SADDAM KAKAR vs State — 2026 SCMR 1201 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.

SADDAM KAKAR VS State. Ss. 302(b), 144, 109 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---Qatl-i-amd, joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism, possession of illicit weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---appellant aH was neither nominated in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot---Said appellant had been implicated in the case with the allegation that he was one of the unknown accused persons, who also participated in the occurrence---according to the prosecution's case, aH (appellant) inflicted a rod blow on the body of deceased, during the occurrence but none of the prosecution eye-witness had stated that said appellant inflicted any rod blow on the body of the deceased---Moreover, no injury on the body of the deceased was noted during his postmortem examination, which could be caused with a rod, therefore, the role attributed to aH (appellant) by the prosecution was not supported by the medical evidence---Photographs of the occurrence taken with the help of CCTV camera recording had also been placed on the record but perusal of the said photographs showed that the appellant could only been seen while present at the spot at the time of occurrence---Nothing was in those photographs to establish that aH (appellant), was carrying any club or iron rod and he inflicted the same on the body of the deceased---Place of occurrence was situated in the Jinnah Hospital, which was a public place, therefore, mere presence of the said appellant in a hospital at the time of occurrence was not sufficient to hold his participation in the occurrence of that case---None from the private witnesses mentioned in the FIR appeared in the witness box except one MSK but said witness was declared hostile by the prosecution---In ocular account the prosecution produced two Police Officers but even in their statements recorded by the Trial Court, they did not name the appellant in the case---although said witnesses stated that apart from co-convict, the other accused available in the Court was also present at the spot at the time of occurrence but they did not assign any role to the aH appellant in their statements---Mere presence of aH appellant, in a hospital at the time of occurrence, was not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence---Moreover, aH (appellant) was not named in the FIR and no identification parade of the appellant had been conducted in the case---No weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of aH (appellant) during the course of investigation of the case---No motive whatsoever was alleged or proved against aH---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against aH appellant beyond the shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

SADDAM KAKAR vs State — 2026 SCMR 1201 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR