IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2013 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.11.2012 
passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in 
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 11/2012) 
 
Muhammad Sadiq 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
The State 
… Respondent 
 
For the Appellant: 
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, 
ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Tahir Iqbal Khattak, Addl. P.G. 
Balochistan 
 
Date of Hearing:  
16.11.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- On 20.02.2000 at 11 a.m., one 
Lashkar Khan lodged an FIR under Section 302 PPC alleging 
that on the previous day i.e. 19.02.2000 at 7.15 a.m. the 
appellant committed murder of his cousin, Abdullah by firing 
at him with Kalashnikov. The appellant, who is a teacher by 
profession and nephew of the complainant, absconded. The 
trial nevertheless proceeded, the prosecution recorded its 
evidence and the appellant was convicted in absentia and 
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. After about ten years 
of his conviction, the appellant surfaced and voluntarily 
surrendered. Then on his application, his conviction in 
absentia was set aside and de novo trial was ordered. After 
conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and 
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013 
2
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, fined Rs.100,000/- and 
in default thereof was to undergo simple imprisonment for a 
further period of six months. The appellant preferred appeal 
against his conviction before the High Court which concurred 
with the trial court’s decision and dismissed the same. The 
appellant then filed Jail Petition in this Court from which the 
present appeal has arisen. 
  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the 
alleged incident, as reported in the FIR, took place on 
19.02.2000 early in the morning at 7.15 a.m. yet no FIR was 
registered on that date. He submitted that it has come on the 
record that on the date of the incident, the deceased Abdullah 
was buried and it was only on the next day at 11 a.m. in the 
morning that PW-1 Lashkar Khan lodged FIR wherein he has 
only stated that the appellant committed murder of Abdullah 
by firing at him with a Kalashnikov. It was not mentioned in 
the FIR that anyone saw the murder taking place. He 
submitted that it was only at the stage of recording of the 
evidence that PW-1, Lashkar Khan in his deposition stated 
that on the day of the incident he heard gunshots and when 
we went to the place from where sound of the gunshots came, 
he saw that the appellant had a fight with the deceased 
Abdullah on account of a dispute over disconnection of water 
and on account of such dispute the appellant murdered 
Abdullah by firing at him with his Kalashnikov. In his 
deposition PW-1, Lashkar Khan further stated that when he 
reached the place of occurrence PW-2, Anees-ur-Rehaman was 
already present there, he then went to the Tehsilar of the area 
to lodge report of the incident. PW-2 Anees-ur-Rehman in his 
deposition had stated that when he reached the place of 
occurrence after hearing gunshots he saw the appellant near 
the mountain with a Kalashnikov in his hand. The learned 
counsel for the appellant further stated that not a semblance 
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013 
3
of such assertions made by PW-1 and PW2 in their respective 
depositions find mention in the FIR as in the FIR it was simply 
stated by PW-1 that the appellant had committed murder of 
the deceased Abdullah with a Kalashnikov. Learned Counsel 
further submitted that in his cross-examination PW-1, Lashkar 
Khan, contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief 
about witnessing the incident, admitted that he had not seen 
for himself the murder taking place and it was PW-2, Anees-
ur-Rehman, who had narrated to him that he saw the 
appellant near the mountain with a Kalashnikov. Learned 
Counsel lastly submitted that no medical examination was 
conducted on the deceased in order to ascertain the real cause 
of his death and merely on the assertion made in the 
deposition of PW-2 Anees-ur-Rehman that he saw the 
appellant near the mountain, which is at some distance from 
the place of alleged incident, with a Kalashnikov, that the 
appellant was found guilty of committing murder of Abdullah.  
 
3. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor 
General, Balochistan argued that both the courts below on the 
basis of circumstantial evidence that had come on the record 
implicated the accused with the commission of crime and that 
the abscondence of the appellant for a period of more than ten 
years also raises the presumption of guilt against him and 
mere absence of medical examination is of no help to the 
appellant in presence of statements of PWs, who had no 
enmity with him.  
 
4. 
 
We have examined the evidence and the material 
that has come on the record. It is an admitted position that 
after the alleged incident had taken place at 7:15 a.m. in the 
morning of 19.02.2000, last rites of the deceased were 
performed and even thereafter the matter was not reported to 
Tehsildar for registration of FIR on that day. The Tehsildar, Mr. 
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013 
4
Nazar Hussain, who was responsible to record FIR and act as 
investigating officer of the incident, had appeared as 
prosecution witness as PW-4.  He deposed that it was on 
20.2.2000, that PW-1, Lashkar Khan, came to his office at 11 
a.m. and reported the incident of murder of Abdullah that had 
taken place the previous day. Tehsildar’s statement that the 
incident was reported to him the next day was not rebutted by 
the complainant in any manner. It seems that the deceased 
was quietly buried on the date of the incident without the 
incident being reported to the Tehsildar for the registration of 
FIR. It was only on the next day after 28 hours of the 
occurrence of the incident that PW-1, Lashkar Khan reported 
the matter to the Tehsildar for the purposes of lodging FIR. 
Obviously, the Tehsildar, who was also investigating officer, 
could not see for himself that the deceased had sustained 
firearm injuries, as the deceased had already been buried the 
previous day. So when the investigating officer had not seen 
for himself the dead body, what to speak of sending it for the 
necessary medical examination for ascertaining the cause of 
death. Also, at no stage thereafter the dead body was sought 
to be exhumed for such purpose. This even makes the very 
cause of death of the deceased highly doubtful as the 
assertion of the prosecution that the deceased died of 
gunshot injuries would remain shrouded in mystery. Both 
PW-1 and PW-2 have also admitted in their respective cross-
examinations that they were not eye-witnesses of the 
incident. The case of the prosecution was thus scaled down 
to the level of only seeing the appellant having a Kalashnikov 
in his hand from a considerable distance from the place of the 
incident. Furthermore, PW-1 Lashkar Khan had stated in his 
deposition that the distance between his house and the place 
of occurrence is about half a mile and from the sketch 
produced as Exhibit P/4-A between the two places there is 
plantation of Date trees. These two places and the foot of the 
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013 
5
mountain from where the appellant was seen is further away. 
Hence coming out of one’s house and then recognising 
someone from a distance of about one Kilometre at 7:15 a.m. 
in the morning of peak winter season is also not confidence 
inspiring piece of evidence, keeping in view that none of such 
vital aspects of the case have has been narrated in the FIR. 
In the evidence what prevailed with the trial court and the 
appellate court to convict / maintain conviction of the 
appellant was that the prosecution witness namely PW-2 
Anees-ur-Rehman had deposed that soon after the incident he 
saw the appellant from a distance with a Kalashnikov in his 
hand. Once the version of PW-1 that he and PW-2 both were 
the eye witnesses of the incident stood demolished in cross-
examination, the appellant’s conviction based on another 
version of PW-2 Anees-ur-Rehman that after the incident had 
happened, he only saw the appellant from a distance having 
a Kalashnikov in his hand, was equally not reliable keeping 
in view that the second version, like the first one, is also not 
stated in the FIR and above all this, the absence of medical 
examination of the deceased, conviction of the appellant was 
not justified at all. We have also noted that no plausible 
explanation has come on the record as to why the FIR was 
lodged belatedly on the next day i.e. 28 hours after the 
incident, when it has come in the evidence that distance 
between the place of the incident and the office of the Tehsildar 
even on foot was of two hours.  
 
5. 
 
Keeping in view the relationship of the complainant 
of the FIR with the deceased, who was his cousin and the 
appellant, who was his nephew and the fact that they all 
jointly owned undivided piece of agricultural land then in 
search of ascertaining motive for murder, wild imagination 
may spring several possibilities. However, conviction of an 
accused can only be based upon concrete evidence, which 
Criminal Appeal No. 93/2013 
6
beyond reasonable doubt leads the Court to the conclusion 
that the accused before it is guilty of committing the reported 
crime. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, reliance on the 
prosecution’s story by the two Courts below, which was not 
even narrated in the FIR, was not justified at all. The fact that 
the 
appellant 
absconded 
and 
was 
not 
traceable 
for 
considerably long period of time could also not be made sole 
basis for his conviction when the other evidence of the 
prosecution is doubtful as it is riddled with contradictions. 
This being so, we are left with no other alternative but to hold 
that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable 
doubt that the deceased Abdullah died of gunshot injuries and 
that it was the appellant who had committed his murder.  
 
6. 
 
From 
what 
has 
been 
discussed 
above, 
the 
impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. Consequently, 
this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. 
The appellant is acquitted of the charge of committing murder 
of Abdullah. He shall be released from jail forthwith unless 
required in any other criminal case.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
16th of November, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
 
Khurram