Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NASEER AHMAD vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NASEER AHMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the eye-witness remained consistent that it was an amount of Rs. 31,000/- which was to be paid by the accused to the deceased, as the deceased had fixed a UPS for the house of the accused, but wife of the accused/witness explained the motive in a different manner---Said witness stated that an amount of Rs. 31,000/- was outstanding against the accused, as the deceased had fixed the UPS for her house and that an amount of Rs. 55,000/- was outstanding against the accused, as accused had purchased a motorcycle from the deceased and it was the accused who had to pay the outstanding amount---Neither the Investigating Officer nor the scribe, at the time of drafting the murasila, could recover the same amount from possession of the deceased and even the witnesses did not produce the amount so paid---When on one hand, the witnesses admitted that the amount was paid to the deceased then on the other, it was a must that either the same would have been produced or would have been collected, but the record was silent in that respect---When so, then the cause of killing was shrouded in mystery---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused but due to mitigating circumstances, the life imprisonment was converted into imprisonment for ten years---Appeal was partially allowed by modifying the sentence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NASEER AHMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---No premedita-tion for murder ---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Admittedly when the deceased along with the eye-witness reached the spot house, the atmosphere was calm and when the deceased entered the house, no commotion was noticed---Both the sides had no intention to aggravate the situation to that extent, as on one hand, the accused had got a UPS prepared/ repaired and on the other, a complaint was raised that the same was not in working condition---When the amount was paid, there was hardly an occasion for the accused to kill the deceased, but the unfortunate parties entered into a hot altercation, which aggravated the situation to an extent that on one hand, the deceased lost his life, whereas, on the other, the accused received multiple injuries on his body---When an atmosphere of uncertainty prevailed, when the witnesses came forward with twisted facts and when the parties were involved in active concealment of the actual happenings, then no option was left except to take into consideration the quantum of sentence awarded---Thus, the sentence of accused was converted from life imprisonment to imprisonment for ten years---Appeal was partly allowed with modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NASEER AHMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive was alleged to be money dispute between the accused and the deceased---Presence of the eye-witness did not appeal to a prudent mind, as he displayed an unnatural conduct---Had the eye-witness been present and had the deceased been present and had the deceased been fired at by the accused, then in the first available opportunity, he would try to catch hold of the accused and on the second, he would have rushed the deceased, who was lying in critical condition, to the hospital and would have reported the matter---Neither the eye-witness identified the dead body at the time when the report was made nor at the time when inquest report was prepared and the postmortem was conducted---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused but due to mitigating circumstances, the life imprisonment was converted into imprisonment for ten years---Appeal was partially allowed by modifying the sentence.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NASEER AHMAD vs State S — 2023 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR