Summary: Acquittal ----- a) Criminal trial – Evidence of chance witnesses – Presence at the scene not established – Value of such testimony ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 161---- Ocular account furnished by complainant (brother of deceased) and his friend was disbelieved due to failure to justify their presence at the crime scene—Both witnesses were held to be chance witnesses as they resided at some distance from the location of the occurrence and failed to provide satisfactory explanation for their presence—Lack of identification of deceased at hospital further belied their claim of being present at relevant time—Held, testimony of chance witnesses not corroborated through convincing explanation loses its evidentiary value—Reference made to Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600); Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan (2020 SCMR 319); and Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652). (b) Criminal trial – FIR – Delay in registration – Adverse inference – Non-production of material witness ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 161---- Though FIR was presented as promptly lodged, prosecution failed to produce the police constable who allegedly brought the complaint from hospital to police station—This unexplained omission cast doubt on the timing and authenticity of FIR—Supreme Court precedent indicates that non-production of key witnesses in chain of registration may vitiate prosecution’s version—Held, in absence of credible proof of prompt lodging, benefit of doubt must go to accused—Relied on Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326); Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741). (c) Criminal trial – Medical evidence – Contradiction with ocular account – Delay in shifting injured – Doubtful version ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)---- Prosecution claimed deceased was alive and shifted to hospital in injured condition—Medical officer testified that death was immediate and deceased was brought dead—Held, inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence rendered prosecution version unreliable—Medical evidence, being corroborative in nature, did not support prosecution’s claim about manner and timing of injuries—Reference made to Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53) and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103). (d) Criminal trial – Recovery of weapon – Safe custody and chain of evidence – Failure to prove linkage ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 103 & 165---- Recovery of .12 bore pump action gun allegedly used in murder held unreliable—Safe custody and transmission of weapon to PFSA not proved—Moharrar who allegedly stored and forwarded the weapon was not produced—Positive FSL report discarded due to broken chain of custody—Held, recovery cannot be relied upon where prosecution fails to prove safe handling of case property—Followed principle laid down in Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State (2018 SCMR 577). (e) Criminal trial – Supplementary statement – Evidentiary value – Non-mention of source – Value of subsequent improvements ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 162---- Co-accused not named in FIR but later implicated through supplementary statement—Source of such information not disclosed—Supplementary statements are not a continuation of FIR and treated merely as statements under S.161 Cr.P.C.—Held, supplementary statement lacking evidentiary value cannot be used to implicate accused without independent corroboration—Relied upon Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State (2007 YLR 534); Nusrat Bibi v. The State (2015 YLR 2694). (f) Criminal trial – Motive – Failure to prove – Adverse inference against prosecution ----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---- Prosecution alleged motive relating to arbitration in a monetary dispute—Failed to produce key person involved in dispute or documentary proof of arbitration—Complainant admitted in cross-examination that he did not disclose motive details to police—Held, once motive is alleged, it must be proved; failure to do so weakens prosecution’s case—Followed Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670). (g) Criminal trial – Standard of proof – Benefit of doubt – Principle reaffirmed ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 121(g)---- Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Presence of contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and unproven motive raised sufficient doubt—Held, even in heinous offences, doubt must result in acquittal—Reiterated golden principle that it is better to acquit ten guilty than to convict one innocent—Relied upon Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048). Disposition Criminal Appeal No. 9714-J of 2020 was allowed—Conviction and death sentence of Imran alias Mana set aside—Murder Reference No. 54 of 2020 answered in the negative—Criminal Appeal No. 9716 of 2020 against acquittal of co-accused dismissed being without merit.