Article 122 QSO: Wife’s Death at Home Cannot Replace Proof, Supreme Court Holds

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

What the Supreme Court decided

A wife's murder inside her matrimonial home does not, by itself, prove that her husband committed it. In Salman v. The State, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 could not sustain a conviction after the prosecution's evidence had been found unreliable. The prosecution had to establish its case through convincing evidence before relying on the accused's failure to explain the death.

The Court converted Jail Petition No. 565 of 2022 into an appeal, allowed it and acquitted Salman on benefit of doubt. It set aside his life sentence and directed his release unless detention was required in another case. This was an acquittal on the merits of a criminal appeal, rather than a bail order.

Justices Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Shakeel Ahmad constituted the Bench. Justice Khan authored the judgment, dated 2 October 2026 and approved for reporting.

The prosecution case and the earlier decisions

FIR No. 68 was registered on 23 March 2013 at Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad, under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The complainant, Muhammad Akbar, alleged that his son-in-law Salman telephoned him and said he had killed his wife, Mst. Tanvir Akbar alias Ayesha, with a firearm. When the complainant and witnesses reached the house, they found her dead with firearm injuries to the abdomen and left foot. A matrimonial dispute was alleged as the motive.

On 7 November 2017, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad convicted Salman and his brother Imran under sections 302(b)/34 PPC. Each received life imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 200,000 under section 544-A CrPC, with six months' rigorous imprisonment in default. Section 382-B CrPC benefit was extended.

On 17 October 2022, the Sindh High Court, Circuit Court at Hyderabad, maintained Salman's conviction but acquitted Imran on benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court examined the evidence supporting the surviving conviction.

Why the later eyewitness account failed

Paragraph 4 deals with Muhammad Riaz, the only eyewitness produced by the prosecution. The FIR named no eyewitness even though it was lodged four hours after the alleged telephone call. Riaz was introduced later that night.

Riaz lived in Mirpur Khas, while the murder occurred in Hyderabad. He said he had travelled there for shopping, but gave no necessary details establishing that explanation. He was also the complainant's son-in-law. Despite claiming to have witnessed his sister-in-law's murder, he did not immediately inform the complainant or local police. Instead, he said he returned to Mirpur Khas.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's rejection of his evidence. The finding rested on his late introduction, unexplained presence and conduct together. It does not establish that a related witness, or anyone visiting another district, must automatically be disbelieved.

The alleged telephone call remained unsupported

Paragraph 5 identifies a gap in the complainant's account. Neither his telephone number nor Salman's appeared in the FIR, and no call detail record was produced to establish the alleged call.

The Court assessed the alleged admission in the circumstances of this particular record. The decision should not be enlarged into a general rule that a call detail record is an indispensable legal condition for proving every telephone conversation.

Why a positive forensic report did not cure the defects

Paragraph 6 examines the recovered pistol and positive forensic report. The pistol and cartridge empties reached the laboratory together. The Court referred to Abdul Wahid v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1278, and Sarfraz v. The State, 2023 SCMR 670, when considering the reliability of that evidence.

The important qualification is that Salman was arrested, and the pistol recovered, on the day of the occurrence. The Court expressly acknowledged that the police had no earlier opportunity to send the empties to the laboratory. Its reasoning therefore cannot fairly be reduced to a rule that joint dispatch always makes a positive report worthless.

The prosecution also failed to examine the person who carried the pistol and empties to the laboratory to establish their safe custody. Against the background of the subsequently planted eyewitness, the Court considered the possibility of fabrication and found it unsafe to rely on the recovery and forensic evidence. The evidentiary defects had to be read together.

Article 122: the prosecution must first establish a reliable case

The State argued that Salman had to explain his wife's unnatural death because her body was found in his house. It relied on Article 122 QSO, Arshad Mehmood v. The State, 2005 SCMR 1524, and Saeed Ahmed v. The State, 2015 SCMR 710.

Paragraph 8 rejects using the absence of a plausible explanation as a substitute for reliable prosecution evidence. An accused cannot be convicted merely because a body was recovered from his house or because his explanation is inadequate. The Court held that the prosecution must first discharge its legal burden through convincing and reliable evidence.

The judgment explains this limit through Muhammad Pervaiz v. The State and others, PLD 2019 SC 592; Asad Khan v. The State, PLD 2017 SC 681; Nazeer Ahmed v. The State, 2016 SCMR 1628; and Abdul Majeed v. The State, 2011 SCMR 941. It reproduces passages from Asad Khan and Nazeer Ahmed distinguishing an obligation to explain an unnatural domestic death from an impermissible transfer of the entire burden after the prosecution case collapses.

The practical inquiry is whether reliable evidence first connects the accused to the offence. Article 122 does not relieve the prosecution of that task. Equally, Salman does not abolish the special-knowledge rule or say that an accused's explanation can never matter in a properly established circumstantial case.

Shared occupancy weakened the inference against Salman

Paragraph 9 records that Salman was not the only person living in the house. Imran and other family members also resided there, and the premises were not in Salman's exclusive possession. The complainant party had also alleged hostility involving Imran arising from divorce of the deceased's sister.

These circumstances made it unsafe to infer that Salman, and no one else, must have committed the murder simply because the body was found there. The Court's discussion of other possible persons explains the weakness of the inference; it does not identify another person as the murderer.

The Court reiterated that strong suspicion and probabilities cannot replace proof. It referred to Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State, PLD 2021 SC 600; Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State, 2017 SCMR 724; Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State, 2008 SCMR 1221; Muhammad Jamshaid and another v. The State and others, 2016 SCMR 1019; and Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan and others, PLD 2006 SC 538. The reproduced Ghulam Qadir passage also refers to Muhammad Luqman v. The State, PLD 1970 SC 10.

These authorities are identified as cited or reproduced in Salman's judgment. Their separate factual records and later treatment have not been independently examined for this article.

The alleged matrimonial motive was vague

Paragraph 7 found no proved reason for the alleged matrimonial dispute. The spouses were living together until the occurrence, and the prosecution supplied neither specific supporting details nor any family suit or application documenting the dispute.

This was a finding that the asserted motive remained unproved on the record. It is not a rule requiring a family case before matrimonial hostility can be proved, or a rule that failure to prove motive alone necessarily requires acquittal where other reliable evidence establishes guilt.

Result and practical use

In paragraph 10, the Court set aside both the High Court judgment dated 17 October 2022 and trial judgment dated 7 November 2017. It acquitted Salman on benefit of doubt and ordered immediate release unless he was required in another case.

For an appeal involving Article 122, counsel should identify the prosecution's foundational evidence, examine whether it survives scrutiny, and show whether the premises were exclusively occupied or shared. The witness's introduction, explanation of presence, call evidence, forensic transmission and asserted motive must each be tied to the actual record. The principle decided here concerns the prosecution's failure to prove guilt; the mere resemblance of a household setting does not determine another case.

For related reading, see the journal's Article 122 analysis in Habib Ullah and Criminal Law articles. The existing Salman Legal News report provides a shorter account of this decision.

Judgment particulars and source record

• Case: Salman v. The State.
• Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan, Appellate Jurisdiction.
• Case number: Jail Petition No. 565 of 2022.
• Hearing and judgment: 2 October 2026.
• Bench: Justices Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Shakeel Ahmad.
• Author: Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan.
• Reporting status: approved for reporting; no reporter citation stated in the supplied copy.
• High Court proceeding: Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-275-A of 2017, Sindh High Court, Circuit Court at Hyderabad.
• FIR: No. 68 dated 23 March 2013, Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad.
• Result: petition converted into appeal and allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal on benefit of doubt.

The downloadable PDF reproduces the supplied ten-page judgment unchanged. The Supreme Court judgment search, latest-judgments record and case-information portal provide official routes to search for Jail Petition No. 565 of 2022. Those court pages returned access restrictions during verification, and a separate direct court-hosted PDF could not be verified. No upload date or later reporter citation is asserted here.