IMRAN vs State Ss — 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---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Recovered weapon and empties sent together for forensics---Effect---Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that a pistol was recovered at the pointing out of the petitioner and the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was on the file---Notable that the empties and the pistol were deposited together in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, therefore, the said recovery and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory were of no avail to the prosecution---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. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Medical evidence---Joint role of causing firearm injuries---Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that a joint role of making fire shots was assigned to petitioner and co-accused---No specific injury on the body of the deceased was attributed to petitioner---As per postmortem report, there were eight (08) entry and eight (08) exit wounds on the body of the deceased and all the entry wounds on the body of the deceased were of the same size i.e., 1/4 x 1/4 inches, which fact showed that one firearm was used in this case to commit the murder of deceased and the occurrence was committed by one person---No specific injury was attributed to petitioner and a joint role of causing firearm injuries was attributed to petitioner and co-accused, therefore, it was not determinable in this case that as to whether the said injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by petitioner or co-accused, which fact created a serious doubt in the prosecution case, hence the petitioner was liable to be acquitted while extending him the benefit of doubt---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. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal 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 had 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, which meant 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 eyewitness was not worthy of reliance---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 Ss — 2026 SCMR 47 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR