Case Summary & Legal Holding

This judicial decision was delivered by the KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH. The matter involves proceedings between Aijaz and StateHonorable Justice Amjad Ali SahitoIshrat Ali Lohar, Zulfiqar Ali Korai and Kamran Ali Bhatti,Ishrat Ali Lohar and Zulfiqar Ali Korai, officially reported as 2026 PCrLJ 511. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2026 P Cr. L J 511 [Sindh (Mirpurkhas Bench)] Before Amjad Ali Sahito and Jan Ali Junejo, JJ Aijaz and another---Appellants Versus The State---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. D-140, Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 and Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024, decided on 29th September, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---In the FIR, the complainant alleged that accused MH , armed with a hatchet, inflicted a blow with the right side of the hatchet on the head of the deceased, while accused MU also caused a hatchet blow to the right side of the head of the said deceased---Specific role attributed to the present appellants was that accused A struck the complainant on his forehead with a lathi, whereas appellant J inflicted lathi blows upon the back of deceased---Both the complainant and the eye-witness, during their examination-in-chief, supported the version narrated in the FIR and assigned the role of main assailant to MH ---However, when confronted during trial with the video clips produced as evidence, the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements---Video recordings exhibited in Court clearly depicted that MH was empty-handed and did not attack any person---Video Clips No.12 and No.13 demonstrated that MH was standing empty-handed among the crowd and did not cause any injury to the deceased or the witnesses---Similarly, Video Clip No.17 showedthat MH was attempting to pacify the people rather than participating in the assault, while Video Clip No.18 again depicted him standing idle and unarmed, whereas a large number of other individuals were engaged in fighting---Forensic Report of digital evidence confirmed that the said video clips were genuine and un-tampered---Investigating Officer deposed that the video of the incident had gone viral on social media, whereupon he downloaded the relevant clips onto a USB device---With the permission of the SSP, he forwarded the said USB to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and subsequently received the report, which was deposited and exhibited, wherein the result confirmed that "no editing features were observed in the visual contents of the eight (08) videos ---Testimonies of the complainant and the eye-witness revealed that there existed a prior dispute between the parties---Both witnesses further conceded that at the time of the incident, more than 150 armed individuals were present at the scene---Significantly, in Video Clip No.17, which was uploaded by eye-witness himself, there was no indication or specific allegation that accused MH and MU were armed with hatchets, or that accused A and J were armed with lathis and had participated in the commission of the alleged offence---Omission of such material details in the contemporaneous account of the incident, coupled with the admitted presence of a large and armed crowd, casted grave doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution's version and the specific attribution of roles to the named accused---Said contradictions and omissions materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, thereby rendering their testimony unreliable and unsafe to form the basis of conviction in the absence of independent and trustworthy corroboration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. PLD 2019 SC 527; Atta Muhammad v. The State 2023 MLD 1795; Abdul Aziz Bhatti v. The State 2019 YLR Note 49; Naeem alias Gunda v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 305; Ubedullah and 2 others v. The State 2019 YLR 1829; Ghulam Muhammad and others v. The State 2019 YLR 2037; Sanaullah and another v. The State 2020 YLR Note 69; Muhammad Kashif v. The State 2024 YLR 2433; Khamiso and another v. The State 2020 YLR Note 78; Muhammad Hashim Shah and others v. The State and others 2023 YLR 1768; Muhammad Waris and others v. The State and others 2019 YLR 1146; Muhammad Paryal v. The State 2019 YLR 2316; Altaf Hussain v. The State 2025 SCMR 1427; Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831; Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State 2020 YLR 2543; Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478; Imran Mehmood v. The State and another 2023 SCMR 795; Amanullah v. The State and others 2023 SCMR 723; Ahtisham Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 975; Ansar Ahmed v. The State and others 2023 SCMR 929; Aijaz Nawaz v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1775; Sikander Teghani v. The State 2016 YLR 1098; Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq and another 2011 SCMR 713; Nawab Ali v. The State 2014 P Cr. L J 885; Ghulam Ali and another v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ Note 91; Muhammad Kashif v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1005 and Mohammad Hassan v. The State 2016 MLD 1167 ref. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Statement of a witness who deposes falsely---Reliance---Witness who is found to have deposed falsely on any material aspect of the case cannot be deemed credible with respect to any other portion of his testimony, as the presumption of veracity stands extinguished once the witness is shown to be capable of perjury---Law does not countenance partial or selective reliance upon the testimony of such a witness.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 506(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 14-hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after an explained delay of approximately 14-hours, indicating due deliberation and consultation---Said fact diminished the credibility of the prosecution s case---In these circumstances, the ocular account stood contradicted by the objective video evidence, rendering it unreliable---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Zafar v. The State 2018 SCMR 326 rel. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to its benefit. Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel. Ishrat Ali Lohar, Zulfiqar Ali Korai and Kamran Ali Bhatti for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. D-140 of 2024). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. D-140 of 2024). Mir Pervez Akhtar Talpur for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. D-140 of 2024). Ishrat Ali Lohar and Zulfiqar Ali Korai for Respondent (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024). Nemo for Appellants (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-26 of 2024). Mir Pervez Akhtar Talpur for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024). Ishrat Ali Lohar and Zulfiqar Ali Korai for Respondents (in Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State (in Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2024). Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025. Judgment Amjad Ali Sahito, J.---Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the captioned Criminal Appeal, Appeal against acquittal, as well as Criminal Revision Application together as all arisen out of one and same incident, FIR as well as a judgment passed by the learned trial Court hence involve common questions of facts and law.

2. Through Criminal Appeal No.D-140 of 2024, the appellants/ accused Aijaz and Jakhro have impugned the judgment dated 20-07-2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others), emanated from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under sections 302, 324, 506(2), and 34 P.P.C, whereby after full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court convicted them under section 302(b) P.P.C and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) P.P.C, with fine of Rs.200,000/-, each to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A Cr.P.C, and in default thereof, to suffer S.I for six months more. The appellant/accused Jakhro was also sentenced for the commission of the offence under section 337-A(i) P.P.C for one year and also pay Daman of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, he shall suffer S.I for six months more. However, benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to the appellants; while accused Muhammad Hayat was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 3. Through Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-26/2024, appellant/ complainant Sadique Ali has challenged the judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others), emanated from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under sections 302, 324, 506(2), and 34 P.P.C, whereby, the learned trial Court extending the benefit of doubt acquitted the respondent/accused Muhammad Hayat. 4. Through Criminal Revision No.D-16/2024, applicant Sadique Ali assailed the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No.557/2021(Re. The State v. Muhammad Hayat and others), emanated from Crime No.36/2021, registered at PS Khahi under sections 302, 324, 506(2), and 34 P.P.C, praying therein to enhance the sentence from imprisonment of life awarded to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to death. 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per contents of FIR lodged by complainant Sadique Ali son of Habibullah, by Caste Dars, resident of Village near Mathoon, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar are that he used to reside at the given address. There is dispute over the ownership of the land of village with Muhammad Hayat Chaniho, due to which Muhammad Hayat and others were annoyed and usually issuing threats to vacate the village. On 08-08-2021, he, his nephew Imam Bux son of Muhammad Ramzan Dars aged about 32/33 years and cousin Muhammad Saleh son of Allahdino Dars were going towards Jamalabad Stop and when at about 0830 hours reached at Hayatabad Stop where saw that namely each Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Umar both sons of Faqeer Muhammad Chaniho carrying hatchets, Aijaz son of Muhammad Hayat Chaniho and Jakhro son of Nabi Bux Chaniho having lathis were standing and beside them one Corolla Car No.BMR-755 white colour was standing, on seeing them by making Hakal told that they have already told them so many times to vacate their houses and migrate away so also why they are moving applications against them, today they will teach lesson, by saying so Muhammad Hayat caused right side hatchet blow over the head of Imam Bux and accused Muhammad Umar caused right side hatchet blow over the head of Imam Bux and accused Aijaz caused lathi blow to him over his forehead and Imam Bux fell down and blood raised from his injuries and accused Aijaz and Jakhro caused lathi blows to Imam Bux over his back side. 6. The complainant intervened to rescue but Jakhro caused lathi blow over his head and he fell down and blood raised, then Muhammad Saleh requested the accused persons and accused persons by issuing threats boarded in their car and went away towards their houses. Muhammad Saleh by arranging vehicle took him and injured Imam Bux brought at Taluka Hospital Khipro for treatment where the doctor after seeing Imam Bux told that he is dead, meanwhile cousin Anwar Ali Dars reached at hospital who informed to police and police issued letter for treatment and after seeing dead body of Imam Bux completed necessary formalities and got conducted postmortem report and handed over dead body to them, then he after burying the dead body appeared at PS and lodged FIR that the above said accused persons duly armed with hatchets and lathis, in furtherance of their common intention, due to previous dispute, caused hatchets and lathis blows with intention to commit murder, caused hatchets and lathi blows to Imam Bux and he died. 7. After usual investigation police submitted challan before the court learned Judicial Magistrate, Khipro, by showing accused persons in custody while accused Muhammad Umar as absconder. The learned Magistrate carried out formalities as required under sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C against the above absconded accused, declared him proclaimed offender and proceedings of his case in his absentsia as provided under section 512 Cr.P.C. 8. Case papers were already supplied to accused, vide receipt at Ex.03. Charge was framed against the present accused at Ex.04, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, vide their pleas recorded at Ex.05 to 07, respectively. 9. Accordingly, the prosecution examined several witnesses. The complainant, Sadique Ali (Exh.08), produced a copy of the FIR (Exh.08/A). PW-02 Muhammad Saleh, an eye-witness (Exh.09), and PW-03 Anwar Ali, a mashir (Exh.10), were also examined. Anwar Ali produced: the memo. of injuries of Sadique Ali (Exh.10/A), Lash Chakas form (carbon copy), original Danishtnama, memo. of inspection of the dead body, memo. of the deceased s clothes, and receipt (Exh.10/B to 10/F). He further produced the memo. of place of incident (Exh.10/G), memo. of arrest of accused Muhammad Hayat (Exh.10/H), memo. of arrest of accused Aijaz and Jakhro (Exh.10/I), memo. of recovery (Exh.10/J), memo. of photographs of the deceased, certain newspaper clippings, report of Mukhtiarkar, and protection order of the ADJ Court to police/IO (Exh.10/K), as well as the memo. of recovery of a hatchet (Exh.10/L). PW-04 IO SIP Sultan Ahmed (Exh.11) produced: order of SSP Sanghar (Exh.11/A), entry No.07 (Exh.11/B), entries Nos. 11, 12 and 16 (Exh.11/C), entries Nos. 7 and 8 (Exh.11/D), entries Nos. 9 and 10 (Exh.11/E), memo. of securing video clip with USB (Exh.11/F), chemical report of bloodstained earth and deceased s clothes (Exh.11/G), entries Nos. 30 and 02 (Exh.11/H), letter to Mukhtiarkar (Exh.11/I), PS copy of application moved to learned Civil Judge and JM Khipro (Exh.11/J), memo. of recovery of USB (Exh.11/K), report of Punjab Laboratory with USB (Exh.11/L), permission letter of SSP Sanghar, challan form of cost, letter for Punjab Forensic Agency Lahore, and a separate Urdu letter to the laboratory (Exh.11/M). He also produced the list of legal heirs of deceased (Exh.11/N), departure entry No.19 and arrival entry No.19 (Exh.11/O), letter with receipt (Exh.11/P), laboratory report consisting of two leaves (Exh.11/Q), and corrigendum of laboratory report (Exh.11/R). PW-05 Dr. Haresh Kumar (Exh.12) produced: carbon copy of police letter (Exh.12/A), Provisional Medical Certificate of injured Sadique Ali (Exh.12/B), Final MLC (Exh.12/C), police letter for postmortem (Exh.12/D), provisional postmortem report (Exh.12/E), Final Postmortem Report (Exh.12/F), and Chemical Report (Exh.12/G). PW-06 WPC Shah Nawaz (Exh.13) produced attested copy of entry No.26 (Exh.13/A) and entry No.22 (Exh.13/B). PW-07 PC Sarfraz Ali (Exh.14) produced: letter (Exh.14/A), entry No.29 (Exh.14/B), entry No.23 (Exh.14/C), carbon copy of letter with receipt showing 08 properties (Exh.14/D), and entry No.04 (Exh.14/E). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its side, vide statement at Exh.15. 10. At the conclusion of trial, the statements of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exh.16 to 18, wherein they professed innocence and prayed for justice. Accused Muhammad Hayat stated that he intended to examine defence witnesses and further explained that he owns a property market at Hayatabad, which he had rented out to various persons, including members of the complainant party. According to him, the complainant party sought to usurp his property and, therefore, instituted this false case. He further stated that there had been a free fight between shopkeepers belonging to different castes and the complainant party; that he was present at the spot empty-handed; and that he only urged the parties to maintain peace and avoid fighting. He added that around 100 150 people were present, and the incident was later made viral on social media. The accused, however, did not examine themselves on oath, but led evidence of one Hakeem in their defence at Exh.19. 11. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of evidence convicted the appellants as stated above. The sentence awarded to the appellants has been impugned by them before this Court by way of filling the instant appeal. 12. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there exist material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and that the learned Trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent/accused Muhammad Hayat, as the video footage of the incident clearly depicts that he was empty-handed at the relevant time. However, it is submitted that the learned Trial erroneously convicted the appellants/accused Aijaz and Jakhro. The learned counsel further argued that it is a well-settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Honourable Apex Court, that where one accused is acquitted on the same set of evidence, the co-accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the same evidence. The learned Trial Court, however, disregarded this settled principle and proceeded to convict the appellants. 13. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not properly evaluate the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, and without proper appreciation of the record, discarded the defence version in an arbitrary manner, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), P.P.C. No direct or circumstantial evidence has been brought on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the alleged offence; therefore, the conviction and sentence are contrary to law and facts on record. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution evidence is unreliable, suffers from material contradictions, and lacks independent corroboration, rendering the impugned judgment liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court committed serious irregularities and illegalities in passing the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2023, whereby the appellants Aijaz and Jakhro were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302(b), P.P.C, despite the absence of cogent and trustworthy evidence. 15. He further argued that it is a settled proposition of law that even a single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case must enure to the benefit of the accused; however, the learned Trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. The impugned judgment is thus based on conjectures and surmises, passed in a cursory and haphazard manner, and therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respective appellants relied upon case law reported in PLD 2019 SC 527, unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh At Karachi, unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh, Bench At Sukkur, case of Atta Muhammad v. The State (2023 MLD 1795), unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh Circuit Court, Hyderabad, case of Abdul Aziz Bhatti v. The State (2019 YLR Note 49), case of Naeem alias Gunda v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ 305), unreported judgment of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, case of Ubedullah and 2 others v. The State (2019 YLR 1829), case of Ghulam Muhammad and others v. The State (2019 YLR 2037), case of Sanaullah and another v. The State (2020 YLR Note 69), case of Muhammad Kashif v. The State (2024 YLR 2433), case of Khamiso and another v. The State (2020 YLR Note 78), case of Muhammad Hashim Shah and others v. The State and others (2023 YLR 1768), case of Muhammad Waris and others v. The State and others (2019 YLR 1146), case of Muhammad Paryal v. The State (2019 YLR 2316) and The State through Advocate-General v. Muhammad Ajmal alias Akram Lahori and 2 others. 16. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respective appellants and supporting the impugned judgment contended that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants beyond and reliable reasonable doubt by producing consistent/convincing evidence and the contradictions whatever on record are of minor in nature and are not fatal to the prosecution case; hence they prayed for dismissal of instant Criminal Appeal. In support of his contentions learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh has relied upon case of Altaf Hussain v. The State (2025 SCMR 1427). However, in support of his contentions learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon cases of Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831), Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State (2020 YLR 2543), Nasir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 478), Imran Mehmood v. The State and another (2023 SCMR 795), Amanullah v. The State and others (2023 SCMR 723), Ahtisham Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 975), Ansar Ahmed v. The State and others (2023 SCMR 929), Aijaz Nawaz v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ 1775), Sikander Teghani v. The State (2016 YLR 1098), Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq and another (2011 SCMR 713), Nawab Ali v. The State (2014 PCr.LJ 885), Ghulam Ali and another v. The State (2023 PCr.LJ Note 91), Muhammad Kashif v. The State (2024 PCr.LJ 1005) and Mohammad Hassan v. The State (2016 MLD 1167). 17. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

18. Upon meticulous perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the ocular account furnished through the testimonies of the complainant, Sadique Ali, and the eye-witness Muhammad Saleh, which is further supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. Upon analysis of the depositions of the complainant and the eye-witnesses, it is observed that both the complainant and the eye-witness Muhammad Saleh have candidly admitted the existence of a prior dispute between the parties. In the instant case, the principal accused Muhammad Hayat was acquitted by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the video recordings of the incident, which were captured by independent persons. 19. The pivotal question now arising for consideration before this Court is whether, on the same set of evidence on which the principal accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court, the co-accused can lawfully be convicted. 20. In the First Information Report (Ex. 08/A), the complainant alleged that accused Muhammad Hayat, armed with a hatchet, inflicted a blow with the right side of the hatchet on the head of the deceased Imam Bux, while accused Muhammad Umar also caused a hatchet blow to the right side of the head of the said deceased. The specific role attributed to the present appellants was that accused Aijaz struck the complainant on his forehead with a lathi, whereas appellant Jakhro inflicted lathi blows upon the back of deceased Imam Bux. Both the complainant, Sadique Ali (PW-1), and the eye-witness Muhammad Saleh (PW-2), during their examination-in-chief, supported the version narrated in the FIR and assigned the role of main assailant to Muhammad Hayat. 21. However, when confronted during trial with the video clips produced as evidence, the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements. The video recordings exhibited in Court clearly depict that Muhammad Hayat was empty-handed and did not attack any person. Video Clips No.12 and No.13 demonstrate that Muhammad Hayat was standing empty-handed among the crowd and did not cause any injury to the deceased or the prosecution witnesses. Similarly, Video Clip No.17 shows Muhammad Hayat attempting to pacify the people rather than participating in the assault, while Video Clip No.18 again depicts him standing idle and unarmed, whereas a large number of other individuals were engaged in fighting. The Forensic Report of Digital Evidence (Ex. 19/A) confirmed that the aforesaid video clips were genuine and untampered. 22. The Investigating Officer, SIP Sultan Ahmed (Ex. 11), deposed that the video of the incident had gone viral on social media, whereupon he downloaded the relevant clips onto a USB device. With the permission of the SSP Sanghar, he forwarded the said USB to the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and subsequently received the report dated 06.11.2021. The report, along with the USB, was deposited and exhibited as Ex. 11/L, wherein the result confirmed that no editing features were observed in the visual contents of the eight (08) videos mentioned from Sr. Nos. 1 to 8 contained in item…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant