MUSHTAQ AHMED vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 60 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.

MUSHTAQ AHMED VS STATE. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd---Common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence. Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the deceased. Record revealed that the Trial Court acquitted the three co-accused, against which acquittal appeals were filed against two only but subsequently the said appeals were withdrawn, whereas no appeal was filed against the acquittal of third accused. Police had declared two of the accused as innocent which aspect had also been endorsed by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court since appeals against their acquittal were dismissed by the High Court as withdrawn. Said aspect clearly led to the conclusion that on the given set of facts/evidence, benefit of doubt had been given by the Courts below to co-accused, who were allegedly carrying a gun and pistol respectively, so there was no reason why the said benefit of doubt could not be extended to the present petitioner. Under the given set of facts/evidence, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the present petitioner as well. Since the prosecution evidence had already been disbelieved against co-accused, therefore, it would not be prudent and justified to rely on such evidence qua the case of the present petitioner. It would be unsafe to rely upon such evidence alone for convicting the present petitioner without independent corroboration, which was lacking in the present case. Supreme Court held that where the same set of evidence has been disbelieved against co-accused and no independent corroboration is available against another accused, the benefit of doubt must also be extended to such accused. Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted from the charge.

MUSHTAQ AHMED vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 60 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR