Citation Name: 2025 YLR 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mansoor Mujahid vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mansoor Mujahid VS State Ss. 302(b), 297 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, trespassing on burial places, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of pistol and belongings of deceased on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committing murder of the deceased by causing fire shot and dagger injuries and then poured acid on his dead body and then threw it in an open space---Investigating Officer stated that on interrogation appellant led him to the flat of his mother and produced an unlicensed pistol allegedly used by him in the commission of the incident; it was secured under memo---As per the memo, it was a pistol of .22 bores; but such figure was tampered to be of .32 bores---For such recovery, as per Investigating Officer, a separate case was registered---Letter whereby such pistol was sent to Forensic Expert spoke that it was a pistol of .22 bores---Such inconsistency could not be overlooked; even otherwise appellant had already been acquitted of the charge relating to recovery of an unlicensed weapon from him and such acquittal had attained finality up to the stage of High Court, therefore, he could not be connected with such recovery---Investigating Officer further stated that on further interrogation appellant led to the recovery of the belongings of the deceased from the flat of his mother, which he secured under the memo. prepared by him at the spot---Perusal of such memo. revealed that it was prepared by 2nd Investigating Officer---However, name and signature of said Investigating Officer had been tampered with and substituted with the name of 1st Investigating Officer with the addition of the name of 3rd witness to recovery---Such tampering/substitution could not be lost of sight and it had made the very recovery to be doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mansoor Mujahid vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR