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--- Recovery of Call Data Record (CDR) of accused and deceased---Inconsequential ---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---Prosecution's claim was that the petitioners lured the deceased to their home and then killed him---In that respect the Investigating Officer stated that he recovered the deceased's personal mobile phone and also recovered the petitioner's mobile phone---Record did not disclose whether the mobile phones purportedly recovered were in the use of the deceased or accused as acknowledged by the Investigating Officer during the cross-examination---Record did not mention which SIMs were taken from the recovered mobile phones and in whose name the corresponding mobile number was issued---Admittedly, it had not been proved whether the mobile phones allegedly recovered from the deceased and the petitioners were in their personal use, nor had it been proved which SIMs were recovered from the mobile phones and to whom they were issued---Again, the names of the deceased and petitioners were absent from purported Call Data Record except in the form of handwriting subsequently interpolated into the document---Importantly, the instant Call Data Record was in the form of a standard computerized document which, admittedly, could be printed and prepared with the help of any computer---Thus, it was also of foremost importance that the Call Data Record must bear the endorsement/authentication of the cellular/telecom company which had issued it---Bare document such as the Call Data Record without any signature of the concerned officer of the cellular/telecom company issuing the Call Data Record could not be considered for the purposes of trial and relied upon until and unless it would bear the company's seal or a letter of its authentication---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