In Brief
In August 1994, Aslam (the appellant) was convicted of murdering Zahid Khan based on eyewitness testimony. The trial and high courts upheld the conviction and life sentence. However, the Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence infirm and fraught with contradictions. Key witnesses presented inconsistent accounts, were slow to report the crime despite police proximity, bore no bloodstains despite allegedly carrying a profusely bleeding victim, and one witness admitted testifying on hearsay. Given these credibility gaps and prior enmity between the appellant and deceased, the Court held the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted him.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.