Lahore: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has acquitted a man convicted of murdering his wife, ruling that Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order does not automatically require an accused to explain an unnatural death occurring in the matrimonial home unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case through reliable evidence.
Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh issued a detailed written judgment on Thursday while allowing the appeal of convict Tanveer, who had challenged his conviction in the 2020 murder case.
According to the judgment, the incident took place on May 18, 2020, in Chiniot district. The prosecution alleged that Tanveer, along with two accomplices, strangled his wife, Nasreen Bibi, with a dupatta during the pre-dawn hours. A case was subsequently registered at City Police Station, Chiniot.
On January 17, 2022, an Additional Sessions Judge in Chiniot acquitted the two co-accused by extending them the benefit of the doubt, while sentencing Tanveer to life imprisonment, imposing a fine of Rs400, 000 as compensation, and awarding other penalties. Tanveer later challenged the conviction before the Lahore High Court.
During the appeal, the prosecution argued that eyewitness testimony, medical evidence and other material on record established Tanveer’s guilt. The state also contended that because the victim died an unnatural death in her husband’s house, Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat placed the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances of her death.
The defence maintained that Tanveer was innocent and was on duty at a petrol station on Jhang Road at the time of the incident. He told the court that he received news of his wife’s death while at work and, upon reaching home, learned that unidentified persons had killed her. He further alleged that he had been falsely implicated due to collusion between the complainant and the police.
In its judgment, the high court held that Article 122 does not apply automatically. The court observed that the prosecution must first connect the accused to the crime through credible direct or circumstantial evidence before any adverse inference can be drawn from the accused’s failure to explain the incident.
The court ruled that if the prosecution fails to discharge this initial burden, an accused cannot be required to explain the death merely because it occurred in the matrimonial home, nor can silence be treated as evidence of guilt. It reiterated that the burden of proving a criminal charge always rests with the prosecution.
Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh further noted that the prosecution’s case suffered from an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, contradictions in eyewitness accounts, deficiencies in the medical evidence, failure to establish the evidentiary value of the recovered dupatta, and the inability of call data records to link the accused with the crime scene.
Holding that these shortcomings created reasonable doubt, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to Tanveer, set aside his conviction, and dismissed the complainant’s plea seeking enhancement of the sentence.