Abdullah Mir vs State Recoveries and medical evidence — 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Abdullah Mir VS State Recoveries and medical evidence---Scope---Recoveries and medical evidence are supportive pieces of evidence, hence, cannot overweigh the ocular account. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdullah Mir VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statement of complainant---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---According to complainant, he had a dispute over landed property with the accused party as well as another person---Surprisingly, complainant stated that the accused had come to the spot at 07:00 a.m. and made firing at them---Both the accused made firing from about 50/60 paces upon complainant---Complainant stated that firstly, the accused party made firing, whereafter, he also made firing in retaliation at them---Astonishingly, to a question, complainant answered that his son was standing in between him and the accused party at the time of firing---Cross-examination of that witness further revealed that he came to know about 1200/12:30 noon that his son had also sustained injuries---According to complainant, the firing was made from a distance of 50 paces---Complainant stated that firstly both the accused made simultaneous firing and first volley of shots went astray, whereafter one of the accused again made two fire shots which hit his son at chest---By contradicting his own statement, complainant stated that he was not having any arms at that moment and was empty handed and that he had personally made no firing at the accused, however, his kith and kin made firing who were five or six in number who were at a distance of 80/100 meters---Said deposition was sufficient to conclude that the complainant was neither present on the spot, nor the occurrence took place in the mode and manner as narrated by the complainant---Deposition of complainant was sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case, hence, no conviction could be based by relying upon his testimony---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdullah Mir VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the time of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---As per the prosecution, the occurrence allegedly took place at about 07:30 hours, while the autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted at about 12:30 hours---According to the Medical Officer, time between death and postmortem was one and half hours---In that view of the matter, if the time between death and postmortem was taken back from the time of postmortem, it came to 11:00 hours, which meant that the occurrence had not taken place at about 07:30 hours, as alleged by the prosecution---Said aspect of the case had casted a serious doubt regarding the mode and manner of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdullah Mir VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about five hours in reporting the matter to police---Possibility of consultation and deliberations before lodging FIR---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Complainant reported the occurrence at about 12:20 hours, which allegedly took place at about 07:30 hours---In the relevant column, time of arrival of the dead body was mentioned as 12:30 hours---In that respect, S.H.O, who recorded report of the complainant, stated that the distance between spot and D.H.Q Hospital would be 60/65 kilometers, which could be covered through vehicle within 1½ or 02 hours---On the face of it, there was unexplained delay of five hours in reporting the matter to the police, hence, element of consultation and deliberations could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Abdullah Mir VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Prosecution alleged motive to be a dispute over landed property, however, it did not succeed in establishing the alleged motive and even no independent witness was produced in that respect---Prosecution, in all circumstances, was to prove the same---When the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the motive, then it is for the prosecution to suffer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Abdullah Mir vs State Recoveries and medical evidence — 2025 PCrLJ 1292 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ