Mere Suspicion and Unverified Allegations cannot form the basis of a Conviction --- Lahore High Court Acquits Convict Due to Multiple Lack of Evidence

Islamabad 29-03-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has acquitted accused, who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, citing a lack of credible evidence and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The decision was announced by Ms. Chief Justice Aalia Neelum in [Criminal Appeal No. 9553 of 2021] and [Criminal Revision No. 11377 of 2021].

The accused was convicted by the trial Court for the murder of deceased in FIR No. 438/2013, registered at Police Station A-Division, District Okara under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 300,000/- as compensation to the deceased’s legal heirs.

According to the prosecution, accused opened fire on deceased due to a family dispute arising from the complainant’s decision to divorce accused’s sister. The incident allegedly took place at Boby Carpet Shop on M.A. Jinnah Road, Okara on May 8, 2013, at 8:00 PM.

The Lahore High Court, after a thorough review of the case, found multiple inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s narrative, leading to accused’s acquittal. The following points were highlighted in the judgment:

1. The prosecution claimed that the FIR was lodged promptly at 9:30 PM on the same day. However, contradictions in police records suggested that the report was filed after undue delay, raising concerns of afterthought and fabrication.
2. The Court observed that the complainant and other eyewitnesses were “chance witnesses”, whose presence at the crime scene was questionable. Their statements contained significant contradictions, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
3. The postmortem report, presented by Doctor (PW-9), indicated that rigor mortis was fully developed at the time of examination. This contradicted the prosecution’s timeline, as rigor mortis typically sets in 12 hours post-mortem, suggesting the death may have occurred much earlier than claimed.
4. The prosecution failed to present any documentary proof to establish enmity or a motive behind the murder. The alleged dispute over a divorce notice was not supported by any legal documents.
5. Though the prosecution claimed to have recovered the murder weapon (a 30-bore pistol) from accused, forensic analysis only confirmed that the weapon was in working condition. The report did not conclusively link it to the crime.
6. The Court noted that while the accused remained at large for several years, absconding alone does not prove guilt, citing precedents from the Supreme Court.

After reviewing the case, Ms. Chief Justice Aalia Neelum ruled that the prosecution failed to prove accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal. The Court set aside the trial Court’s judgment and ordered accused’s immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the complainant’s Criminal Revision [Crl. Rev. No. 11377 of 2021], which sought an enhanced sentence for the accused.

This judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal trials, the benefit of doubt must always favor the accused. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion and unverified allegations cannot form the basis of a conviction, aligning with the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Muhammad Akram Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230).

Powered by Froala Editor