the injuries caused to the deceased were inflicted when he was sleeping, 
lying or during intoxication because the posture of the injuries showed that 
the injuries on the neck cannot be caused while in standing position. The 
statement of the doctor that the head of the deceased was not decapitated is 
further strengthened by Pervaiz Akhtar, SI/Investigating Officer (PW-11), who 
stated during his cross-examination that when he first saw the dead body, his 
head was not chopped up from his body. The stance of Mst. Ansar Bibi was 
further negated by Zahid Iqbal, Halqa Patwari (PW-6), who prepared scaled 
site plan. According to him, the occurrence took place at a deserted place; 
there was no house of anyone and there was also no blood sign at the place of 
occurrence. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. 
had specifically taken the plea that in-fact it was the complainant, who being 
son of the deceased, had issues with him. The complainant wanted to marry 
his daughter with one Sher Afzal but his wife and other family members had 
objection over it. The deceased being father of the complainant had forbidden 
him from doing so but he did not do so. As a result, the wife of the 
complainant along with all children went to the house of the deceased. The 
deceased married the daughter of the complainant namely Sumaira Khatoon 
with Muhammad Yousaf and in the marriage ceremony the complainant did 
not participate. The complainant moved an application under Section 491 
Cr.P.C, which has been placed on record as Ex.DB, in the Court of Additional 
Sessions Judge, Talagang against the deceased and others for recovery of his 
wife and his children. In the said application, he alleged that the deceased 
wanted to kill him and he has illegally detained his wife and children. Upon the 
said application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, got recorded the 
statement of the wife of the complainant, who in categorical terms stated that 
she has never been detained by anyone and she along with her children is 
residing with her father-in-law i.e. the deceased with her free will. Thereafter, 
the learned Court disposed off the petition filed by the complainant vide order 
dated 12.07.2008. The said order has also been placed on record vide Ex.DC. It 
has come on the record that the appellant is grandson of the deceased and he 
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2020 
-: 5 :-
was being brought up by the deceased. The appellant alleged that due to the 
apprehension that the deceased would transfer his whole property in his 
name, the complainant committed murder of his father. When the appellant 
had taken a specific stance and in support of the same had placed on record 
the relevant documents, the learned High Court ought to have taken into 
consideration the statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and 
would have properly scrutinized the evidence but the learned High Court even 
did not discuss it in the impugned judgment. As far as motive part of the 
prosecution story is concerned, the complainant in his statement stated that 
there was a dispute over land and construction of house due to which the 
appellant committed murder of his father. However, except for his oral 
assertion he did not produce any independent evidence to substantiate the 
motive part of the prosecution story, therefore, we are of the view that the 
prosecution has failed to prove motive. So far as recovery of blood stained 
hatchet is concerned, the same was allegedly recovered on the pointation of 
appellant from a thoroughfare, which was easily accessible to everyone, 
therefore, it is settled law that the same is inconsequential.  
8. 
 
Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a 
ground to punish an accused. It is an established principle of law and equity 
that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person 
should not suffer. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are 
sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitles 
the appellants to the right of benefit of the doubt. It is a well settled 
principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit 
of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances 
creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same 
must go to the accused. This Court in the case of Mst. Asia Bibi Vs. The State 
(PLD 2019 SC 64) while relying on the earlier judgments of this Court has 
categorically held that “if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in 
a prudent mind about the apprehension of guilt of an accused, then he/she 
shall be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession, but 
as of right. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Tariq 
Criminal Appeal No. 297/2020 
-: 6 :-
Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 
2002 SC 1048).” The same view was reiterated in Abdul Jabbar vs. State 
(2019 SCMR 129) when this Court observed that once a single loophole is 
observed in a case presented by the prosecution, such as conflict in the ocular 
account and medical evidence or presence of eye-witnesses being doubtful, 
the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution’s case automatically 
goes in favour of an accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, 
trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to 
be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the 
present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any 
reasonable shadow of doubt. 
 
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed and 
the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. 
He shall be released from jail unless detained/required in any other case. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
18th of January, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
