IMRAN vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 47 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.

IMRAN VS STATE. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd---Common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope. Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant. Although it was alleged in the F.I.R. that the prosecution eye-witnesses were present at the time of occurrence at their Arhat (Daira), situated in their lands, but no such Arhat (Daira) of the complainant party had been shown in the site plan. No land owned or possessed by the complainant party had been shown in the site plan rather, as per site plan, the occurrence took place in the agricultural land owned by other persons. Although complainant stated that his house was situated in a Mohallah, which might be at a distance of 500 paces from the place of occurrence, but an eye-witness stated during his cross-examination that the distance between his house and the house of the complainant could be covered within ten (10) minutes by foot and the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the complainant might be covered within thirty (30) minutes by foot. The above facts showed that the house of the complainant and the eye-witness were situated at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence. Neither the Arhat (Daira) nor the agricultural land of the complainant party or eye-witness had been shown in the site plan, therefore, the said witnesses were chance witnesses. Reason of the presence of witnesses at the spot at the relevant time had not been established in this case because their Arhat (Daira)/agricultural land was not shown in the site plan. Thus, the evidence of complainant and eye-witness was not worthy of reliance. Held: The evidence of chance witnesses requires cautious examination and where their presence at the place of occurrence is not established through reliable material, their testimony cannot be relied upon for conviction. Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

IMRAN vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 47 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR