Comprehensive Case Law Summary – Appellant Side:-

For: Sohail Ahmad vs The State

Moot Court 2025

I. Delay in Post-Mortem / Medical Report Weakens Prosecution Case

1. Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu

• Citation: AIR 1973 SC 501

• Judgment: Delay in FIR/post-mortem raises suspicion and offers scope for
manipulation.
• Brief Explanation: Procedural delay provides opportunity for concocted versions or
evidence manipulation.
• Use: Supports the argument that unexplained 24-hour post-mortem delay casts doubt
on investigation integrity.

2. Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

• Citation: (2003) 2 SCC 401

• Judgment: Medical evidence is critical in absence of direct witnesses; delay/infirmity
weakens the case.
• Brief Explanation: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, any defect in medical
findings is fatal to prosecution.
• Use: Proves that the delayed post-mortem undermines the credibility of other
evidence.

3. Prem Nath v. State of Delhi

• Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1588

• Judgment: Delay in conducting the post-mortem examination may indicate
carelessness or fabrication.
• Brief Explanation: Any unexplained delay in medical procedures is a serious flaw in
criminal cases.
 • Use: Adds weight to the claim that delay raises doubts on chain of custody and
evidence authenticity.

4. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

• Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1622

• Judgment: Five golden principles (Panchsheel) for circumstantial evidence must be
fully satisfied.
• Brief Explanation: Any break in the evidentiary chain, including delayed forensics,
weakens the prosecution.
• Use: Shows that unexplained delay breaks the chain of circumstances, warranting
benefit of doubt.

II. Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Unbroken

5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

• Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1622

• Judgment: Conviction can be sustained only if the entire chain of circumstances is
complete and excludes every possibility of innocence.
• Brief Explanation: Suspicion is not proof; each link in the chain must independently
and collectively prove guilt.
• Use: Argues that in the present case, the chain is broken—thus acquittal is justified.

6. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya

• Citation: AIR 1960 SC 1125

• Judgment: Confession leading to discovery strengthens prosecution only if proven to
be voluntary.
• Brief Explanation: Recovery following confession is admissible but must be
independently corroborated.
• Use: Counters the weight of confession by arguing that it lacks corroboration and
voluntariness.

7. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh

• Citation: (2000) 1 SCC 471

• Judgment: Section 27 IEA permits only that portion of confession that directly leads
to discovery.
 • Brief Explanation: Confession in custody is not fully admissible; only relevant
discovered facts are.
• Use: Challenges the admissibility of Sohail’s confession except the weapon, which is
also uncorroborated.

8. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra

• Citation: (2006) 10 SCC 681

• Judgment: In domestic murders, the burden shifts to the accused if no explanation is
offered.
• Brief Explanation: Presumption under Section 106 IEA arises in secret crimes in
closed settings.
• Use: Responds to prosecution argument by emphasizing lack of direct evidence even
under presumption.

III. Confession & Recovery Must Be Admissible and Corroborated

9. Muhammad Imran v. State

• Citation: 2021 SCMR 903

• Judgment: 161 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence but can corroborate if
consistent.
• Brief Explanation: Alone they cannot convict; they must align with medical and
physical evidence.
• Use: Undermines conviction based solely on 161 CrPC statements and inconsistent
circumstantial facts.

10. Muhammad Asif v. State

• Citation: PLD 2006 SC 538

• Judgment: Confession becomes admissible under Article 40 QSO if it leads to
discovery.
• Brief Explanation: Only confession-linked facts leading to recovery are admissible—
not entire statement.
• Use: Discredits reliance on confession by pointing out lack of valid recovery or
independent corroboration.

11. Ashiq Hussain v. State

• Citation: 2017 SCMR 1736

 • Judgment: Weapon recovery must match medical evidence to be valid for conviction.
• Brief Explanation: Recovery is worthless unless it fits injuries and forensic profile.
• Use: Reinforces argument that uncorroborated recovery (churri) is weak and
insufficient for conviction.

IV. Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Without Strong Legal Grounds

12. State v. Abdul Khaliq

• Citation: PLD 2011 SC 554

• Judgment: Acquittals can be overturned only if there’s misreading or non-reading of
critical evidence.
• Brief Explanation: Courts must avoid interfering in acquittals unless trial court made
serious errors.
• Use: Supports that Sohail’s co-accused were rightly acquitted; no compelling error for
reversal.

13. Safdar Abbas v. State

• Citation: 2020 SCMR 219

• Judgment: Even in absence of eyewitnesses, circumstantial evidence can convict—but
must be solid.
• Brief Explanation: Circumstantial proof must still meet the threshold of certainty.
• Use: Argues that in the present case, circumstantial evidence is too weak and
fragmented.

14. Abdul Rehman v. State

• Citation: PLD 2002 SC 1334

• Judgment: Common intention under Section 34 PPC can be inferred from conduct,
but must be proven.
• Brief Explanation: Cannot presume joint liability without coordinated acts or
planning.
• Use: Supports acquittal of Waris and Roubina; no shared action or motive clearly
shown.
Conclusion:-

This set of judgments collectively supports the Appellant’s argument that:

• There is serious doubt due to unexplained delay in the post-mortem.

• Confession and recovery are either inadmissible or uncorroborated.
• Circumstantial evidence chain is broken, failing the legal standard for conviction.
• The acquittals of co-accused are based on sound legal principles and must not be
reversed.