LAIQ SHAH vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 257 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.

LAIQ SHAH VS STATE. Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case then the same is sufficient to acquit the accused. Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---As per contents of the FIR, the motive behind the occurrence was an old enmity between the parties---Even the motive was jointly alleged against the petitioner and his two co-accused---Vague and ambiguous motive regarding old enmity was alleged in the contents of the FIR and no detail of the said enmity was given therein---However, a witness had stated during his cross-examination that his daughter was married with the nephew of the petitioner, who was son of co-accused (since P.O) and his daughter was murdered by the accused party---Admittedly the daughter of the complainant was not married with the son of the present petitioner---Complainant himself admitted in his cross-examination that petitioner was let off by the police in the said earlier case, which showed that the petitioner was not found involved in the said earlier case by the police---Under the circumstances, there was no motive with the petitioner to commit the occurrence---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Joint role of firing---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that a joint role of firing at the deceased and the injured witnesses was attributed to petitioner and two co-accused---According to the medical evidence, there was only one injury on the body of deceased---Said single injury on the body of the deceased was not specifically attributed to petitioner rather the same was jointly assigned to three (03) accused---Under the circumstances, it was not determinable that as to who out of the three (03) accused caused the said single injury on the body of the deceased and as such there was a doubt in the prosecution story qua the involvement of petitioner in the case---Likewise, no specific injury on the bodies of the injured witnesses of this case was assigned to the present petitioner---Joint and general role was attributed to the petitioner and his two co-accused of causing injuries on the bodies of the injured witnesses of the case---Further no weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case and as such the joint allegation was levelled against petitioner that he along with his two co-accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased and injured witnesses with firearm, which had not been corroborated by the recovery of the weapon of offence---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Allegedly, the petitioner remained an absconder in this case---When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge.

LAIQ SHAH vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 257 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR