This matter concerned appeals against a High Court judgment, where the prosecution's case relied primarily on last-seen evidence and the recovery of a dead body. The core legal question revolved around the admissibility and probative value of these two pieces of evidence in establishing culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged recovery of the dead body was a joint recovery, rendering it inadmissible, and noted that the dead body was recovered before the respondents' arrest and not at their pointing out. Regarding the last-seen evidence, the Court found it insufficient as the deceased was not found at the location where she was last seen with the respondents, and no witness saw the respondents entering the house where the body was found. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discharged the private respondents' bail bonds and sureties. The judgment reinforces that joint recovery is inadmissible and that last-seen evidence must establish a direct link to the crime scene or the accused's involvement.
' 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 he reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going the record we have observed that in order to prove its ease the prosecution had relied upon only two pieces of evidence and they were last-seen evidence and recovery of the deadbody. The alleged recovery of the deadbody was admittedly a joint recovery which is inadmissible in evidence. Apart from that the alleged recovery of the deadbody had not been effected at the pointing out of the private respondents because the deadbody had already been recovered much before the arrest of the said respondents. As regards the last-seen evidence all that the prosecution witnesses had said in that regard was that they had seen the private respondents going into the house of one Jameel Lodhi in the company of Farah Mushtaq deceased but it is not denied that the deadbody of the deceased had not been found in the house of Jameel Lodhi and the same had been found in the house of one Abdullah Arain. No witness had been produced before the trial court who had seen the private respondents entering the house of Abdullah Arain in the company of the deceased. In these circumstances the evidence produced by the prosecution as the last-seen evidence could not in the strict sense be called last-seen evidence. In the absence of any other evidence brought on the record to establish culpability of the private respondents the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances of the case mentioned above we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of the private respondents shall stand discharged.