SHAUKAT ALI vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 594 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.

SHAUKAT ALI VS STATE. Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 427 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use the criminal force or assault on public servant while he was performing his duty, causes damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, common intention, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt. Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of two Police Officials and injuring one Constable during night hours. Trial Court awarded death sentence on two counts to the appellant. High Court converted the death sentence into life imprisonment and sentence under Section 7-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside. Validity---Star injured eye-witness stated that due to firing of the accused persons, two Police Officials and he sustained fire shots. Said witness did not assign specific role to the appellant of firing on him with reference to specific injuries. According to Medical Officer, he examined injured witness who had sustained bullet injuries on left shoulder and on right foot, with both entry and exit wounds but he did not specify the appellant for causing those injuries. Besides, injured witness stated that he identified the physical features of the accused persons in the light of Police Official vehicle and bulb of market but he had failed to give salient aspects of their features. Record did not reveal the evidence of conducting test identification parade, therefore, the identification of the appellant was highly doubtful. Pistol 30-bore and two live bullets were found lying next to the unknown deceased. Police Officials were present in their official vehicle, therefore, it was not possible for them not to apprehend the unknown assailants. It was noticeable that the appellant had no motive to commit the said assault on Police Officials since neither the assailants were robbers nor the appellant was required by the police. Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to discharge its duty to prove the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

SHAUKAT ALI vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 594 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR