Saleem Khan vs The State and another
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the death of Ajmal Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court's judgments acquitting the accused were sustainable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, noting significant evidentiary flaws: the failure to produce a key injured eye-witness who resided in the same village as the complainant; the contradiction between the medical evidence showing charring of wounds, indicating close-range firing, and the ocular testimony; and the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the eye-witnesses, who allegedly shared a motive with the deceased yet escaped injury during the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court's findings were consistent with the record. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, upholding the acquittals. The key principle reaffirmed is that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with the unexplained absence of key witnesses, undermine the prosecution's case, justifying acquittal.
- Does the failure to produce an injured eye-witness cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Can contradictions between medical evidence regarding charring and ocular testimony justify acquittal?
- Is the acquittal of an accused person sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene?
ORDER
QAZI FAEZ ISA, J. Ajmal Khan was murdered on 6th Septem ber, 2007 and in respect of his murder three persons were nominated, namely , Pasand Khan, Rad Ali and Khair Dil alias Raidal. Pasand Khan was arrested and tried first, and he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however , the appeal against his conviction was allowed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 4th February , 2011 (which is the subject of Criminal Petition No. 18-P/201 1). The other two accused, namely , Rad Ali and Khair Dil alias Raidal were tried separately after their arrest and both were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and their acquittal was maintained in appeal by the High Court through judgment dated 12th June, 2014 (which is the subject of Criminal Petition No.74-P/2014.
2. A number of reasons prevailed with the learned Judges in acquitting the respondents. The person who had been injured by receiving a bullet injury in the same incident, and thus establishing his presence at the crime scene and as an eye witness, namely , Hamesh Gul, did not come forward to testify nor was summoned to do so, despite the fact that he was known and a resident of the same village in which the complainant resided, which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case. Another ground which had prevailed with the learned Judges was that the medical report stated that the bullet injuries on the deceased showed charring of the woun ds, suggesting that he was shot at from a close range, whereas the ocular account narrated by the purported eye-witnesses contradicted this.
Moreover , the motive put forward by the Prosecution was also attracted to the purported eye-witnesses, but surprisingly they did not receive a single injury at the hands of any of the three assailants, which would further suggest that they were not present at the crime scene. The learned counsel for the complainant was not able to show that these points were contrary to the record to be able to succeed in setting aside the two impugned judgments acquitting the respondents. Consequently , leave to appeal is declined and these petitions are dismissed
Cited by 3 cases
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD Versus State 2026 SCMR 674
- Liaqat Ali @ Bao. and others vs The State & another 2023 LHC 6906, 2024 YLR 372
- Muhammad Akram vs The State and another 2024 YLR 2469