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---Presence of eyewitnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope. Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the deceased. Deposition of the complainant revealed that since the police declared three accused persons innocent, he filed a private complaint against those persons, which was subsequently dismissed to their extent. Moreover, one "M" was named in the private complaint filed by complainant but was never produced as a witness in the instant case. Strangely enough, no muhallah residents had been arrayed as witnesses and all the witnesses were relatives of the complainant. No document with regard to the dispute concerning any financial matter had been furnished by complainant so as to justify that there was, apart from the fact that the deceased had married the daughter of the accused, any difference between the parties with regard to any financial aspect. Similar type of statement was given by the brother of the complainant, who also stated that he simply recorded a cursory statement before the Court and stated nothing about recovery of blood stained cotton, one empty from the spot, as well as, the recovery of blood stained Kassi, 12-bore gun and two live bullets from the house of the petitioner. Said witness also admitted that he did not try to catch hold of petitioner while he was inflicting hatchet blows upon the deceased. Said witness also admitted that he did not try to save his brother by rushing him to the hospital and instead he merely stood by during the occurrence and remained silent. It was evident that the conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased was highly unnatural which showed that actually they were not present at the spot at the relevant time. Other eyewitness also admitted that though there was hue and cry raised by the complainant but no muhallah residents were attracted to the spot after the occurrence. Supreme Court held that where the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful and their conduct is unnatural, their testimony cannot safely be relied upon for conviction. The evidence of chance witnesses requires careful scrutiny and their presence at the place of occurrence must be established through convincing and independent material. 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