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---Safe custody of all the case property and transmission of the said articles to the Ballistic Expert not proved---accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, the brother of complainant was hit and died during dacoity---Investigating Officer collected four crime empties from the place of main occurrence besides the blood on the same date---Said witness was cross-examined by the defence; during the cross-examination he accepted it as correct that he did not make marking over the weapons in order to identify that which one was recovered from which accused and accepted it correct that at present he was not able to segregate the weapon recovered from accused---Said witness further deposed that he was unable to identify those empties recovered by him---Investigating Officer admitted that presently he could not identify the pistol recovered from accused and stated that at present it was not identifiable---Said witness stated that he did not remember at present that from the date of recovery till receipt of the weapons by the Ballistic Expert, where the case property was kept or retained---Said witness did not remember the name of the officials throughwhom the case property was transmitted to the Ballistic Expert---Said witness stated it correct that he could not say that which weapon was recovered from whom, whereas he accepted it correct that report of the Forensic Division contained the date of receipt of the weapons as 09.12.2010---Later on a Fire arm Expert was summoned by the Court, he also clarified that the correct date of receipt of case property with the Ballistic Expert was 09.12.2010, meaning thereby that from the date of recovery that was 02.11.2010, the empties and the recovered pistols remained at some unknown place---Statement of Investigating Officerrevealed that the official who transmitted the case property remained unknown and was not a witness in this case---Police Official who kept the case property in the police station was also not a witness, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove on record the safe custody of all the case property vis-a-vis the transmission of the concerned articles to the Ballistic Expert---Place of arrest of the accused persons became doubtful and the claim of recoveries from the accused persons stood not proved and became inconsequential---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