It is by now well settled that mere recovery of dead-body from the house of an accused by itself is not sufficient to convict and sentence him under the capital charge in absence of other convincing and reliable corroborative evidence.

Prosecution eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and they could not prove the reason of their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence, therefore, their very presence at the spot at the relevant time becomes doubtful.

Delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased is suggestive of the fact that the occurrence was unseen and the said delays were consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye witnesses.

Conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution, which has created further doubt about the presence of above-mentioned eye-witnesses at the spot, at the time of occurrence.

Had the abovementioned eye-witnesses been present at the spot at the time of occurrence as claimed by them then they could have apprehend the appellant at the spot. Their conduct is un-natural thus their evidence is un-trustworthy.

The best evidence has been withheld by the prosecution therefore, an adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 can validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the abovementioned witnesses been produced in the witness box then their evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution.

Jail Appeal
64474/22
Haq NAwaz Vs The State
Mr. Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan
2023 LHC 6967 

Downlaod Full Judgment