08/06/2026
Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Courts below observed that the alleged eyewitnesses were present at the spot at the time of occurrence---Conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses was highly unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human behavior-Despite being brother and cousin of the deceased, they neither intervened to rescue the deceased nor raised hue and cry to attract people to the spot-More notably, the alleged eyewitnesses had not charged the appellant for firing at them despite the fact that they were also on equal footing for the accused having common motive like the deceased---Passive and inactive conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses coupled with their escape when they too were at the mercy of five accused persons or their let off by the accused to stand eyewitnesses against them, casted serious doubt on their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence---Sequence of the deceased running after the initial shot, being chased, encircled and then collectively fired upon by five armed assailants, without any injury being caused to any of the co-accused or a stray bullet hitting another, was also implausible and did not appeal to reason or the ordinary course of human conduct---Possibility of such a coordinated assault, in which all five assailants simultaneously and accurately fired at a single individual running for his life, without any unintended consequences, was highly improbable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Appeal No. 220-L of 2020
MUHAMMAD AMJAD and another versus The STATE
2026 SCMR 921
