I will ask to be left in a forest, like a seed from the beak of a raven, or at the edge of the sea, a mussel shell released by a gull. I will lie there, unwitnessed, the only proof of my existence the way an ant has to crawl over my calf, altering the course of its journey. until my dissatisfaction…

ALT: Walmart Store Exteriors

• Court dismisses petitions challenging double-murder convictions • Verdict explains that closing eyes of a corpse is ‘religious’ custom, not legal duty ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the condition of a deceased person’s eyes at the time of death cannot conclusively establish the fact that the incident was not witnessed. The Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, does not impose a legal duty to close a deceased person’s eyes. Rather, the practice is customary and religious, observed Justice Salahuddin Panhwar while dismissing jail petitions filed by Azmat Ullah alias Motu and Muhammad Luqman alias Gona. The petitioners had challenged their convictions in a 2011 double-murder case, upheld by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on May 18, 2022. Justice Panhwar was part of a three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar. The bench upheld the convictions under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code but maintained the high court’s decision to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment. In criminal trials, defence lawyers often argue that an incident was ‘unwitnessed’ if the post-mortem report records the deceased’s eyes as open, reasoning that close relatives would ordinarily close them after death. During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel pointed to discrepancies in eyewitness statements and argued that the post-mortem and inquest reports, which recorded the eyes of both victims as open, indicated that the murders had not been witnessed. **Article 129 versus rigid presumptions** In a nine-page judgement, Justice Panhwar referred to Article 129 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, which allows courts to presume facts they consider likely in the circumstances of a particular case. However, the judgement stressed that human behaviour could not be assessed in a vacuum or through rigid assumptions. Responses to trauma, terror and violent loss vary from person to person, making it unsafe to draw categorical conclusions from a single circumstance. It noted that relatives witnessing a gruesome incident may be overwhelmed by shock and trauma. Hoping their loved one might survive, they may focus on obtaining urgent medical assistance rather than performing customary rituals associated with death. Relatives and bystanders may also continue treating the victim as injured until a doctor or police official confirms death, which may not be immediately apparent at the scene. **Other factors** From a forensic perspective, the position of the eyelids is governed by physiological processes rather than the presence or absence of witnesses, the judgement explained. Following death, muscles initially become relaxed, allowing eyelids to remain open or partially open, a condition known as lagophthalmos. Handling or moving a body may also cause previously closed eyes to reopen, particularly before rigor mortis develops. As rigor mortis sets in, muscles become stiff and retain their prevailing position. The court also cited Locard’s Exchange Principle, which holds that every contact leaves a trace. Relatives, bystanders and rescue workers may avoid touching a body to prevent contamination or disturbance of blood-spatter patterns, trace evidence and DNA material before forensic experts arrive. It would therefore be unsafe to presume that every person knows how to handle a deceased body or feels obliged to close the eyes, the judgement said. Concluding that neither forensic literature nor the law recognises closed eyes as an indicator of a witnessed death, the court rejected the argument that open eyelids alone could establish that a crime was unwitnessed. The judgement further observed that minor discrepancies and natural variations in eyewitness accounts, arising from the passage of time and the rigours of cross-examination, do not undermine otherwise credible and consistent testimony. _Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2026_

The Eighth District Court of Appeals recently addressed what evidence is necessary to establish proximate cause when a resident suffers an...

The allegations are outlined in a confidential, 38-slide presentation on the state of PharmaCare and presented to law enforcement