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---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved. Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant. Motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be a dispute regarding amount of cement blocks between the deceased and the accused. Motive was jointly alleged against petitioner and co-accused that they had a dispute with deceased regarding an amount of cement blocks. It was not brought on the record as to whether deceased had to pay any amount to the petitioner and his co-accused or the petitioner had to pay any amount to the deceased. It was also not stated that who out of the two accused or the deceased was running the business of sale and purchase of cement blocks. Rather, complainant admitted during his cross-examination that neither the deceased nor the accused were having any business of blocks. Specific amount, which was the bone of contention between the parties, had also not been brought on the record. Vague and ambiguous motive was alleged by the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner was a minor of the age of 17 years at the time of occurrence, therefore, it was not expected that he was running the alleged business at such a tender age. Thus, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in this case against the petitioner. Held: Motive, though not always essential for proving a criminal case, when alleged by the prosecution must be established through reliable and convincing evidence. A vague, ambiguous and unproved motive cannot provide corroboration to the prosecution case. 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