OBAIDULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURT

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

OBAIDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---Accused was convicted by trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused---Validity---There were glaring contradictions in the prosecution case because on the one hand it was alleged by the complainant in the contents of the FIR that it was co-accused (since acquitted) who was trying to bury the dead body of deceased, near the rainy drainage, which means that the said co-accused only attempted to bury the dead body of deceased, whereas on the other hand according to the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners, the dead body of deceased was buried by them in a grave and the said grave was filled with earth---Complainant did not allege in the FIR that the present petitioners tried to bury the dead body of the deceased and the said allegation was levelled against co-accused (since acquitted) whereas according to the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners, they (petitioners) not only successfully buried the dead body of the deceased in a grave but thereafter they also filled the said grave with earth---Noteworthy that even in his statement recorded by the Trial Court, the complainant neither named the petitioners nor attributed any role to them---Complainant categorically stated that in his application for registration of FIR he named co-accused (since acquitted) and some other accused---Moreover, the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners regarding burial of the dead body of deceased in a grave and filling the said grave with earth had not been supported by the medical evidence---Medical Officer in his postmortem report or in his evidence recorded by the trial Court had not mentioned that he noticed any soil/earth on any part of the body of deceased or on his last worn clothes and, as such, the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners were also not supported by the medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeals were allowed accordingly.

OBAIDULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR