Ubaid alias K-2 vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 630 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.

Ubaid alias K-2 VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 147, 148 & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 19(10)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 47---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Trial in absentia---Scope---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of a Sepoy by firing and caused firearm injuries to a Hawaldar---as per record, the appellant had confessed his guilt in front of the investigating officer---Trial Court, however, relying on art.47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, convicted the accused based on the testimonies and documents produced by the prosecution in the trial in which appellant was sentenced in absentia---Said witnesses had subsequently died or were unable to appear to testify---Section 19(10) of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997, provided that an accused could be tried in his absence if the anti-Terrorism Court, after such inquiry as it deemed fit, was satisfied that such absence was deliberate and brought about with a view to impeding the course of justice---However, the evidence was not recorded under S.512, Cr.P.C., but appellant was convicted after a full-dress trial under the act, 1997---Prosecution was therefore duty-bound to lead all the evidence to prove its case---Some witnesses had died and others were unable to come to trial---article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided for situations in which a witness died naturally or was otherwise incapacitated before their statement was recorded in Court---In such cases, the evidence of that person, previously recorded in any judicial proceedings or by any person authorized to record it, becomes relevant for proving the facts---Record showed, this was not done---Statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses were neither presented before the Court nor brought into the record in accordance with the law---Case record remained silent on that matter---While the statements of those witnesses were recorded during the trial in absentia, they could not be considered by the Trial Court unless properly submitted into the judicial record---Said statements remained part of the trial in absentia file---Moreover, no questions regarding the earlier statements of those witnesses recorded during the trial in absentia were posed to the appellant during his statement under S.342 of the Cr.P.C.---any incriminating evidence must be presented to the accused in his statement under S.342 of the Cr.P.C.---Otherwise, it could not be used against him---In this case, the Trial Court based itsjudgment of conviction on the earlier statements of eye-witnesses, which were not legally before the Court---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 630 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ubaid alias K-2 VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 147, 148 & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of a Sepoy by firing and caused firearm injuries to a Hawaldar---Evidence led at trial reflected that, at best, the prosecution was able to prove that appellant was present in the mob of people that allegedly attacked the law enforcers---Nobody saw the appellant armed, nor did anybody except one witness say that appellant had fired upon them---Thus, the testimony of said witness did not inspireconfidence or appeared trustworthy---Said witness stated that the gunfire directed at the law enforcers originated from the tops of buildings, whereas the appellant was seen on the ground---Suppose a person sought to be convicted by the Court was, in fact, involved in the commission of the offence as alleged by the complainant; in that case, the pertinent question was whether any of the prosecution witnesses had assigned appellant a specific role in the entire occurrence---In the absence of any such attribution in conformity with the requirements of law, the conviction of that person could not be sustained---Furthermore, the complete absence of any blood at the scene, coupled with the fact that the appellant was neither arrested at the spot nor had his specific role been clearly described by the witnesses-who merely stated that he was accompanied by a co-accused-and the lack of recovery of any weapon from him to corroborate the ocular account, collectively created reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person---Said circumstances raised serious concerns about whether the incident occurred as alleged by the complainant in the FIR, thereby casting substantial doubt on the prosecution's version of events---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 630 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ubaid alias K-2 VS State Role of judge---Scope---Judge cannot be swayed by his own personal biases, prejudices and experiences when deciding cases---Judgments cannot be based on perceptions unless the law warrants those perceptions---Constitution guarantees every citizen certain rights and these rights cannot be taken away from any citizen.

Ubaid alias K-2 vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 630 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ