This criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the acquittal of the respondents. The case pertained to a murder that occurred after dark, where the prosecution relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses to establish guilt. The core legal question centered on the reliability of these witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the visibility of the occurrence. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide independent proof of available electric light at the scene. Furthermore, the eye-witnesses were categorized as chance witnesses who could not justify their presence at the time of the incident. A critical evidentiary gap was noted as the witnesses claimed their clothes were smeared with the deceased's blood, yet no such clothing was secured or produced as evidence. The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the FIR were suspicious and the prosecution's narrative lacked credibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, ruling that the witnesses were unreliable and likely did not witness the event, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the occurrence .in this case had taken place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot. The circumstances in which the FIR had been lodged in this case were quite suspicious and the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the trial court were admittedly chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time. In order to fill that lacuna the prosecution had relied upon the statement of one Zahid (PW10) but the reason provided by him was not supported by the reason statedly found by the investigating officer during the investigation. Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had claimed that while handling Afsar Khan deceased their clothes had been smeared with the blood of the deceased but admittedly no such blood-stained clothes of the said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced. In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the A eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were not reliable and in all likelihood they had not witnessed the murder in issue. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand discharged.