Muhammad Kamran vs State S — 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Muhammad Kamran VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Unnatural conduct of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting knife blows---There was no last saw evidence, because no witness actually seen the deceased with the appellant before the incident---Instead the witnesses said that they saw the appellant running away after they were shown where the deceased was lying injured---It was not unusual for the appellant to be in the vicinity as he worked for the same bus company as the deceased and the witnesses who found the injured deceased which was near their place of work---So simply concluding that because the deceased was seen running away, he committed the crime was not sustainable in law---Witnesses who saw the appellant running away did not say how far away he was from them and whether they saw him from the back or the front, so there might even be some doubt about the identity of the appellant---Furthermore, according to the evidence the witnesses found the injured deceased after the body was pointed out to them after the deceased had been stabbed and was lying injured so it was unclear how long the witnesses were shown the injured body after the deceased was stabbed---Thus, it did not appeal to logic, commonsense and reason that if the appellant had stabbed the deceased and seriously injured him that he would just hang around the crime scene---Appellant would have made his escape good before the body was found---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Kamran VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 4/5 days in recording the statements of witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting knife blows---None of the witnesses who gave evidence in respect of the last seen evidence were named in the FIR and they all gave their (S.161 Cr.P.C) statements 4 to 5 days after the incident---Said fact brought the evidence of said witnesses into doubt due to such long delay in recording their so-called eye-witness (S.161 Cr.P.C) statements---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Kamran VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting knife blows---Recovery of the murder weapon (knife) was in doubt---Whilst some witnesses stated in their evidence that knife was recovered at the place of occurrence, other witnesses (police) stated in their evidence that immediately after they arrested the appellant on the same day he led the police on his pointation to a hotel where he had hidden the murder weapon from where it was recovered which appeared to be a material contradiction when placed in juxtaposition with the other evidence on record---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Kamran VS State S. 342---Examination of accused---Scope---All the evidence must be put to the accused at the time of recording his S.342, Cr.P.C statement---If any evidence is not put to accused and he has no chance to explain the same, it cannot be used to convict the accused and must be discarded. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Kamran VS State S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting knife blows---Incident occurred on 10.05.2019 at about 11.30 am in broad daylight when the deceased was found seriously injured by his co-workers---Deceased however was conscious throughout but he did not personally tell either of those witnesses that the appellant had stabbed him---Deceased remained conscious until his death a number of hours later yet did not reveal to the police, nurses or doctors that the appellant had stabbed him---Instead after being taken from the place of occurrence to local hospital and then referred to Civil Hospital, the deceased according to the evidence of the complainant gave his dying declaration to the complainant alone in the ambulance on the way to the Civil Hospital---Once at the Civil Hospital, deceased did not tell any Police Officer, Medical Officer or any other person that the appellant had stabbed him and died a few hours after reaching the Civil Hospital---Question was why would an injured but conscious man not immediately tell the persons who discovered him at the place of occurrence, the police who took him from the place of occurrence to the local hospital and the doctors at the hospital the identity of who had stabbed him---This would have been the key question on all those people's mind especially the police yet the deceased did not mention to any of them, even after he was transferred to Civil Hospital, that the appellant had stabbed him but allegedly only told his father alone in the ambulance en-route to Civil Hospital---Such conduct did not appeal to logic, reason or common sense---Most significantly, the complainant lodged his FIR about 12 hours after his son/ deceased had given him his dying declaration yet there was no mention in the FIR of his son's/ deceased's dying declaration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Kamran vs State S — 2025 MLD 510 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD