IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL  
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal 
Appeal No. 698/2015) 
 
 
Khalid Mehmood @ Khaloo 
 
 
… Appellant 
Versus 
The State 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant: 
Mr. Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, ASC 
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
10.02.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Appellant was 
proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 74 
dated 21.02.1995 under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Kot 
Momin, Sargodha for committing murder of Haji Mehmand father of 
the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 
02.04.2015 convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and 
sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay 
compensation amounting to Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the 
deceased or in default whereof to further undergo six months SI. 
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. In appeal 
the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentences 
recorded by the learned Trial Court.   
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned 
judgment reads as under:- 
“2. 
Succinctly stated the facts of the prosecution case 
as it gleans from the FIR are to the effect that on 
21.02.1995 at about 12.30 noon Haji Mehmand 
Criminal Appeal No. 437/2020 
-: 2 :- 
(deceased) was taken to Chenab Bazar Kot Momin by 
his son Muhammad Anwar complainant for obtaining 
the medicine as he was ill; that Muhammad Ansar 
accused (since PO) and Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo 
(appellant) arrived there while armed with revolvers; 
that Ansar (PO) made a fire shot with his revolver which 
hit on the left flank of Haji Mehmand, whereas fire shot 
made by Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo (appellant) 
landed on the right side of abdomen of Haji Mehmand; 
that apart from Muhammad Anwar complainant the 
occurrence was also witnessed by Mukhtar Ahmad (W-
5) and Zulfiqar PW; that they all raised hue and cry 
whereupon both the accused succeeded to flee away 
from the spot; that Haji Mehmand was shifted to Civil 
Hospital, Kot Momin from where he was shifted to Civil 
Hospital, Sargodha; that both the accused committed the 
murder of deceased on the abetment of Liaqat, Rafaqat 
and Bati (acquitted during the earlier trial).”  
 
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 8 witnesses. The 
testimonies of two PWs, who were examined in the earlier trial of co-
accused of the appellant, had also been relied upon during trial. In 
his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C the appellant 
pleaded his innocence and refuted all the allegations leveled against 
him. However, he did not opt to appear under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. 
to lead defence evidence. 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 
appellant has been convicted on the solitary statement of Mukhtar 
Ahmad (PW-5), which is not confidence inspiring. Contends that the 
learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant had relied upon 
the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 of the previous trial of the co-
accused, which included the postmortem report and the statement of 
the doctor recorded in the previous trial but the same was never 
exhibited in the current trial, therefore, it could not have been made 
basis by the learned Trial Court to convict the appellant. Lastly 
contends that mere the absconsion of the appellant cannot be made 
basis to convict him and the prosecution has to prove its case 
independently, which has not been done, therefore, the appellant 
deserves to be acquitted of the charge.   
Criminal Appeal No. 437/2020 
-: 3 :- 
5. 
 
 On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended 
the impugned judgment. He contended that the appellant has 
committed murder of an innocent person and his long absconsion 
clearly reflects that he has committed the crime, therefore, he does 
not deserve any leniency by 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.  
 
 
Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant along 
with four other co-accused was booked in the instant case for 
committing murder of father of the complainant. Co-accused namely 
Ansar absconded and is still at large. The appellant along with three 
co-accused namely Liaqat, Rafaqat and Bati was being tried when 
he ran away on 21.12.1998 by breaking the chain whereas the 
three co-accused were ultimately tried and acquitted of the charge 
by a separate judgment. After his arrest on 18.08.2013, the trial to 
appellant’s extent again started. The occurrence which took place on 
21.02.1995 was witnessed by Muhammad Anwar complainant, 
Zulfiqar Ali and Mukhtar Ahmed (PW-5). However, only Mukhtar 
Ahmed (PW-5) appeared in the witness box in the current round as 
the remaining two witnesses died during the absconsion period of 
the appellant. Although the statements of both the witnesses namely 
Muhammad Anwar and Zulfiqar Ali were admissible in evidence 
under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but this 
aspect has not been taken into consideration and relied upon by the 
learned courts below, which omission cannot be resolved at this 
stage as the matter arises out of the FIR No. 74 dated 21.02.1995, 
therefore, any order passed by this Court would not be in the 
interest of safe administration of criminal justice. So, this is the case 
of solitary statement. There is no cavil with the proposition that 
conviction can be made on the basis of solitary statement of an eye-
witness but there are certain aspects of the matter, which need to be 
looked at. It is admitted position that the learned Trial Court while 
convicting the appellant had relied upon the medical evidence 
comprising the postmortem report and the statement of the doctor in 
the earlier trial of the three co-accused of the appellant but the same 
Criminal Appeal No. 437/2020 
-: 4 :- 
was never exhibited during the current trial of the appellant. This 
Court in the case of Nur Elahi Vs. Ikram ul Haq and State (PLD 1966 
SC 708) has categorically held that “witnesses should be examined 
only once and their statements read out as evidence in the other 
case is not supportable in law”. It was further held that “every 
criminal proceeding is to be decided on the material on record of that 
proceeding and neither the record of another case nor any finding 
recorded therein should affect the decision and if the court takes into 
consideration evidence recorded in another case or a finding 
recorded therein the judgment is vitiated.” The judgment in Nur Elahi 
supra case was further reiterated by this Court in Muhammad 
Sarwar Vs. Khushi Muhammad (2008 SCMR 350) wherein it has 
been held that “the evidence recorded in one case may not hold good 
for the other case.” In view of the law laid down by this Court, it can 
safely be said that the learned Trial Court could not have relied 
upon the medical evidence that was brought on record in the earlier 
trial of the three co-accused of the appellant. So far as the recovery 
of revolver recovered from the possession of the appellant is 
concerned, the same has no impact on the instant case as no empty 
was recovered from the place of occurrence. In these circumstances, 
a dent in the prosecution’s case has been created, benefit of which 
must be given to the appellant. It is a settled law that single 
circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the 
guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of 
grace and concession but as a matter of right. The conviction must 
be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any 
doubt arising in prosecution’s case is to be resolved in favour of the 
accused and burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its 
case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. However, as discussed 
above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its 
case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. So far as the 
argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the 
appellant is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be 
viewed as a proof for the crime and only on this basis an accused 
cannot be convicted and it is the prosecution who has to prove its 
case independently without any reasonable shadow of doubt.  
Criminal Appeal No. 437/2020 
-: 5 :- 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is 
allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Appellant is 
acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail forthwith 
unless detained in any other case.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
10th of February, 2022 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram