Aijaz vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 511 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.

Aijaz VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to its benefit. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 14-hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after an explained delay of approximately 14-hours, indicating due deliberation and consultation---Said fact diminished the credibility of the prosecution's case---In these circumstances, the ocular account stood contradicted by the objective video evidence, rendering it unreliable---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz VS State Statement of a witness who deposes falsely---Reliance---Witness who is found to have deposed falsely on any material aspect of the case cannot be deemed credible with respect to any other portion of his testimony, as the presumption of veracity stands extinguished once the witness is shown to be capable of perjury---Law does not countenance partial or selective reliance upon the testimony of such a witness. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---In the FIR, the complainant alleged that accused "MH", armed with ahatchet, inflicted a blow with the right side of the hatchet on the head of the deceased, while accused "MU" also caused ahatchet blow to the right side of the head of the said deceased---Specific role attributed to the present appellants was that accused "A" struck the complainant on his forehead with a lathi, whereas appellant "J" inflicted lathi blows upon the back of deceased---Both the complainant and the eye-witness, during their examination-in-chief, supported the version narrated in the FIR and assigned the role of main assailant to "MH"---However, when confronted during trial with the video clips produced as evidence, the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements---Video recordings exhibited in Court clearly depicted that "MH" was empty-handed and did not attack any person---Video Clips No.12 and No.13 demonstrated that "MH" was standing empty-handed among the crowd and did not cause any injury to the deceased or the witnesses---Similarly, Video Clip No.17 showedthat "MH" was attempting to pacify the people rather than participating in the assault, while Video Clip No.18 again depicted him standing idle and unarmed, whereas a large number of other individuals were engaged in fighting---Forensic Report of digital evidence confirmed that the said video clips were genuine and un-tampered---Investigating Officer deposed that the video of the incident had gone viral on social media, whereupon he downloaded the relevant clips onto a USB device---With the permission of the SSP, he forwarded the said USB to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and subsequently received the report, which was deposited and exhibited, wherein the result confirmed that "no editing features were observed in the visual contents of the eight (08) videos"---Testimonies of the complainant and the eye-witness revealed that there existed a prior dispute between the parties---Both witnesses further conceded that at the time of the incident, more than 150 armed individuals were present at the scene---Significantly, in Video Clip No.17, which was uploaded by eye-witness himself, there was no indication or specific allegation that accused "MH" and "MU" were armed with hatchets, or that accused "A" and "J" were armed with lathis and had participated in the commission of the alleged offence---Omission of such material details in the contemporaneous account of the incident, coupled with the admitted presence of a large and armed crowd, casted grave doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution's version and the specific attribution of roles to the named accused---Said contradictions and omissions materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, thereby rendering their testimony unreliable and unsafe to form the basis of conviction in the absence of independent and trustworthy corroboration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Aijaz vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ