Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal trial ---- Ss. 302(b), 390 & 398, P.P.C. --- Acquittal on benefit of doubt --- Identification parade flawed --- Recovery of weapon not trustworthy --- Conviction reversed Petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Ss. 302(b) and 398, P.P.C., and sentenced to death and imprisonment, respectively, for committing a robbery and murder in a shop. Their conviction was upheld by the Islamabad High Court and the death sentence confirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted both petitioners, extending benefit of doubt due to material infirmities in the prosecution case. Held, identification parade was vitiated as the accused’s photographs were taken in police custody prior to identification, violating the requirements of a lawful identification procedure. Furthermore, the identification parade did not mention the roles played by each accused in the occurrence, which rendered it devoid of evidentiary value in light of Article 22 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. [Relied on: Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam 2024 SCMR 757; Abdul Hayee v. State 2025 SCMR 281; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146]. (b) Criminal trial ---- Identification parade ---- Role attribution mandatory --- Defective parade cannot be basis of conviction Held, that for identification evidence to be reliable, each identifying witness must not only correctly identify the accused but also assign the specific role allegedly played by them during the incident. In the present case, witnesses identified the accused without narrating their respective roles, and the Magistrate (PW-10) failed to follow standard judicial procedures, including the omission of separate certificates for each accused. The entire identification exercise thus stood vitiated and devoid of probative value. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---- Recovery of weapons --- Lack of independent corroboration --- Possibility of foisting not ruled out --- Evidentiary value compromised Both petitioners were arrested the day after the incident and later allegedly led to the recovery of .30 bore pistols on their pointation. However, no independent witnesses, including the cattle shed owner or locals, were associated with the recoveries, nor were disclosure memos properly prepared. This lack of transparency led to strong doubts about the authenticity of the recoveries. The chain of custody was broken, and the prosecution failed to explain inconsistencies in the recovery timeline and witnesses’ versions. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45 --- Forensic report --- Positive ballistic match --- Cannot stand alone without credible recovery --- Evidentiary weight Though the pistol recovered from petitioner Muhammad Ramzan matched the crime empties according to the NFSA report, the Court held that such expert evidence cannot sustain a conviction if the foundational recovery is itself untrustworthy or appears to be foisted. Forensic evidence, while corroborative, must be anchored in a credible recovery process to retain its probative force. In absence of independent attestation or lawful procedure, even a positive expert report loses significance. (e) Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Art. 22 --- Identification evidence --- Must be based on first-hand knowledge and proper role description --- Evidence discarded Held, that an identification test without role attribution is against settled legal standards. In the present case, witnesses simply identified the petitioners without specifying actions taken during the crime. Such evidence, unsupported by clear, consistent testimony or procedural compliance, cannot be relied upon in a criminal trial. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b) --- Murder trial --- CCTV footage relied upon by trial court --- Not sufficient to identify accused --- Backside-only footage inadmissible for facial recognition Held, that the CCTV footage showed only the back of the alleged assailant and did not depict facial features. The footage, therefore, lacked evidentiary utility for identification purposes and could not support the conviction. (g) Criminal law --- Benefit of doubt --- Duty of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt --- Where doubt arises, benefit must go to accused Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Doubts arising from contradictions in recovery timeline, absence of role-specific identification, and lack of independent evidence rendered the case unreliable. The trial and appellate courts misread and misappreciated the evidence. Disposition: Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; petitioners acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.