State vs Shehbaz Double presumption of innocence — 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

State VS Shehbaz Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Once acquittal is recorded, double presumption of innocence is created which cannot be interfered unless the appellate Court reaches the conclusion that findings are speculative and artificial or arbitrary---Possibility of formulation of another opinion by itself will not be sufficient to make interference. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa arms act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), S.4---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, murder with dacoity, common intention, haraabah, possession of illicit weapons, recovery of explosive substance, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---appeal against acquittal---Identity of assailants---accused were charged for attacking an official pickup carrying Police Officials with hand grenade, Kalashnikovs and other firearm weapons which caused death of five Police Officials while injuries to two Constables and robbed cash and Kalashnikovs of the police with ammunition and pocket phone---Surprisingly, when assailant threw hand grenades and resorted to firing, in such state of panic, how the injured eye-witnesses were able to identify the assailants and the official vehicle which was damaged---Not understandable that how the names and parentage of the assailants numbering 18, who belonging to different villages, came to the knowledge of the injured eye-witnesses---In view of such glaring contradictions, the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses was unworthy and did not inspire confidence, and could not be relied upon---Complainant narrated in murasila and also while appearing as witness that accused belonged to the banned Taliban organization but no source of information regarding their nexus with the Taliban was brought on record by the prosecution to prove its stance---appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to grant premium to the accused. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa arms act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), S.4---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-i-amd, murder with dacoity, common intention, haraabah, possession of illicit weapons, recovery of explosive substance, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---appeal against acquittal---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged for attacking an official pickup carrying Police Officials with hand grenade, Kalashnikovs and other firearm weapons which caused death of five Police Officials while injuries to two Constables and robbed cash and Kalashnikovs of the police with ammunition and pocket phone---Entire episode of the murder and dacoity had been witnessed by injured witness who was also complainant of the instant case and Head Constable, who was also injured during the occurrence---Complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that he along with the injured and dead bodies were brought to the hospital by public through private vehicles where he reported the matter to S.I. who was Investigating Officer of the case---Inspector stated that complainant reported the matter to him which he reduced to writing in shape of murasila---Similarly, FIR also revealed that murasila was sent by additional SHO---Narration of facts of the incident by the complainant which were incorporated in shape of murasila depicted contradiction between the statements of complainant and Inspector which was fatal to the case of prosecution---Deposition of complainant clearly suggested that he had not seen the present respondents firing on them---Interestingly the respondents were not among those who were identified by the witnesses for firing at the time of occurrence and while recording their statements before the Trial Court---appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Benefit of doubt---Principle---Conviction cannot be based on high probabilities---Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa arms act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), S.4---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, murder with dacoity, common intention, haraabah, possession of illicit weapons, recovery of explosive substance, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---appeal against acquittal---Use of mortar shells and hand grenades not established---accused were charged for attacking an official pickup carrying Police Officials with hand grenade, Kalashnikovs and other firearm weapons which caused death of five Police Officials while injuries to two Constables and robbed cash and Kalashnikovs of the police with ammunition, and pocket phone---Investigation Officer, in his cross-examination, admitted that no pieces of mortar shell and hand grenade were recovered from the place of occurrence nor any sign of mortar shell or hand grenade was observed on the vehicle---Similarly, no blood stained earth was taken into possession from the place of occurrence to prove the place as place of occurrence---Even no post mortem examination was conducted on the dead bodies of the Police Officers/Officials to ascertain the manner of receiving hand grenade injuries---Report of Fire arms Experts of crime empties in absence of recovery of fire arms weapon was of no avail---Moreover, the case of present respondents was not distinguishable to that of acquitted co-accused and the State also could not give any cogent reason for not filing an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused, who, on the same set of evidence, was acquitted---appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case State VS Shehbaz Ss. 410 & 417---appeal against conviction and acquittal---Distinction---Extraordinary remedy of an appeal against an acquittal is quite different from an appeal preferred against the findings of conviction and sentence---Obviously, the appellate jurisdiction under S.417, Cr.P.C, can be exercised by the Court if gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice, more particularly, wherein, findings given by Trial Court are perverse, illegal and based on misreading of evidence, leading to miscarriage of justice or where reasons advanced by Trial Court are wholly artificial.

State vs Shehbaz Double presumption of innocence — 2025 MLD 256 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD