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

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Iqbal Shah vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2024 PCrLJ 1708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Iqbal Shah vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 161

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

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1708 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Iqbal Shah VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the uncle of complainant by firing---Record showed that the people of the area were well familiar with all types of arms especially light weapons usually kept by people in their houses for their protection, therefore, it would be quite illogical to presume that the complainant had no knowledge of types of weapons therefore he did not mention it in the FIR---One of the eye-witnesses "J' was confronted with his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., wherein he had narrated regarding entry of complainant into his house and making three fire shots with a repeater, as such, there was no possibility that the types of weapons were not mentioned by complainant for the sole reason that he had no knowledge about weapons---Thus, non-specification of the kind of weapons by complainant in his report and likewise non-mentioning thereof by the police in inquest report created reasonable doubt suggesting that complainant was neither present at the time of occurrence nor at the time of report otherwise there was no reason for the complainant not to specify the weapons the accused were carrying---Thus, it could safely be inferred that complainant was not present at the time of report which was dishonestly attributed to him---Version of complainant that he was present in front of his house at the time of occurrence was also not supported by site plan wherein he had been shown on a thoroughfare at a distance of 35 feet from his house---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ

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