| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2439 2026 SLD 2439 = 2026 YLR 852 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-126 of 2018, decided on 20th October, 2025.
Presented By: Tasneem Sultana, J
Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi for Appellant. Ms. Safa Hisbani, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh along with ASI Muhammad Sharif PS City, Tando Muhammad Khan for the State. Complainant for Nemo.
Criminal Appeal No. S-126 of 2018, decided on 20th October, 2025.
Presented By: Tasneem Sultana, J
Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi for Appellant. Ms. Safa Hisbani, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh along with ASI Muhammad Sharif PS City, Tando Muhammad Khan for the State. Complainant for Nemo.
Haji KHAN NOTKANI---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 39
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---As per record, two witnesses entered the otaque, where the accused allegedly confessed to having caused injuries to the deceased---Such conduct was contrary to ordinary human behavior and did not appeal to a prudent mind, as it seemed improbable that after committing such an offence, the accused would remain at the scene waiting for the witnesses, voluntarily confessing the act, and thereafter leaving the place peacefully without any attempt to flee---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Incident occurred in the month of March, when, as per local custom, people generally slept inside rooms---Witness admitted that the otaque/place of occurrence consisted of two constructed (pacca) rooms, where both the deceased and the accused were sleeping on the paved floor---Upon entering, they observed deceased in an injured state, yet said witness failed to disclose any details regarding the cause or motive of the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant, despite both being guests of a witness---Both the witnesses stated that they slept on bedsheets, yet no blood-stained bedsheet was secured or recovered from the place of incident by the Investigating Officer---Furthermore, the Investigating Officer did not examine the ambulance driver who had shifted the injured to hospital and who too failed to inform the police about the incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record transpired…