No, the Islamabad High Court has made it very clear that a death sentence cannot be based on questionable forensic reports, a broken chain of evidence, and testimony that is full of contradictions. It is not a gift to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
A call in the middle of the night. A dad finds out that his daughter has died. The in-laws say it was a heart attack. A father’s heart screams murder. This is the heartbreaking beginning of a legal battle that ended with the High Court finding that a son, Syed Abdul Basit Shah, was not guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced to death. It’s a story about a parent who is sure of what they believe, but the law is cold and strict, and the standard is not what they think happened, but what can be *proven* beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the story of a death sentence that was overturned, the story of *Syed Abdul Basit Shah vs. The State*. Â
The story told in court was one of the family’s worst fears coming true. Ayesha Shabbir was married and lived with her in-laws while her husband worked in another country. Her father, PW-13, said that her in-laws were mean, that she was alone, and that they wanted his daughter out of the way so that her husband could marry someone else. The reason was set.
The call that everyone feared came on September 23, 2021. A brother-in-law named Zia ul Haq told Ayesha’s father that she had died of a heart attack. The father turned this down because he was full of doubt and grief. He was sure it was a murder. He wanted an autopsy and an inquiry. His official complaint led to a FIR being filed under **Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)**. This section deals with punishment for Qatl-i-amd, or intentional murder, which can result in the death penalty.
The trial court heard what the prosecution had to say. No one saw the “unseen occurrence.” The father’s testimony, the medical evidence, and a key report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) were all important to the case. The PFSA report said that “hanging” might be possible. Because of this, the trial judge found Syed Abdul Basit Shah guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging, even though he had said he had a heart attack at first. He also had to pay three million rupees to the children of the dead person as compensation.
The trial court thought the evidence was good enough. The Islamabad High Court thought it was a house of cards that would fall apart at the first sign of trouble.
The main legal question for Justices Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Arbab Muhammad Tahir was very clear: **Did the prosecution use reliable and acceptable evidence to prove its case against Syed Abdul Basit Shah beyond a reasonable doubt?**
The appellant’s lawyer attacked the prosecution’s case from many angles, and the court carefully looked at each one.
The first reason was that the motive was weak. The father said that the in-laws wanted a second marriage, but the court saw a big problem: the husband never divorced Ayesha, and Ayesha never filed for **Khula**—the right of a woman to seek dissolution of her marriage in court—or said she was being abused. Ayesha had actually been in court before and said she was “comfortable with her in-laws.” This made the prosecution’s idea that the family wanted to get rid of her very weak.
Second, the father’s testimony, which was the complainant’s, was full of improvements. At first, all he talked about was a heart attack. More than a year later, in a second statement, he suddenly said she died by “putting a pillow on her neck.” He couldn’t say where he got this new, shocking information from, and no such pillow was ever found as proof.
But the forensic evidence falling apart was the worst thing that could have happened to the prosecution’s case. The PFSA report was the basis for the whole “hanging” theory. The High Court said that the chain of custody for the biological samples, which is the most important part of forensic integrity, was completely broken.
The “chain of custody” is a legal and procedural rule that says you have to write down who handled a piece of evidence, when, and why to make sure it hasn’t been changed. The chain was a mess in this case. The doctor who did the autopsy (PW-7) couldn’t say for sure what samples she sent or to whom. A police officer (PW-5) said that he kept the “sealed parcels” of evidence for *six months* before sending them to the lab. Another officer (PW-6) said that he sent six packages, while others said that he sent five. The PFSA report didn’t say how many packages it got.
This was deadly. The evidence is no longer credible when the chain of custody is broken. The court could not be sure that the samples that were tested came from the dead person.
Also, the medical evidence was not consistent. The doctor who did the autopsy only found one mark on the neck that was 1 cm deep. She said that there were no classic signs of hanging, like a ligature mark from a rope or belt, a broken hyoid bone (a U-shaped neck bone that often breaks in strangulation cases), or any other injuries. The PFSA report that said “hanging” was based on soft tissue that, according to the record, was never even sent to them. There was nothing to back up the report.
The court repeated a basic rule of criminal law: it is up to the prosecution to prove their case. The person who is accused does not have to prove that they are innocent. If the prosecution’s case has even one big hole, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. There were many holes here, including in the motive, the testimony, and, most importantly, the forensic science.
The judges used a previous case as an example: “If there is a circumstance that makes a reasonable person doubt the guilt of the accused, then the accused has the right to the benefit of the doubt, not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of right.” *
The court agreed with the appeal. The death sentence was thrown out. All charges against Syed Abdul Basit Shah were dropped, and he was told to go free right away. The Murder Reference that confirmed his death sentence was not answered. The judges went on to say that the case against the other family members, including those who had been declared Proclaimed Offenders, had also “lost its efficacy” because the evidence against all of them was the same “indivisible” and flawed set.
For Syed Abdul Basit Shah, the sound of the gavel meant he was back in life after being sentenced to death. It was a terrible legal loss for the father who was grieving. This decision is a strong reminder to the public of the sacred rule that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. The court didn’t say that no crime happened; it said that the state didn’t prove that he did it. The law must always protect the innocent, even when the public wants a sword in the name of justice.
Common Questions About Murder Convictions and Acquittals in Pakistan
1. What does “benefit of doubt” mean in a criminal case?
The “benefit of the doubt” is a basic legal rule that says that if the prosecution’s case is weak, contradictory, or doesn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty. The accused has this right, not the court’s favor.
2. Why is the chain of custody so important for forensic evidence?
The chain of custody keeps track of how evidence safely travels from the crime scene to the lab and then to court. If a chain is broken, it could be tampered with, contaminated, or mixed up, making the evidence unreliable and not usable in court.
3. What does the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) do?
The PFSA is a top scientific organization that looks at physical, biological, and digital evidence in criminal cases. People think of its reports as expert opinions, but they have to be based on samples that were collected and sent correctly in order to be valid.
4. Is it possible for someone to be found guilty of murder without any witnesses?
Yes, a conviction can be based solely on strong circumstantial and forensic evidence, as long as it creates an unbroken chain that clearly shows the accused is guilty and rules out any other reasonable explanation.
5. What does “murder reference” mean in Pakistan?
A trial court cannot carry out a death sentence on its own, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has to send the case to the High Court for confirmation. The High Court has to look at the evidence again during this process, which is called a Murder Reference, to make sure the conviction is solid and the death penalty is fair.
Disclaimer:This blog is only for public information and is not legal advice. The written judgment from the court is the basis for the facts given. Please talk to a qualified lawyer if you need specific legal advice.
The Islamabad High Court made a real decision in 2024 that this story is based on.
