27/10/2026
The homicidal deaths of both deceased stand established through medical evidence; however, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the participation and individual criminal responsibility of the accused. The complainant was admittedly not an eyewitness, and his initial account, based on information received from others, was inconsistent with his subsequent assertion of direct observation. The evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses also failed to clarify the source, timing and place of communication of the occurrence, thereby rendering the prosecution’s earliest version doubtful.
The presence and credibility of the alleged eyewitnesses were further undermined by material contradictions regarding their arrival at the scene, communication with the complainant, and the reporting of the matter to the police. Despite their close relationship with the parties and alleged presence during the occurrence, they neither attempted to intervene or separate the parties nor made any effort to shift the injured to hospital. These circumstances, considered collectively, cast serious doubt upon their presence and claimed observation of the occurrence. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Muhammad Akhtar and others v. The State and others (2025 SCMR 45), along with the other judgments cited above.
The alleged motive, founded upon family differences, remained unsubstantiated by cogent evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution’s account regarding the respective roles of the accused appeared doubtful in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the ocular account could not be relied upon as trustworthy evidence, and the medical evidence and alleged recoveries, being insufficient to establish guilt independently, could not sustain the convictions.
In view of the material contradictions, unexplained inconsistencies and reasonable doubts arising from the prosecution evidence, the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace. Reliance may be placed upon Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal. The other judgments cited above further reinforce this settled principle of criminal jurisprudence.
Cr.A No. 225-A of 2025
Mashal Vs The State
