Mst. Lubna Aman vs 1st Addl — 2026 PCrLJ 991 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.

Mst. Lubna Aman VS 1st Addl. Sessions Judge (MCTC) Karachi Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused/applicant was charged that she along with her co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant---In three different investigations, applicant was declared innocent---Application filed by accused/applicant for her acquittal was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---As per record, second FIR, after more than three years of occurrence was lodged, arraying applicant as one of co-accused having acted as instigator---Order disposing of first FIR under A-Class in which applicant was not an accused was never challenged by the complainant---Second FIR, registered after more than three years of the incident arraigning the applicant, a sister-in-law of complainant, as an accused with the role of instigator, could not be seen without a suspicion pointing out to some motive on the part of the complainant to drag her in the case---Said fact became evident in the ensuing investigations as not a single shred of evidence was found against the applicant---Consequently, applicant was let off by the police in all the investigations---Last Investigation Officer, who was an officer of a senior rank i.e. DSP had clearly mentioned in S.173 Cr.P.C report that there was a property dispute between the applicant and complainant, who had occupied the ground floor of the house of applicant, and it was only because of such dispute, the applicant was made accused in the case---There was only one eye-witness in this case, he had been examined in all the investigation under section 161, Cr.P.C separately---In all the three investigations carried out in the wake of second FIR, said witness had refuted the claim of the complainant qua presence of the applicant at the spot or signaling the accused to hit the deceased with his motor cycle---Further, the charge itself was self-contradictory---On the one end, the complainant asserted that the deceased had died as a result of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by co-accused, and on the other, he claimed that applicant had instigated accused to do so---If applicant had instigated accused to do so, then the act of accused would be deemed to be intentional and deliberate and not a rash and negligent---If it was presumed that the act of accused was rash and negligent then there would be no question of instigation or abetment to him by the applicant---Rash and negligent act could not reconcile, being incompatible and could not be equated with deliberate and intentional act and vice versa---Main focus of the prosecution case was on rash and negligent driving of accused, as the main reason leading to the incident in which deceased died subsequently from the injuries sustained by him---Keeping in view the focus of the prosecution on the rash and negligent driving by accused as the only reason stirring the incident, the allegation against the applicant of instigating or abetting accused appeared to be groundless---Moreover, the entire case was silent over any hint revealing relationship, if any, of applicant with the co-accused, and/or where and when she hired him or hatched a conspiracy with him to commit the alleged offence---In absence of such prerequisites involvement of applicant in the offence, when she was not even found present at the spot, was not without a serious doubt---Thus, there was no case in fact against the applicant; the evidence against her was nonexistent; in all the three investigations carried out in the wake of second FIR, she was found innocent and let-off by the police---No evidence since had been put forward by the complainant showing involvement of the applicant in the case---Applicant was real sister-in-law of the complainant and it was an admitted fact that between them there was a dispute over the property left by her late husband who happened to be brother of the complainant---In the facts and circumstances, the charge against the applicant was found groundless and with the material available on record there was no probability of the applicant being convicted and sentenced in the offence---Application was allowed and the applicant was acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Mst. Lubna Aman vs 1st Addl — 2026 PCrLJ 991 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ