MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1085 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ VS State. Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, munaqqilah, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Injured witness and natural presence in village setting---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the mother and sister-in-law of the complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to the brother of the complainant---Eye-witnesses had offered plausible explanations for their presence at the spot at the relevant time---Presence of the injured witness, having sustained firearm injuries on both thighs and the little finger of his left hand in the occurrence, could not be doubted---Occurrence took place in front of the complainant's house in the early hours of the morning---Petitioner-convict, being a co-villager of the eye-witnesses, was already known to them; therefore, as the incident occurred in broad daylight, the question of mistaken identity did not arise---All eye-witnesses were brothers inter se and cultivators by profession; therefore, their presence at their house in the early hours of the morning was natural, particularly when their stance was that they were taking their cattle out at the time of occurrence---It was also a common practice and custom in villages for people to take their cattle for grazing in the early hours of the morning---Eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination; however, nothing beneficial to the defence or adverse to the prosecution could be elicited from them---Eye-witnesses remained steadfast in their stance and corroborated each other on every material aspect of the occurrence---Except for minor inconsistencies, nothing was brought out by the defence which could create any dent in the prosecution case or cast doubt on their presence at the spot at the relevant time---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the petitioner-convict; however, due to mitigating circumstances, sentence of death on two counts was converted into imprisonment for life on two counts---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed.

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1085 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR