2026 S C M R 350
ریکارڈ پر موجود سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج-- نتیجہ خیز-- ملزم-درخواست گزار پر شکایت کنندہ کے کزن کے سر پر سیمنٹ والا بلاک مار کر قتل کرنے کا الزام عائد کیا گیا تھا - - اہم بات یہ ہے کہ کسی بھی سائٹ پلان نے کیمرے کے فیلڈ آف ویو کو لوکس کے ساتھ سیدھا نہیں کیا - - مسلسل ریکارڈنگ ، ٹائم سنک یا سسٹم گھڑیوں کا کوئی ثبوت نہیں تھا اور نہ ہی اس بات کا کوئی مظاہرہ تھا کہ فوٹیج ترمیم یا اوورلے سے پاک تھی - - فوٹیج کی صداقت کے حوالے سے کوئی فارنسک رپورٹ نہیں تھی - اس کے چہرے پر بھی ، فوٹیج مبہم تھی ۔ ریزولوشن ، زاویے اور روشنی نے معقول شک سے بالاتر مثبت شناخت کی اجازت نہیں دی ۔ اس نے نہ تو ایکٹس ریوس اور نہ ہی ہتھیار پر قبضہ کیا اور سب سے بہتر تجویز کردہ موجودگی کو مشترکہ جگہ میں ، پہلے سے ہی ایک غیر جانبدار حالات میں - - مختلف گواہوں کی گواہی جس میں الزام لگایا گیا تھا کہ ملزم کو سنڈر بلاک لے کر کیمرے پر دیکھا گیا تھا جس کے ساتھ اس نے متوفی کو قتل کیا تھا ، اس پر بھی شکوک و شبہات اور اسرار کا احاطہ کیا گیا تھا ، گواہ کے مطابق ، سی سی ٹی وی فوٹیج میں صرف ملزم کو "بھاری چیز" لے جاتے ہوئے پکڑا گیا تھا ، جس کی تفصیل اندھیرے کی وجہ سے نہیں دی جا سکی جبکہ دوسرے گواہوں کے مطابق ، ملزم-درخواست گزار مبینہ طور پر "سیمنٹ بلاک" لے کر جا رہا تھا ۔ --- اس طرح کے متزلزل بیانات نے استغاثہ کے معاملے میں ایک بڑا دھچکا لگا دیا - --اس کے علاوہ ، یہ بھی ریکارڈ پر آیا تھا کہ جب بھی یو ایس بی کو چلانے کی کوشش کی گئی تھی ، کورٹ کمپیوٹر نے اسے وائرس سے متاثرہ کے طور پر نشان زد کیا تھا - --آخری بار دیکھا گیا ثبوت---دائرہ کار-- - موجودہ معاملے میں ، "آخری بار ایک ساتھ دیکھے گئے" حالات یکساں طور پر کمزور تھے---اس کے لیے ممکنہ قدر حاصل کرنے کے لیے ، استغاثہ کو وضاحت کے ساتھ یہ ثابت کرنا چاہیے تھا کہ (i) اس وقت کا مخصوص نقطہ جب متوفی ملزم کی صحبت میں آخری بار زندہ تھا ، اور (ii) اس نقطہ اور لاش کی دریافت کے درمیان ایک تنگ عارضی فرق تاکہ دوسروں کی مداخلت کو خارج کیا جا سکے-- نہ ہی ضرورت پوری ہوئی تھی---ایک دوسرے تک تیار رسائی رکھنے والے متعدد افراد کے ساتھ عام ہم آہنگی نے "آخری بار دیکھے گئے" شواہد کی قدر کو مجروح کیا ۔ - درخواست گزار کے جرم کے ثبوت کے طور پر آخری بار دیکھے گئے گواہ کے ذریعہ بیان کردہ گواہی نے "آخری بار دیکھا" کے دعوے کی مدد نہیں کی کیونکہ اس نے صرف یہ کہا تھا کہ تقریبا 12:30 a.m. اس نے درخواست گزار کو واش روم میں تنہا دیکھا تھا اور ، واپس آنے پر ، اسے اپنے بستر پر سوتے ہوئے دیکھا تھا - - ایسے حالات میں ، یہ اندازہ لگانا کہ صرف درخواست گزار ہی اس فعل کا ارتکاب کر سکتا تھا ، قیاس آرائی پر مبنی ہوگا اور یہ حقیقت ایک غیر جانبدار حالات بنی رہی جو شکوک و شبہات کو جنم دے سکتی ہے لیکن سزا کے لیے درکار ثبوت کا بوجھ اپنے کندھوں پر نہیں اٹھا سکتی تھی ، خاص طور پر جب یہ ریکارڈ پر آ گیا تھا کہ متوفی کا کمرہ تقریبا 25 طلباء نے مشترکہ طور پر لیا تھا ۔ - درخواست گزار کے تکیا کے نیچے بستر سے خون آلود چاقو کی بازیابی - --غیر نتیجہ خیز---ریکارڈ سے پتہ چلا کہ درخواست گزار کے بستر سے اس کے تکیا کے نیچے سے خون سے رنگا ہوا چاقو برآمد ہوا تھا - - کہا گیا کہ چاقو کو کیمیائی جانچ کے لیے بھیجا گیا تھا اور انسانی خون کے نشانات کے لیے مثبت نتیجہ کے ساتھ واپس کیا گیا تھا - - دلچسپی سے ، تاہم ، طبی شواہد میں بلیڈ سے منسوب کسی چوٹ کا ذکر نہیں کیا گیا ، اس کے بجائے صرف متوفی کی کھوپڑی ، سنڈر بلاک پر گرنے والی بھاری چیز کے نتیجے میں لگنے والی چوٹوں کو اجاگر کیا گیا ۔ - بیان کردہ حقیقت نے استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں موجود کثرت میں ایک اور شک کا اضافہ کر دیا - --محرک ثابت نہیں ہوا - - درخواست گزار کے مبینہ طور پر چھیڑ چھاڑ کرنے یا متوفی کے ساتھ جھگڑا کرنے کا کوئی ریکارڈ یا ثبوت نہیں تھا ، در حقیقت ، گواہوں میں سے ایک نے کہا کہ "متوفی اور ملزم قریبی دوست تھے اور اس حقیقت کا انکشاف اسے دوسرے طلباء نے کیا تھا---اس کے علاوہ ، کسی بھی طالب علم نے یہ بیان نہیں دیا تھا کہ ملزم اور متوفی کا ماضی میں ایک دوسرے کے ساتھ کوئی جھگڑا ہوا تھا-- -
CCTV footage on the record---Inconsequential---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head---Crucially, no site plan aligned the camera's field of view with the locus in quo---There was no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or system clocks nor any demonstration that the footage was free from edits or overlays---There was no forensic report with respect to the veracity of the footage---Even on its face, the footage was equivocal; resolution, angles and lighting did not permit positive identification beyond reasonable doubt; it neither captured the actus reus nor the weapon and at best suggested presence in a shared space, already a neutral circumstance---Deposition of the various witnesses alleging that the accused was seen on camera carrying the cinderblock with which he murdered the deceased, was also shrouded with doubts and mysteries as, according to witness, the CCTV footage only captured the accused carrying "a heavy thing", the description of which could not be given due to the darkness whereas according to the other witnesses, accused-petitioner was allegedly carrying a "cement block"---Such wavering depositions put a major dent in the case of the prosecution---Moreover, it had also come on record that whenever the USB was attempted to be played, the Court computer flagged it as virus-infected---
Last seen evidence---Scope---In the present case, the "last-seen together" circumstance was equally frail---For it to acquire probative value, the prosecution must have established with clarity (i) the specific point in time when the deceased was last alive in the company of the accused, and (ii) a narrow temporal gap between that point and the discovery of the body so as to exclude intervention by others---Neither requisite was satisfied---Common accommodation with multiple persons having ready access to each other, undermined the value of the "last seen" evidence---Testimony deposed by last seen witness set up as proof of the petitioner's guilt again did not aid the assertion of "last seen" since he only stated that around 12:30 a.m. he had seen the petitioner alone in the washroom and, upon returning, saw him asleep in his bed---In such circumstances, an inference that the petitioner alone could have committed the act would be speculative at best and that fact remained a neutral circumstance that might arouse suspicion but could not shoulder the evidentiary burden needed for a conviction especially when it had come on record that room of deceased was shared by some 25 students---
Recovery of bloodstained knife from petitioner’s bed underneath his pillow---Inconsequential--- Record revealed that a blood stained knife was recovered from petitioner's bed underneath his pillow---Said very knife was sent for chemical examination and returned with a positive result for traces of human blood---Interestingly, however, the medical evidence mentioned no injuries attributable to the blade, instead only highlighting injuries sustained as a result of a heavy object falling on the deceased's skull, the cinderblock---Said fact added another doubt in the plethora contained in the prosecution case---
Motive not proved---There was no record or proof of the petitioner allegedly teasing or having quarreled with the deceased, in fact, one of the witnesses, stated that "the deceased and the accused were close friends and that fact was disclosed to him by other students---Moreover, none of the students had deposed that the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with each other in the past---
JUDGMENT
.---J.P. No. 217 of 2021: The instant jail petition is directed against the High Court of Sindh, Karachi's judgment dated 05.04.2021,1 which maintained the petitioner Fazal Mehmood's conviction under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."), as recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Karachi East (Trial Court) vide judgment dated 08.11.2019,2 but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The compensation of Rs. 200,000/- under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") and the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment to be undergone in default thereof were, however, maintained.
2. Before embarking upon the appraisal of evidence, it is necessary to sum up the prosecution version as set forth in FIR No. 314/2015 registered at Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi, under section 302 of the P.P.C. pursuant to the complainant Abu Bakar’s statement dated 05.11.2015. As per the FIR, while the complainant was asleep in the mosque/madrassah that night, Zahid awakened him and informed that in Room No. 4 someone had murdered his cousin Raziullah by striking a cemented block (a cinderblock) on his head. The complainant went to Room No. 4 and saw Raziullah lying on a mattress, bleeding from the head, with a cement block near his head. Other students awoke; teachers Amir Yousuf and Shafiqullah arrived. Zahid and Mohibuddin stated they had been sleeping at about 2:15 a.m. when a sound roused them; upon switching on the light they saw Raziullah lying in a pool of blood, bleeding from the nose and head and observed a cement block which had not been there earlier. It was further noted that Fazal Mehmood, whose bed was near the deceased and who was seen coming to sleep in the room earlier at about 12:50 a.m. by Mohibuddin, was absent and had teased the deceased during the preceding two days. Thus, Fazal Mehmood was nominated as the accused whereafter police arrived, inspected the body, and removed it to JPMC for post-mortem; culminating in the FIR.
3. After the initial investigation, non-bailable warrants were issued and, when the petitioner could not be apprehended, the Trial Court, vide order dated 29.03.2016, formally declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender. He remained at large until 21.12.2016, when he surrendered before the Court and was taken into custody; subsequent investigative steps (including pointation) followed in due course. After the framing of charge and conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in the terms above, followed by a modification of sentence in the form commutation by the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
4. Ms. Ambreen Anwar Raja, ASC, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has contended that the case is wholly circumstantial: no eyewitness; "last-seen" is vague; the alleged weapon/recovery has no forensic linkage; and the electronic evidence (CCTVJUSB) is unreliable for want of sealing, chain-of-custody and independent authentication, motive is also unproved. The alibi set up under section 342 Cr.P.C. statement was not effectively rebutted. She argued that since the chain is incomplete, the benefit of doubt must go to the petitioner and she thus prays that he may be acquitted.
5. Mr. Israr Ahmed Abbasi, ASC and Mr. Khadim Hussain, Addl. PG, Sindh ("APG") have appeared on behalf of the complainant and the State respectively and have stated that the FIR was prompt and free of malice; the petitioner shared the room with the deceased, furnishing a strong "last-seen" link, reinforced by his post-occurrence disappearance. Medical evidence (head injuries) aligns with the recovered block. Even without placing decisive weight on the CCTV/USB, the remaining circumstances i.e. prompt reporting, last-seen in a confined setting, medical consistency, recovery and absence of a plausible alternative, form a complete chain pointing to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The alibi plea was a bald assertion without defence evidence. Hence, they prayed that the petitioner's jail petition may be dismissed with the complainant's counsel pressing for enhancement of the petitioner's sentence to death.
6. At the very outset, it may be observed that the prosecution case is bereft of any ocular account and rests wholly on circumstantial material. When only circumstantial evidence is pressed into service by the prosecution, this Court has ruled authoritatively in the case of Ch. Barkat Ali3 that:
"Law relating to circumstantial evidence that proved circumstances must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. See ‘Siraj v. The Crown’ (PLD 1956 FC 123). In a case of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that no link in the chain should be broken and that the circumstances should be such as cannot be explained away on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused."
Likewise, in Altaf Hussain's case4 it was held that:
"Needless to emphasis that all the pieces of evidence should be so linked that it should give the picture of complete chain, one corner of which should touch the neck of the deceased and other corner to the neck of the accused. Failure of one link will destroy the entire chain."
As such, utmost caution must be taken while thrashing out the evidence placed on record by the prosecution.
7. Adverting now to the CCTV material, it does not inspire confidence for a number of reasons. Crucially, no site plan aligns the camera's field of view with the locus in quo; there is no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or system clocks nor any demonstration that the footage is free from edits or overlays. There is no forensic report with respect to the veracity of the footage. Even on its face, the footage is equivocal: resolution, angles and lighting do not permit positive identification beyond reasonable doubt; it neither captures the actus reus nor the weapon and at best suggests presence in a shared space - already a neutral circumstance.
8. The "last-seen together" circumstance is equally frail. For it to acquire probative value, the prosecution must have established with clarity (i) the specific point in time when the deceased was last alive in the company of the accused, and (ii) a narrow temporal gap between that point and the discovery of the body so as to exclude intervention by others. Neither requisite is satisfied. The setting itself i.e. common accommodation with multiple persons having ready access to each other, undermines the value of the "last seen" evidence. The testimony deposed by PW-8 (Mohibuddin) set up as proof of the petitioner's guilt again does not aid the assertion of "last seen" since he only states that around 12:30 a.m. he saw the petitioner alone in the washroom and, upon returning, saw him asleep in his bed. In such circumstances, an inference that the petitioner alone could have committed the act would be speculative at best and this fact remains a neutral circumstance that may arouse suspicion but cannot shoulder the evidentiary burden needed for a conviction especially when it has come on record that Room No. 4 was shared by some 25 students.
9. The deposition of the various witnesses alleging that the accused was seen on camera carrying the cinderblock with which he murdered Raziullah, the deceased, is also shrouded with doubts and mysteries as, according to Fazal Mehmood (PW-1), the CCTV footage only captured the accused carrying "a heavy thing" - the description of which could not be given due to the darkness - whereas according to the other PWs, especially Aamir Yousaf (PW-4), he was allegedly carrying a “cement block”. These wavering depositions, in our view, put a major dent in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it has also come on record that whenever the USB was attempted to be played, the court computer flagged it as virus-infected.
10. The recoveries made from the scene of occurrence also raise significant questions. Importantly, the record reveals that a blood stained knife was recovered from petitioner's bed underneath his pillow. This very knife was sent for chemical examination and returned with a positive result for traces of human blood. Interestingly, however, the medical evidence mentions no injuries attributable to the blade, instead only highlighting injuries sustained as a result of a heavy object falling on the deceased's skull; in our case the cinderblock. This adds another doubt in the plethora contained in the prosecution case.
11. Similarly, the factum of motive has not been proved. There is no record or proof of the petitioner allegedly teasing or having quarreled with the deceased, in fact, one of the witnesses, Jameel ur Rehman (PW-5), states that "the deceased and the accused were close friends and this fact is disclosed to me by other students". Moreover, none of the students have deposed that the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with each other in the past.
12. The prosecution case is thus mired in doubt and it is axiomatic that the benefit of these doubts must accrue in favour of the accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court are accordingly set aside by converting this petition into an appeal and allowing the same. The appellant is resultantly acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending the benefit of doubt. He shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Criminal Petition No.372/2022:
13. Since the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge, the criminal petition is rendered infructuous and is hereby dismissed.
14. These are the detailed reasons for our short order dated 27.10.2025 which is reproduced below for the facility of reference:
"For reasons to be recorded later, this jail petition is converted into an appeal and it is allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court dated 08.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 respectively are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted from the charge framed against him by extending the benefit of doubt. In case the appellant is not required to be incarcerated in any other matter, then he shall forthwith be released.
Criminal Petition No.372/ 2022
2. As the appellant has been acquitted from the charge framed against him, therefore, this criminal petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed."
1 2023 PCr.LJ 1071.
2 In Sessions Case No. 391 of 2016.
3 Ch Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia and another (1992 SCMR 1047).
4 Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another (2008 SCMR 1103).
Jail Petition No. 217 of 2021 and Criminal Petition No. 372 of 2022
FAZAL MEHMOOD Versus The STATE
0 Comments