Parvaiz vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 342 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Parvaiz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 396 & 149---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, murder with dacoity, unlawful assembly, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Credibility of the recovery witnesses doubtful---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party; the brother of complainant was hit and died during dacoity---Investigating Officer and SHO claimed the arrest of the accused from place of encounter, whereafter along with the contingent of the police the accused allegedly got recovered unlicensed pistols with empty magazine, cash amount, one gold chain, one wrist watch, two mobile phones from their personal search---Investigating Officer also claimed sealing the said recovered articles in presence of two witnesses, and prepared the recovery memos attested by them and then shifted the accused persons to the Police Station and registered the FIRs and handed over the said arrested accused to the Investigating Officer for investigation along with the total case property---Time of police encounter as stated by Investigating Officer was 10:40 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. and he also claimed the presence of recovery witness there, who signed the recovery memos at the place---Said recovery witness had been cross-examined on this point and stated that the police encounter continued from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.---Identification of dead-body was made before the Medical Officer at the commencement of the post-mortem examination---Time as 10:30 a.m. was documented and proved by the Medical Officer---Time of identification of the dead-body and that of SHO joining from the place of occurrence for proceeding to the pursuit was concurrent, thus, the recovery witness was bound to explain his presence concurrently at two places otherwise manipulations on part of the police would be the result---Other recovery witness was also the marginal witness of Mashirnama of dead body and the memo. of possession of last worn clothes of the deceased---Said witness signed the said recovery memo, but it suffered with the same situation as that of other recovery witness---Simultaneously said witness claimed to be a member of the police raiding party and also a signatory to the recovery memos at the place of arrest of the culprits---One could not be deemed present simultaneously at two places apart, and if one claimed so and was proved in evidence to be present at two places, the onus shifted to such claimant---Therefore, it became clear that there existed manipulations and fabrications especially on part of the police---Hence, it could be inferred that either there was no police encounter or thatwitness was not present there---Hence, the credibility of the testimony of the said witnesses became doubtful and not believable---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Parvaiz vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 342 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR