Ghulam Akbar Chandio vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 685 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.

Ghulam Akbar Chandio VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single reasonable doubt arises from the evidence, its benefit must unequivocally accrue to the accused, leading to acquittal. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Akbar Chandio VS State Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Inconsistency regarding sequence of events---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant confirmed that the Investigating Officer, was his "neighbour and friend," which inherently compromised the impartiality of the investigation---Complainant stated that he lodged the FIR before burial of deceased, but later contradicted himself by saying that after burial, he along with witnesses went to Police Station at 05:00 p.m. and lodged the FIR---Apart from this all the proceedings were held before the registration of the FIR---Such fundamental inconsistency regarding the sequence of events at a crucial stage (proceeding before FIR and subsequent FIR lodgment) undermined his credibility---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Akbar Chandio VS State Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Prosecution's ocular account revealed glaring contradictions, embellishments and inconsistencies that collectively rendered the version unreliable---Complainant and eye-witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, narrated the sequence of events, but their accounts contradicted the physical evidence presented through the Tapedar's sketch, which placed the assailants inside the shop, while the eye-witnesses asserted that the accused fired from outside---Such a material contradiction regarding the locus of occurrence impugned the credibility of the entire account---Further, the name of one of the accused appeared nowhere in the FIR but was introduced during the trial---This was a classic example of dishonest improvement---Material improvements not found in earlier versions rendered subsequent statements unreliable---Moreover, the failure to associate any independent witness, despite the incident occurring at a public place, remained an un-rectified lapse---Testimony of witnesses must be corroborated by independent evidence, which was conspicuously missing here---Moreover, the Tapedar, who prepared sketch depicted Point B, where the accused were "said to be standing," as inside the shop---Said fact directly contradicted the consistent ocular testimony of witnesses, who claimed the accused fired from outside the shop or from the veranda---This was not a minor inconsistency but a fundamental contradiction concerning the very scene and mechanics of the crime, which gravely impacted the reliability of the prosecution's story---Such material contradictions going to the root of the case could vitiate the entire prosecution evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Akbar Chandio VS State Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Medical Officer explicitly admitted that he was not designated as Medico-Legal Officer and he had not produced any document authorizing the postmortem---Legal validity of a postmortem conducted by an officer without proper designation or official authorization was highly questionable---Expert evidence, including medical opinion, must be from a duly qualified and authorized person---Any doubt on authority could affect the weight of the evidence---Moreover, said witness stated that the "time of death as well as duration between injury and death" was mentioned "as per police document"---Said fact indicated that Medical Officer did not independently ascertain those crucial timings but relied on the police version, thereby failing to provide independent medical corroboration on that aspect---Medical Officer admitted that he did not record temperature of the dead body" and "did not use any measuring scale" for injury measurements, relying solely on his "experience"---Said witness also did not specify the length of injuries at different points or observe which injury was owe of fracture---Such omissions diminished the scientific rigor and evidentiary value of the postmortem report---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ghulam Akbar Chandio VS State Ss. 302(b), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time of committing the offence, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant admitted that the accused did not cause any injury to him and the witnesses, and they did not resist or call for help---Such passive conduct from witnesses to a brutal murder, especially when they claimed to be present during the entire incident, was unnatural and raised questions about their actual presence or ability to observe---Unnatural conduct could render eye-witness testimony doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ghulam Akbar Chandio vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 685 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ