Open Eyes Alone Do Not Prove an Unwitnessed Murder: Supreme Court

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

An observation in a post-mortem report is not a universal rule

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has rejected the proposition that a murder must be treated as unwitnessed merely because the deceased’s eyes were found open at inquest or post-mortem. In Azmat Ullah alias Motu and Muhammad Luqman alias Gona v. The State, the Court held that such an inference cannot mechanically displace trustworthy eyewitness evidence. Human responses to violent death vary, and a later observation about eyelids does not, by itself, establish who was present at the scene. Judgment, paragraphs 9–13.

The judgment was delivered at Lahore on 1 October 2026. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar wrote for a bench also comprising Justices Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim. The Court dismissed both the convicts’ jail petition and the informant’s connected petition seeking restoration of the death sentence. The convictions and life imprisonment remained in place. Judgment, paragraphs 1 and 15–16.

The shooting and the evidence accepted below

Two brothers, Ali Raza and Tasawar Hussain, were killed by firearm injuries in a village street on 18 November 2011. The occurrence was at approximately 10:10 a.m. FIR No. 299/2011 was registered at Police Station Begowala, Tehsil Sambrial, District Sialkot. Their father, Arif Ali, reported the incident within forty minutes. Judgment, paragraphs 1–2.

Arif Ali and Sada Hussain supplied the ocular account. The Court regarded them as natural witnesses whose presence was explained by the circumstances. Their evidence attributed specific roles to the two accused and remained consistent on the essential features despite cross-examination. The judgment’s acceptance of their account rested on that examination, not simply on their relationship with the deceased. Judgment, paragraphs 4 and 7.

The medical evidence provided important corroboration. The doctor recorded five firearm injuries on Ali Raza and four on Tasawar Hussain, with features the Court regarded as consistent with firing from close and effective range. The direct account and the medical account therefore supported one another on the central assault. Judgment, paragraph 5.

What the defence argued

The defence relied on the open-eye observations in the inquest and post-mortem records and cited Muhammad Asif v. The State, 2017 SCMR 486. The suggested reasoning was that close relatives, had they witnessed the deaths, would ordinarily have closed the victims’ eyes. The defence also relied on failure to prove motive, inconsequential weapon recoveries and differences between the eyewitnesses named in the FIR and those who formally identified the bodies. Judgment, paragraph 3.

Each contention required its own evidentiary assessment. The Supreme Court did not resolve the appeal by ignoring the medical record. It examined when the observation had been made, the injuries recorded and whether the suggested inference followed from those facts. Judgment, paragraphs 5–14.

The timing of the observation mattered

Although the incident occurred in the morning, the bodies reached the mortuary at 8:30 p.m. and the autopsies began at 8:45 p.m. The Court emphasized the interval of more than ten and a half hours. It considered it unsound to project a later mortuary observation backwards as decisive proof of events at the scene. Judgment, paragraphs 5–6.

The recorded condition of the two victims was also different. Ali Raza’s eyes were noted as open, while Tasawar Hussain had a serious scalp injury and an outwardly protruding right eye. The judgment linked that condition to the particular injury. These details made a single generalized assumption especially inappropriate. Judgment, paragraph 6.

In discussing the doctor’s evidence and forensic literature, the Court explained that muscle changes, injury and movement or handling of a body may affect eyelid position. Those observations form part of the Court’s reasoning in this case. They should not be converted into an independent medical timetable applicable to every death; the legal point is the need to test the inference against the actual evidence. Judgment, paragraphs 6 and 12–13.

Article 129 QSO: permission to infer, not an obligation

The statutory centre of the ruling is Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. As the Court explained, it permits an inference from the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case. It does not require a court to adopt a fixed inference whenever a single physical detail appears. Judgment, paragraphs 10–11.

The judgment distinguishes a discretionary presumption of fact from an obligatory presumption of law. In the present context, an inference about what relatives would have done after a shooting remained a factual inference. Its strength depended on experience, the surrounding circumstances and the evidence. It did not acquire conclusive status merely because it had been accepted on different facts in an earlier decision. Judgment, paragraphs 9–11.

That distinction prevents an evidentiary shortcut. A court may examine conduct and draw a reasoned inference, but it must explain why the inference is justified here. A claim about usual behaviour cannot operate as a mathematical formula that overrides reliable proof of presence and observation.

Trauma and rescue efforts do not follow a single pattern

The Court considered several possible explanations for relatives not closing a victim’s eyes. A person may still hope to obtain treatment, may be unable to recognize death, may react differently under shock, or may avoid touching a body out of concern for the scene and evidence. These were reasons why a universal behavioural presumption was unsafe, rather than findings that every explanation had occurred in this particular incident. Judgment, paragraph 12.

The judgment also observed that closing the eyes after death is not imposed as a legal duty. Failure to perform that customary or religious act therefore does not establish a witness’s absence. The state of the eyelids must be considered with the entire record. Judgment, paragraphs 10 and 13.

Earlier open-eye cases were read in their factual settings

The Court discussed Waqas Ahmad, Zafar Ali Abbasi, Muhammad Asif and other decisions in which open eyes had contributed to an inference of an unwitnessed occurrence. It said such observations had to be understood in the peculiar facts of those cases. The error lay in elevating the observation into a general legal rule. Judgment, paragraph 9.

The careful reading is therefore that the judgment rejects an automatic presumption. It does not prohibit counsel from referring to the condition of a body or asking a witness and medical officer relevant questions. Such matters must carry the weight the evidence supports, alongside the other circumstances, rather than being treated as conclusive in isolation. Judgment, paragraphs 9–13.

Eyewitnesses and body-identification witnesses serve different functions

The Court separately addressed the argument that the persons who identified the bodies in the medical records were not the eyewitnesses named in the FIR. An eyewitness speaks to the assault and the roles of the accused. A person identifying a body supplies formal confirmation of identity for the record. The two functions need not always be performed by the same person. Judgment, paragraph 14.

Other relatives or acquaintances may complete hospital formalities while the immediate relatives are occupied with police reporting or are overwhelmed by the event. Consequently, the difference alone cannot dismantle an otherwise coherent, confident and corroborated ocular account. This is a contextual rule, not a declaration that every discrepancy about identity or presence is immaterial. Judgment, paragraph 14.

Motive and recoveries affected sentence, not the accepted direct account

The underlying house dispute alleged as motive was not independently established, and the rifle recoveries supplied no meaningful corroboration. The High Court had already treated those weaknesses as mitigating circumstances when converting the death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that they did not neutralize the reliable direct testimony supported by medical evidence on this record. Judgment, paragraph 8.

The distinction matters for the result. The Court upheld neither an acquittal nor restoration of the death penalty. It found no error warranting interference with the High Court’s balanced appraisal and left the convictions with life imprisonment undisturbed. Judgment, paragraphs 15–16.

How to use the judgment in criminal litigation

The ruling directs attention to the evidentiary link between a fact and the inference sought from it. Where an open-eye observation is relied on, the relevant questions include when it was recorded, what injuries were present, what the medical officer explained, and how it fits with the eyewitness account and other proof. These are practical questions drawn from the judgment’s method, not additional statutory requirements. Judgment, paragraphs 5–14.

For a related discussion of testing ocular evidence against medical detail, read our analysis of eyewitness shot counts and medical evidence. Each case turns on the strength of its own record. Here, the Court refused to let one isolated observation substitute for that assessment.

Frequently asked questions

Do open eyes prove that a murder had no eyewitness?

No. The Court rejected that inference when drawn solely from the position of the eyelids. It requires contextual assessment of the evidence. Judgment, paragraphs 9–13.

Is the presumption under Article 129 QSO compulsory?

The Court explained that the relevant factual presumption is discretionary. It must relate to the particular facts and is not an obligatory rule of law. Judgment, paragraphs 10–11.

Must the eyewitness also identify the body for the post-mortem?

Not necessarily. The Court distinguished the functions and held that a difference alone is not fatal to otherwise coherent and corroborated eyewitness evidence. Judgment, paragraph 14.

Were the convicts acquitted or sentenced to death?

Neither. Their jail petition and the informant’s connected petition were dismissed. The High Court’s convictions and life sentences remained undisturbed. Judgment, paragraphs 1 and 15–16.

Sources and case reference

• Read or download the complete supplied judgment.
• Searchable judgment page and case particulars.
• Supreme Court of Pakistan: latest judgments.

The analysis follows the supplied judgment. Earlier authorities are described as the Court discussed them in this case.