Supreme Court of Pakistan Acquits Two Convicts due to Contradictory Witness Statements, Negative Forensic Evidence, and Prosecution Lapses

Islamabad 18-02-2025: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside the convictions of accused persons in a 2010 double murder case from Narowal, citing serious contradictions in prosecution evidence, unreliable witness testimonies, and forensic inconsistencies.  

The three-member bench, comprising Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mr. Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Mr. Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, delivered the verdict while hearing [Jail Petitions No. 314 & 315 of 2017] and [Crl.P.L.A. 576-L/2017], which challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment of March 15, 2017.  

The case originated from [FIR No. 60/2010], registered on May 16, 2010, at Police Station Rayya Khas, Narowal. The prosecution alleged that the accused, accused persons, opened fire on the Complainant’s family, killing two persons, and injuring (PW-10) and a passerby.  

In 2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, convicted the accused:  

1. First accused person was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) PPC along with a Rs. 200,000 fine as compensation.  
2. Second accused person was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) PPC with the same fine.  

On appeal, the Lahore High Court dismissed the convicts’ plea but commuted the death sentence of first accused to life imprisonment.  

The convicts challenged their conviction before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while the complainant filed a petition for enhancement of the sentence.  

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found multiple flaws in the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The Court noted that the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, and PW-10) contained material contradictions and dishonest improvements, which made their statements unreliable.  

Discrepancies between the witnesses’ accounts and the site plan raised serious doubts about their presence at the crime scene.  

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not match the bullets recovered from the crime scene with the weapon allegedly recovered from the convict second accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the recovery could not be relied upon.   

The prosecution failed to present two critical witnesses, the injured passerby and an alleged eyewitness. The Court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, assuming their testimonies would not have supported the prosecution.   

The prosecution claimed that the motive was an altercation between the convict second accused and the Complainant’s brother before the murder. However, the Complainant’s brother was neither targeted nor injured, making the motive highly questionable.  

Given the multiple contradictions, unreliable witness accounts, negative forensic report, and lack of corroborating evidence, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal.  

The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the jail petitions into appeals, which were allowed, resulting in:   

1. Acquittal of both accused.  
2. Setting aside of the Lahore High Court and Trial Court judgments.  
3. Immediate release of the accused from jail unless required in another case.  
4. Dismissal of the Complainant’s plea for sentence enhancement as it had become infructuous.  

Legal analysts have hailed the verdict as a reinforcement of the fundamental principle that conviction must rest on solid evidence. Senior criminal lawyer Qaisar Mehmood Sara, ASC, representing the acquitted individuals, stated:  

A senior prosecutor, on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that weak investigation and failure to produce key witnesses significantly weakened the prosecution’s case.  

The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling in Muhammad Nasir Butt & Others Vs. The State is a landmark judgment reinforcing the importance of credible evidence, witness reliability, and adherence to legal standards in criminal trials. The decision sets a strong precedent against wrongful convictions based on flawed investigations and unverified claims.  

This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement and prosecution agencies to ensure meticulous case preparation and avoid reliance on unreliable witness testimonies in serious criminal matters.

Powered by Froala Editor