28/07/2026
2026 SCMR 921
Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence-Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Prosecution's case primarily rested on the ocular testimony of the complainant and a witness, who both claimed to have witnessed the occurrence---In their statements both had assigned the role of firing at the deceased to total five persons including the appellant---In the FIR, the complainant had charged the appellant and co-accused only by name along with three unknown assailants---According to version of the complainant the sequence of events began with co-accused, who at first Instance raised lalkara and then fired the first fire shot at the deceased, followed by the fire shot of appellant---Thereafter, all five accused, including the three unknown assailants, were said to have fired causing multiple injuries on various parts of body of the deceased---Subsequently, the complainant nominated two of the previously unknown three accused as "M" and "MA"---Third unknown assailant was still not nominated---Trial Court acquitted co-accused persons by disbelieving the ocular account of the complainant and eyewitnesses, terming their testimony unreliable and untrustworthy to the extent of the acquitted accused despite the fact that the acquitted co-accused were also assigned the similar role of firing at the deceased---Surprisingly, on the same set of evidence forming the foundation of the case against all the accused, only the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court---High Court, while modifying the sentence of the appellant from death to life imprisonment, nonetheless upheld his conviction on the same evidence that had already been disbelieved in respect of the acquined co-accused-Moreover, it was observed that neither the trial Court nor the High Court had pointed to any cogent or compelling evidence to distinguish the role of the appellant from the role assigned to the acquitted co-accused---Admittedly, the alleged eyewitnesses in their statements had not specifically assigned the role of firing at the deceased to the appellant rather to total five accused persons-Evidence led by the prosecution was not divisible to distinguish the role of the appellant from the acquitted co-accused-If the prosecution evidence was found unreliable or insufficient to sustain the conviction of one accused and if the same evidence was indivisible and not capable of separate appreciation for the remaining accused, then a conviction could not be recorded on the same discredited evidence---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
