This criminal appeal was filed by the State through the Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court. The respondent was initially convicted by the Sessions Judge for the homicide of his wife and causing injuries to his minor children. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of the respondent's mother-in-law, who claimed to have seen him fleeing the scene. The State argued that the overwhelming evidence, including the respondent's absconsion and the daylight nature of the occurrence, precluded any hypothesis of mistaken identity. However, the Supreme Court observed that guilt cannot be established based on suspicion, moral satisfaction, or the accused's failure to explain the circumstances in the absence of positive proof. The Court noted the lack of a clear motive and inconsistencies in the eyewitness's arrival at the scene. Finding that the High Court's assessment of the evidence as being fraught with doubt was neither unconscionable nor imprudent, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Through leave of the Court, impugned herein is the judgment dated 28.1.2004 by a learned Judge-in-Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, whereby finding of guilt, in a case of homicide by the learned Sessions Judge, Hangu has been set aside. This is in the backdrop of incident dated 30.3.1999, within the remit of Police Station Hangu, District Kohat, reported by Hassan Jalil's mother-in-law, Noor Seema PW, who surprised the former while fleeing from the home, leaving behind his wife Mst. Perveen Bibi in a pool of blood along side the minors with multiple injuries; she pointed her finger upon the respondent. Upon indictment the respondent claimed trial that culminated in conviction with sentences consequent thereupon vide judgment dated 22.3.2003, subsequently reversed in appeal.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa has impugned the vires of impugned judgment of the learned High Court on the ground that in the face of overwhelming evidence there was no occasion for respondent' s acquittal that too in the wake of his long standing absconsion as well as abysmal failure to explain as to what befell upon the household; occurrence being a day light affair there was no space to entertain any hypothesis of mistaken identity or given the relationship, substitution, it is next argued by the learned law officer. He has pointed out death of the children in consequence of injures suf fered by them.
3. Respondent' s relationship with the deceased as well as the minors is not in dispute and so is homicidal death of his better half and receipt of injuries by the children, under the same roof; nonetheless in the absence of positive proof he cannot be held guilty for the crime either on the basis of suspicion, moral satisfaction or his failure to explain circumstances, leading to the calamity . Prosecution' s silence to explain as to what possibly prompted the respondent to wipe out his own family is also intriguing, though the complainant in the witness box, obliquely referred to a quarrel between the spouses, however , suggesting cordial relations in the same breath. Arrival of Noor Sima, PW at venue exactly at a point of time when the respondent allegedly did away with the deceased, in itself is a circumstance that reflects on the very genesis of the prosecution case. On an overall analysis of the prosecution evidence, the learned High Court found the prosecution case fraught from doubts, an analysis that cannot be viewed as unconscionable or imprudent, being well within the realm of possibility , calling for interference. Appeal is dismissed.