MANZOOR AHMED vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 621 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.

MANZOOR AHMED VS STATE. Ss. 302(b), 377 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, sodomy, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Medical evidence---Scope. Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and then murdering him. Record revealed that the complainant did not inform the police that the offence (sodomy) had been committed with his son, the deceased. In fact, the police only included the offence under Section 377, P.P.C., subsequently after the Chemical Examiner's report arrived. Moreover, Medical Officer stated in the postmortem report, issued under his hand, that there were no physical signs or symptoms of sodomy. Medical Officer recorded that no semen, nor blood, faecal matter or lubricant was found around anus, and no laceration on mucus membrane inside the anus. Anus was not prolapsed. Medical Officer, however, reserved his final opinion until receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner in regards the internal and external anal swabs he had taken. Moreover, it was only upon the receipt of the report which found human sperm on the deceased's shalwar and on the internal anal swabs that the Medical Officer concluded that sodomy had been committed with the deceased. Appellant's DNA, however, was not compared with the DNA in the sperm on the deceased's shalwar and internal anal swabs. Keeping in view that the instant case was one where there was no direct evidence, where there were otherwise missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and where the appellant's DNA was not sent for comparison with the DNA of the sperm found on the articles sent for examination, it would therefore be unsafe to rely solely on the presence of human sperm on the internal anal swabs and shalwar of the deceased to maintain a capital sentence. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MANZOOR AHMED vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR