Ikram and Others vs. Attorney General – sllr 2021 volume 3 page 364

In Ikram and Others (Appellants) vs. Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed the issue of the proper evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the application of the burden of proof in criminal trials involving robbery and murder charges. It was held that the trial court’s reliance on a continuous chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence, supported by corroborative witness testimony, was appropriate and satisfied the evidentiary standards required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The principle reaffirmed was that the prosecution’s burden of proof is not displaced by sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Ordinance, and that accused persons bear only the evidential burden to explain circumstances directly within their knowledge. This decision underscored that judicial