PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Irfan Ullah vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1642 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2024 PCrLJ 1642 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Irfan Ullah vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 164

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

Judgment text as reported

Irfan Ullah VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Testimony of sole eye-witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Complainant while reporting the matter on the spot did not charge anyone and also stated that they had no enmity with anyone else, however, an eye-witness, during investigation disclosed involvement of the accused in the commission of offence and to that effect, his statement was also recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C---As per prosecution version, cousin of the complainant informed him about the occurrence, however, to that effect he was not examined before the Trial Court---Said eye-witness stated that he along with accused persons went to football ground and there a person was noticed at some distance who was busy talking on a mobile phone and light of his cell phone was lit; that accused "S" went to inquire about said person and on returning told accused "I" that it was the brother of complainant; that accused "I" handed over the pistol to accused "S" and asked him to kill brother of complainant, meanwhile, accused "I" took his mobile set as well as his repeater shotgun and threatened him not to disclose it to anyone otherwise he would be killed; that accused "S" fired five time at the victim and killed him on the spot---However, the story narrated by said witness was not supported by any independent witness, especially the persons whose names had been mentioned by him, because they were neither associated with the investigation nor produced before the Court---Thus, testimony of said witness could not be believed for sustaining conviction on a capital charge---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English