Khadim Bhayo vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 440 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.

Khadim Bhayo VS State Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Prosecution evidence consisted of only two prosecution witnesses---Complainant/Investigating Officer stated in cross-examination that after leaving Police Station, they patrolled through firstly "B" Pull, then "K" Pull and then arrived at place of occurrence, which was contradicted by Mashir/InchargeMalkhana by stating that they patrolled through "KP" City, then "K", then "SG" and then arrived at place of occurrence---Complainant stated that they noticed accused at the distance of 50/60 paces which was contradicted by Mashir by stating they noticed accused at the distance of 30/40 paces---In his cross-examination, complainant/Investigating Officer claimed that they asked private persons to act as mashir but no one was ready which was contradictory to the version of FIR in which there was no mention about saying anybody to act as mashir, while the mashir simply stated that due to non-availability of private mashirs, complainant associated him and another Police Constable as mashirs---Thus, the prosecution evidence on such material points contradicted each other---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Khadim Bhayo VS State Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven days in sending the weapon to Ballistic Expert---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of Ballistic Expert's report reflected that the crime weapon was received to their office on 20.11.2023 while it was allegedly recovered on 14.11.2023---Thus, there was delay of seven days in transmitting crime weapon from malkhana to Ballistic Expert, creating serious doubt into its safe custody at malkhana more particularly when the Mashir of recovery and arrest himself was Incharge Malkhana---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Khadim Bhayo VS State Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Enmity proved---Probability of false implication---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of record reflected that during trial in main case, it was admitted by complainant and witness in cross-examination that father of co-accused had already lodged FIR under S.302,P.P.C., against the father of complainant regarding the murder of his son, therefore, appellant and co-accused were falsely implicated in main case which created serious doubt into the veracity of prosecution case---Hence, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the accused and they were acquitted of the charge by Trial Court---In view of such background of standing enmity, false implication of present appellant in the present case by police at the behest of complainant party of main case could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Khadim Bhayo VS State Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in the case of prosecution---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Complainant himself had acted on three counts being complainant, author of FIR as well as Investigating Officer while mashir/Police Constable had also acted as InchargeMalkhana, testimony of such highly interested witnesses lacked credibility---An officer, who was himself complainant in the case, could not be expected to collect and preserve evidence, which would go against his case---Such complainant could not properly perform duties of an independent and fair Investigating Officer---Such practice of complainant Police Officers acting as Investigating Officers had never been approved---Besides, according to para 3 of R.25.2 of Police Rules, 1934, it was the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth and his object shall be to discover the actual facts and for the achievement of such object he shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person---Moreover, the appellant had been acquitted from the charge of main case andit being offshoot case the appellant deserved to be acquitted from the charge of present case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Khadim Bhayo VS State Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---No denial that the prosecution had advance information of the availability of appellant, who was also absconder in main case registered with same police station---However, the raiding party did not associate a public mashir to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings nor took any effort to arrange private person to act as mashir and attest that all proceedings were being undertaken by the police impartially---Thus, there was clear violation of S.103,Cr.P.C---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Khadim Bhayo vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ