| Case ID |
3b8e1477-7eb4-4856-869d-195a3953d1d9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-459 of 2010 and D-24 of 2010 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 02, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 23, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court decided to acquit the appellant, Muhammad Adnan, based on the principle that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted several inconsistencies and doubts regarding the evidence presented, particularly the last seen evidence, the reliability of the dying declaration, and the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. The court emphasized the importance of the benefit of the doubt principle in criminal jurisprudence, leading to the conclusion that the appellant should be acquitted. The decision set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court, allowing the appeal and ordering the release of the appellant unless wanted in other cases. |
| Summary |
In the case of Muhammad Adnan vs. The State, the Sindh High Court addressed serious allegations of murder under the Penal Code, specifically sections related to intentional murder and attempts. The court highlighted the critical aspects of evidence appreciation, particularly focusing on the delays in lodging the FIR and the role of eyewitnesses. The court noted that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence and a dying declaration. The court found that the complainant's evidence was dubious due to the lack of immediate action following the discovery of the injured parties. Additionally, the court discussed the unreliability of dying declarations and the procedural issues surrounding evidence recovery, particularly the alleged murder weapon. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the essential principle that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. This case underscores the significance of thorough evidence evaluation in criminal cases and the vital role of legal representation in ensuring justice. Key trends in criminal law, evidence law, and the rights of the accused are prevalent throughout the case, making it a critical reference for legal professionals. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA,
RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Tarique Ahmed Shah for Appellant,
Ms. Rameshan Oad, A.P.G. Sindh for the State,
Ms. Ramesham Oad, A.P.G. for the Complainant with Complainant in person
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD ADNAN
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1591 = 2021 YLR 1594
|
| Other Citations |
Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State 2019 SCMR 129,
Nazir Ahmad v. The State 2018 SCMR 787,
Muhammad Ameer and another v. Riyat Khan and others 2016 SCMR 1233,
Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622,
G. M. Niaz v. The State 2018 SCMR 506,
Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652,
Zafar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 326,
Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127,
Nadeem Ramzan v. The State 2018 SCMR 149,
Mubeen alias Haji Muhammad Mubeen v. The State 2006 YLR 359,
Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu and another v. The State 2012 SCMR 215,
Ijaz Ahmad v. The State 2009 SCMR 99,
Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486,
Nasir Mehmood and another v. The State 2015 SCMR 423,
Nasir Shah v. The State 2006 SCMR 1796,
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another 2012 SCMR 1869,
Muhammad Bux v. The State 2015 YLR 519,
Nadir Shah v. The State and others 2012 PCr.LJ 588
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
|
| Sections |
302,
324,
459,
201,
34,
46
|