KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1599 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.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Identity of accused not proved---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Occurrence took place in the night of 07.12.2015 at 11:48 p.m. and although the incident was unseen, the witnesses claimed to have seen the petitioners fleeing from the scene, one of them armed and the other empty-handed---Absence of any substantial moonlight on that fateful night necessitated a discussion into the source of light which could have made the identification of the petitioners by the witnesses possible---Complainant stated in his complaint to the police and again in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the petitioners running away from the street, in the light being emitted by a bulb---Witness accompanying the complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that he also had seen the petitioners fleeing in the same way, one armed and the other unarmed, in some light---Said witness later clarified during cross-examination that it was certainly in the light of a bulb that he had seen the petitioners fleeing and not in the light being emitted from some torch---Both witnesses had also accentuated during their respective cross-examinations that there was certainly some bulb installed at the scene of occurrence---Complainant during his cross-examination had denied that he had seen the petitioners fleeing while armed with pistol and he identified them in the light of bulb---Said express statement by the complainant had two effects; firstly, it became clear that the petitioners were not identified in the light of a bulb, which clearly contradicted the complainant's statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., as well as the FIR---First Information Report was also silent about any other source of light---Furthermore, no recovery had been made in regard to a supposed alternate source of light and the site map again did not mention any source of light or place from where such source might have been recovered---Identification of the petitioners was thus not free from doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1599 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR