Nasir vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 168 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.

Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence and ocular account---Conflictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence was in conflict with the eye-witness account, as on one hand, the deceased received single firearm injury with the dimension of .5x.5 cm, with its exit as 1x1 cm each, which suggested that the same was the doing of one person, that too, with one weapon---Seat of injury on one of the deceased was on lateral aspect of the thigh which further contradicted the stance of the witnesses, as the witnesses disclosed that they were proceeding towards north, when the accused/appellants were attracted to the spot from the northern side and started firing at them; in such eventuality, the deceased would have received an entry wound on the front of his thigh, which further belied the stance of the witnesses---Medical evidence was confirmatory in nature and in case of confidence inspiring eye-witness account, the same played little role to upset the prosecution case, but it was equally true that when the prosecution case was suffering from inherent defects, then in such eventuality, the medical evidence gained much importance, which, under no circumstances, could be ignored---Dimensions of injuries and the number of accused charged had put a question mark over the integrity/veracity of the witnesses and such particular aspect of the case creeped down to the roots---Record showed that the net had been thrown wide and all the active male members of the family had been enroped, that too, for two injuries caused having the same dimension---When Court came to the conclusion that the number of accused had been exaggerated, then extra care and caution was required to be taken while appraising the evidence---As on one hand, the ocular account was not worthy of credence and on the other, the medical evidence ran in conflict with the statements of the witnesses, such conflict between the two yielded favourable results for the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Complainant during cross-examination disclosed that it was he who shifted the dead bodies to the cot and his hands were besmeared with blood, but the Investigating Officer did not mention the same, which further created doubt in respect of the presence of the complainant at the time of incident and the shifting of dead bodies to the cot---As per record, out of the deceased, one received firearm injury on the lateral aspect of his thigh and he lost his life because of excessive bleeding---When the witnesses were available on the spot and the hospital was in close proximity, what stopped them from rushing the deceased to the hospital to save his life---Presence of the eye-witness was shrouded in mystery, as despite his presence in the hospital, he did not verify the report of the complainant, rather a person, who was neither the eye-witness of the incident nor was present on the spot verified the report, and the conduct displayed by the eye-witness was not only unnatural but also made his presence doubtful---Neither the complainant nor the eye-witness identified the dead-bodies before the police at the time of report and before the doctor at the time of postmortem examination, rather two other witnesses belonging to different places opted to identify the dead-bodies---Absence of the complainant and the eye-witness in the columns of identification both in the inquest and the postmortem reports was a circumstance that had damaged the prosecution case beyond repair---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant and eye-witness at the place of incident not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Complainant disclosed that on the day of incident, he along with deceased persons and eye-witness left their houses for other village to purchase a cow from a cow dealer---Astonishingly, four persons grouped together to purchase a cow and for the very purpose, they visited the house of the cow dealer, but neither the statement of the cow dealer was recorded nor any independent witness was produced in that respect--- As the very purpose of their presence at the place of incident was their coming back from the house of the cow dealer, then such aspect of the case was of much importance for the prosecution to prove, but both the complainant and the Investigating Officer overlooked such material aspect of the case, which was a determining factor to establish the presence of all the four at the place of incident---When the prosecution failed to prove its purpose, then presence of the complainant and eye-witness was not established from the record---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Motive---Scope---absence or weakness of motive is no ground for dislodging the prosecution case---When motive is the sole purpose for committing the offence then failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the same would react against the prosecution. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties---Inconsequential---Suppression of facts by the prosecution---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Investigating Officer after collecting empties from the spot, sent the same to the office of Firearms Expert to ascertain as to whether the same were fired from one or different weapons---Laboratory report was received, where all the empties were opined to have been fired from different weapons---As in the episode, three accused were charged for effective fire shots and empties of different calibers were collected from the spot, then in case of different weapons, an inference could be drawn that more than three weapons were used in the episode---In such eventuality, possibility could not be excluded that not only the accused, but the complainant side fired as well---Suppression of facts on part of the prosecution was another circumstance which tilted the balance---Laboratory report was not a corroborative piece of evidence, rather a circumstance which could be pressed into service, only and only, when either the prosecution succeeded or failed in respect of its story---As in the instant case, the ocular account was in conflict with the report tendered by the laboratory, so the importance of that document could not be ignored and as such, it could be pressed into service not for the benefit of the prosecution, but for the benefit of the accused/appellants and such evidence further created dents in the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Site plan---Failure to establish how complainant and eye-witness escaped five shots---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Record told that the accused/appellants, at the time of incident, were present at a distance of 24 feet from the complainant party and the complainant and the eye-witness were at a distance of less than 05 feet from the deceased---It was for the prosecution to establish that when the assailants were present at a shorter distance, duly armed with sophisticated weapons, what precluded them from killing the complainant and the eye-witness as well, despite the fact that the eye-witness was the prime target---Both the complainant and the eye-witness admitted that the accused/appellants fired at them 10/15 fire shots respectively, but they escaped unhurt---When the accused/appellants had the intention to kill the complainant and the eye-witness as well, and when 30 fire shots in all were made on them, then how the witnesses escaped unhurt despite the fact that there was no shelter available to them and they did not opt to take shelter---Site plan further told and it was so admitted by the Investigating Officer that the complainant and the eye-witness, at the time of incident, were present at the place of incident well within the firing range of the accused/appellants, but even then, they did not receive a single firearm injury---Manner in which the fire was made and the distance between the assailants and the complainant party had created dents in the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Motive alleged was that a few days earlier, the accused/appellant physically assaulted one "MQ" and uncle of complainant, which matter was reported in the shape of daily diary No.09, dated 23.03.2019---However, on one hand, no independent witness was produced in that respect, whereas, on the other, the complainant and injured witness were physically assaulted on 20.03.2019, but the matter was reported on 23.03.2019---Record further told that while making the report in the shape of daily diary, both the witnesses did not opt for their medical examination which was a mystery---Daily diary so entered had lost its efficacy and its contents had confirmed such the document was fabricated with the sole purpose to help the prosecution and as such, such document could be termed as a suspect document, which could not be taken into consideration---When the very document had lost its veracity, then the same could not be taken into consideration and thus, the prosecution failed to prove the motive---As the motive was between uncle of complainant, "MQ" and the accused/appellant, then question was what led the remaining accused to participate in the incident---Had that been the motive, then the deceased had nothing to do with the same and in that eventuality, the prime target would have been the eye-witness---Prosecution could not establish the alleged motive and as such, it was the prosecution that had to suffer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Nasir VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and uncle of the complainant by firing---Record showed that earlyin the morning, the deceased, the complainant and the eye-witness planned to visit the house of a cow dealer to purchase a cow and per statements of the witnesses, they reached at his house at 07:45 hours where they spent some 20 minutes in negotiation, but they could not succeed in purchasing the cow, so they left for their houses---It was for the prosecution to establish that when apart from the complainant, the eye-witness and the deceased, no other person had participated in planning a visit to the house of the cow dealer, then how the accused/appellants came to know that the deceased and complainant would come to the spot at the stated time---Site plan depicted that the house of the accused was situated at a considerable distance from the place where the incident occurred, then it was for the prosecution to answer that how and why the accused/appellants came towards the place of incident by covering a considerable distance, as the complainant party was to pass through their house---When the complainant side noticed the coming of the accused/appellants towards them, that too, duly armed, then what precluded them from taking shelter or to rescue themselves from the wrath of the accused/appellants, despite the fact that few days earlier, the parties had scuffled with each other, in which respect, matter was reported to the police, where the complainant and witness had allegedly received injuries at the hands of the accused/appellant---Said episode had been termed to be the basis of the present incident---It was yet to be established that when in the earlier episode, complainant and a witness got injured, that too, at the hands of the accused/appellant, then what led the accused/appellants to kill the deceased, as in the previous episode, it was the complainant party, who suffered, and it was the complainant party that should have retaliated, to balance the sides---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Nasir vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ