PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Sarfraz Ahmed vs State S — 2026 MLD 966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2026 MLD 966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
MLD
Parties
Sarfraz Ahmed vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 324---

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

Judgment text as reported

Sarfraz Ahmed VS State S. 324---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supporting medical evidence---accused was charged for causing injuries to the brother-in-law of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and injured---Complainant had reiterated the entire story narrated by him in the FIR---Complainant had revealed that how in response to information of injuries to the victim on phone, he reached the hospital and found the injured having received four bullet injuries---Complainant had further revealed the fact that injured had informed him about the incident and role of appellant to have fired multiple times upon him---Injured had supported the story of FIR---Injured had identified the appellant to be the accused who had fired upon him four times at the place of incident when he was riding on a motorcycle---Medico-Legal Officer, who had examined the injured, had described eight firearm injuries on the person of injured---as per Medico-Legal Officer, four injuries were entry wounds and four were exit wounds---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Sarfraz Ahmed VS State S. 324---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---appreciation of evidence---Discrepancies in the prosecution case---accused was charged for causing injuries to the brother-in-law of complainant by firing---appellant had been clearly identified by the injured who was his brother-in-law---apparently, the complainant and injured had no ill will or a motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a case in which he had made a serious attempt on life of the injured---In the cases of injuries or murder it is very rare for the complainant or the injured to substitute the real culprit with a false one, not the least when the accused is near to one of the complainant party---appellant was a real brother of complainant and brother in law of the injured; without any strong motive, the evidence of which was lacking, both the witnesses were not expected to falsely implicate their brother and brother-in-law in a case which carried 10 years punishment---Such discrepancies pointed out by the defence were minor in nature, did not impinge on merits of the case---On the basis of such discrepancies, version of the prosecution presented in the Court through five witnesses could not be discarded and appellant he acquitted---Prosecution evidence was confidence inspiring, and all the pieces of evidence connected the appellant with commission of offence---Non-recovery of weapon or any empty from place of incident could not undermine the prosecution case which was otherwise established from the direct account furnished by the injured himself---appellant was arrested after more than one month and before his arrest the challan had already been submitted---Non-recovery of empties from spot could be due to the fact that place of incident was stated to be a busy road and its inspection was carried out on the next day, therefore, the chances of the same being misplaced could not be ruled out---However, those minor discrepancies could not injure intrinsic value of the evidence of the witness---Witnesses had furnished firsthand account of the incident---Evidence of injured did not suffer from any discrepancy or contradiction---accused had clearly identified the appellant to be the culprit---Moreover, it was a day time incident and there was no chance of mistaken identity---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English