Rustam vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1121 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.

Rustam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa arms act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---accused were charged for committing murder of the maternal cousin of complainant by firing---as regards case of appellant "RU", available evidence proved that he was present with appellant "R" at the time of occurrence as was shown in the site plan at back of motorcar of the deceased---However, as per Medico-Legal Report and autopsy report, the deceased had not sustained any injury/entrance wound on his back---No bullet marks had been noticed on back of the motorcar---Similarly, no empty had been shown recovered from the place assigned to appellant "RU"---Pistol shown recovered from appellant "RU" had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, report whereof showed that from the residue powder found in the pistol, no opinion could be given as to when was the last fire made from it---Besides, one of the eye-witnesses, in his cross-examination had stated that appellant "RU" accompanied them from the spot to the hospital when the deceased, then injured was being shifted---Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the prosecution had not proved guilt of appellant "RU" to the extent of commission of murder of the deceased---No evidence had been led by the prosecution to prove sharing of common intention of appellant "RU" with appellant "R" in committing murder of the deceased---However, the fact of presence of appellant "RU" with appellant "R" at the time of occurrence had been established by the prosecution through cogent evidence beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appellant "RU", being Police Official and on his duty at the relevant time, was legally bound to give information of the offence to the police but he kept mum, therefore, his role amounted to intentional omission to give information of the offence, and he had committed an offence punishable under S.202, P.P.C---Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant "RU" under S.302(b) & 324 P.P.C recorded by the Trial Court was set aside, however he was convicted and sentenced under S.202 P.P.C---appeal of appellant "RU" was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Rustam vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1121 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR