MUHAMMAD BILAL vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1580 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD BILAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---First Information Report and ocular account deposed by the complainant and eye-witness both mentioned that the appellant entered the home and raised a lalkara (threatening declaration) that he would not leave the deceased alive---During cross-examination while the complainant remained silent when asked how much time had cumulatively elapsed in between the appellant's arrival at the place of occurrence, his commission of the offence and his eventual escape, the complainant did betrayal that the altercation between the appellant and the deceased spanned across five minutes---Obvious question then arose that why did the eye-witnesses not monitor the appellant or follow him into the deceased's room as he crossed them in the courtyard despite the clear threat he posed to the deceased having made his intentions clear, while armed with a wooden stick/Sotta---However, the eye-witnesses did not intervene once the altercation had begun---Where the eye-witnesses had ample opportunity to intervene given the drawn-out five-minute duration of the altercation and where the site map stated that the eye-witnesses saw the appellant perpetrated his assault from a distance of four to six feet---Filial duty would naturally cause the complainant to intervene, however, he and the eye-witnesses who were also close to the deceased did not even launch an abortive attempt at preventing the appellant's alleged grievous assault---Equally important was the fact that the appellant was not armed with a formidable weapon, having only a wooden stick measuring 1 foot 4 inches---Eye-witnesses' conduct was then manifestly unnatural and that failure to intervene raised serious doubts regarding both the veracity of their account as well as their presence at the scene---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD BILAL vs State S — 2025 SCMR 1580 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR