• Rules abscondence alone cannot be treated as proof of guilt
• Acquits murder convict after 20 years

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court acquitted a murder convict who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, while citing the well-recognised principle that it is better to err in acquittal than in conviction.

“This principle is also deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, which more than fourteen centuries ago laid down the salutary maxim that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent individual,” observed Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, a member of a two-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar.

The court had taken up an appeal filed by Muhammad Iqbal, challenging the June 18, 2025 decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC), which had upheld his sentence.

In his eight-page judgement, Justice Ibrahim observed that reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person was sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not grace. “This manifestation also finds mention in the principle of benefit of doubt, which is invariably extended in favour of the accused to ensure the safe and just administration of criminal justice,” it added.

Muhammad Iqbal was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Karachi West, on Jan 26, 2024, for the murder of Jameel Khan.

The incident allegedly occurred on April 29, 2006. Iqbal was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along with compensation of Rs500,000 payable to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The conviction was upheld by the SHC on June 18, 2025. Iqbal had remained at large for around 14 years before his arrest on Oct 27, 2021.

Justice Ibrahim observed that the findings recorded by the SHC did not appear to be legally sustainable. The SHC had held that the petitioner’s conduct in remaining at large for 14 years after the murder, before being arrested on Oct 27, 2021, reflected, in the absence of any explanation, a guilty conscience.

Firstly, the judgement noted that the petitioner was originally a resident of Bara, Khyber district (erstwhile Fata), and there was nothing on record to establish that proceedings under Sections 204 (summons or warrant), 87 (proclamation against an absconder) and 88 (attachment of property of an absconder) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were ever initiated or lawfully pursued against him during the alleged period of abscondence.

Secondly, it was an admitted position that no specific question regarding the alleged abscondence was put to the petitioner-convict in his statement recorded under Section 342 of the CrPC.

“It is by now a settled principle of law that any piece of evidence or circumstance not put to an accused in his statement under Section 342, CrPC cannot be used against him,” the judgement explained.

Thirdly, the judgement observed that an accused may abscond for a variety of reasons, rightly or wrongly, including fear of arrest or police harassment.

“Mere abscondence, therefore, is not conclusive proof of guilt. It is trite law that abscondence is, at best, a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot by itself be treated as substantive evidence to sustain a conviction,” the judgement stated.

Such corroborative evidence, it added, may only be considered in support of other reliable evidence and not in isolation. Where the ocular account furnished by the prosecution is found to be doubtful or unworthy of reliance, mere abscondence of the accused would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction.

While concluding, the SC observed that, in view of the material contradictions and inherent discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, it was persuaded to hold that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. “The courts below also fell into patent error in recording the conviction of the petitioner by disregarding and overlooking such material infirmities in the prosecution case,” the judgement said, adding that the prosecution’s evidence was replete with doubts.

“It is by now a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles an accused to acquittal.”

Consequently, the SC converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the lower courts. The court also ordered the acquittal of the appellant and directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026