MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 45 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.

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, common intention--- Reappraisal of evidence---Crime empties and recovered weapons not sent for forensics---Presence of complainant at scene of occurrence doubtful---Dishonest improvements made by complainant and witnesses---Injured witness and material witness not produced for evidence---Adverse presumption---Crime empties recovered during investigation and firearm allegedly recovered from the appellant (accused person) were not sent to the firearm expert for analysis and in this regard no explanation had been offered by the prosecution at the trial---Surprisingly, complainant did not receive a single firearm injury in the whole occurrence despite indiscriminate firing by the six nominated accused and despite allegedly witnessing the entire occurrence from a close range---Non-receiving of any firearm injury by the complainant during the occurrence and his accurate attribution of each injury of the deceased and injured to each accused specifically with specific firearms casted serious doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence and his plantation as an eye witness of the occurrence due to previous enmity with the nominated accused could not be ruled out of consideration particularly when his testimony was lacking independent corroboration in material aspects---There was no medico legal certificate of an alleged injured witness on record---Said alleged injured witness and brother of the complainant allegedly present at the place of occurrence had not been produced as prosecution witnesses at the trial---Presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was to be drawn to the effect that had these two witnesses been produced at the trial, they would have not supported the prosecution version---Ocular testimony of the injured witnesses was contradictory to the medico legal evidence---Statements of complainant, eye-witnesses and the injured witness were suffering from dishonest improvements and material contradictions rendering their testimony doubtful---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant and the acquitted co-accused beyond reasonable doubt---Acquittal of co-accused by the Appellate Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity---Appellant was acquitted of the charge, while the appeal challenging the acquittal of the co-accused and the appeal seeking enhancement of sentence of the convicts were dismissed.

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 45 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR