Zaheer Ahmed vs State S — 2025 YLR 2601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Zaheer Ahmed VS State S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of illegal weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses---Accused was charged for having illicit weapon i.e., pistol .30-bore and live bullets---Complainant explicitly identified six individuals as having been arrested---Notably, the appellant in the case was never mentioned in the complainant's testimony---Similarly, Police Constable's testimony referenced only three arrestees and also omitted the appellant's name---Such glaring inconsistency in identifying the accused coupled with the complainant's failure to name appellant casted significant doubt on the appellant's alleged involvement or presence at the scene---Prosecution's case was further weakened by a direct contradiction between the two primary witnesses---Complainant claimed six arrests, while Police Constable cited five arrests---Such a material inconsistency undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative and raised questions about the accuracy of the entire account---Forensic Science Laboratory Report highlighted that the recovered pistol bore a rubbed serial number---However, that critical detail was never documented in the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborated by any witness testimony---Absence of that information in the foundational records suggested either procedural negligence or potential fabrication, further eroding trust in the prosecution's evidence---Complainant asserted that the police team arrived at the scene at 06.30 pm and left the station on 19-02-2023 at 02.10 pm---In contrast, Police Constable stated the team arrived at 06.25 pm and departed the station at 08.00 pm on 19-02-2023, implying an arrival on 20-02-2023 due to the midnight date transition---Said irreconcilable timelines created confusion about the sequence of events and the reliability of witness accounts---Totality of these contradictions, failure to name the appellant, conflicting arrest figures, unreported tampering of evidence and chronological inconsistencies collectively dismantled the prosecution's version of events---Such material discrepancies in core aspects of the case rendered the evidence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for conviction---Prosecution's failure to present a coherent, consistent narrative founded on verifiable facts fatally undermined its credibility, thereby warranting serious doubt about the appellant's culpability---Inconsistencies identified were not minor or peripheral but struck at the heart of the prosecution's claims---Moreover, the appellant had already been acquitted in main crime under Sections 395/397, P.P.C---In light of those rational findings, the case against appellant could not withstand judicial scrutiny and the charges lacked the evidentiary foundation necessary to sustain a conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zaheer Ahmed vs State S — 2025 YLR 2601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR