IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2013 
(Against the judgment dated 03.06.2013 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 76-J of 2009 and 
Murder Reference No. 41 of 2009) 
 
 
 
Asad Khan 
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State  
  
 
     …Respondent 
                
 
 
For the appellant: 
Syeda B. H. Shah, ASC 
 
 
 For the State: 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
24.05.2017  
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: Asad 
Khan 
appellant 
had 
allegedly murdered his wife namely Mst. Zahida Shamim and their 
two minor children namely Muhammad Arshad, aged about five 
years, and Muhammad Arman, aged about 7/8 months, inside the 
house of the appellant with the use of a hatchet at about 10.30 
A.M. on 30.07.2008 in village Tala Baangi Khel in the area of Police 
Station Baangi Khel, District Mianwali. It was alleged by the 
prosecution that the said murders had been committed by the 
appellant in the backdrop of strained relations between the 
appellant and his wife. With the said allegations the appellant was 
booked in case FIR No. 27 registered at the above mentioned Police 
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2013 
 
2 
Station on the same day and after a regular trial the appellant was 
convicted by the trial court on three counts of the charge under 
section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death on all the counts 
and to pay compensation which convictions and sentences of the 
appellant were later on upheld and confirmed by the High Court. 
Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 
21.10.2013.  
 
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. 
According the prosecution the incident in issue had been 
witnessed by Ghulam Jan complainant (PW9), father of Mst. 
Zahida Shamim deceased and a grand father of Muhammad 
Arshad and Muhammad Arman deceased, Khizar Hayat and Jan 
Muhammad but during the trial Khizar Hayat and Jan Muhammad 
PWs had been given up by the prosecution as having been won 
over as they had refused to support the prosecution’s case against 
the appellant. The solitary eyewitness deposing before the trial 
court  was Ghulam Jan complainant who was not only the father 
of one of the deceased but was also admittedly a chance witness 
who had come to the place of occurrence from District Faisalabad 
situated more than 200 miles away from the scene of the crime. 
The stated reason for visit of the complainant to the spot had never 
been substantiated or established before the trial court through 
any independent evidence whatsoever. Muhammad Tariq Mehmood 
(DW1) had produced a register of attendance before the trial court 
establishing that on 29.07.2008 as well as on 30.07.2008 Ghulam 
Jan complainant was very much in attendance at his place of work 
in Faisalabad and there was no earthly reason to attribute any 
motive to the said witness to falsely depose before the trial court in 
order to save the appellant’s skin. It is important to mention here 
that the very first sentence of the FIR lodged by the complainant 
showed that he admitted working as a regular employee at 
Faisalabad and he had never claimed that on the day of occurrence 
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2013 
 
3 
he was on leave. The said solitary eyewitness produced by the 
prosecution had failed to receive any independent corroboration or 
support inasmuch as the motive set up by the prosecution was 
never established through any independent evidence, the alleged 
recovery of a hatchet from the appellant’s possession during the 
investigation was unbelievable as the said hatchet had statedly 
been recovered from an open field belonging to somebody else and 
the investigating officer had conceded before the trial court that at 
the time of its recovery the hatchet was not stained with blood. The 
medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution for 
the simple reason that post-mortem examination of the deadbodies 
had been conducted after more than 17/18 hours of the alleged 
occurrence. 
The 
said 
delay 
in 
conducting 
post-mortem 
examination of the deadbodies indicated that time had been 
consumed by the complainant party and the local police in 
procuring and planting eyewitnesses and in cooking up a story for 
the prosecution. All these factors have gone a long way in 
convincing us that the prosecution had not been able to prove its 
case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.  
 
4. 
It had been held by this Court in the case of Arshad 
Mehmood v. The State (2005 SCMR 1524) that where a wife of a 
person dies an unnatural death in the house of such person there 
some part of the onus lies on him to establish the circumstances in 
which such unnatural death had occurred. In the later case of 
Saeed Ahmed v. The State (2015 SCMR 710) the said legal position 
had been elaborated and it had been held that an accused person 
is under some kind of an obligation to explain the circumstances 
in which his vulnerable dependent had met an unnatural death 
within the confines of his house. It had, however, been held in the 
case of Abdul Majeed v. The State (2011 SCMR 941) that where the 
entire case of the prosecution stands demolished or is found to be 
utterly unbelievable there an accused person cannot be convicted 
merely because he did not explain the circumstances in which his 
wife or some vulnerable dependent had lost his life. In such a case 
the entire burden of proof cannot be shifted to him in that regard if 
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2013 
 
4 
the case of the prosecution itself collapses. The present case is a 
case of the latter category wherein the entire case of the 
prosecution has been found by us to be utterly unbelievable and 
the same stands demolished and, thus, we cannot sustain the 
appellant’s conviction and sentence merely on the basis of an 
inference or a supposition qua his involvement.  
 
5. 
For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed, 
the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded and 
upheld by the courts below 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 
24.05.2017 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
