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---Ocular account proved---accused were charged for committing murder of the maternal cousin of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the unfortunate tragedy of murder of deceased, a young student of 20 years, had been furnished by complainant and an eye-witness---Perusal of statement of the complainant would reveal that he had furnished minute details of each and every aspect of the occurrence---Complainant had explained well the purpose of his presence with the deceased at the time of occurrence---Complainant had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence on each and every aspect of the incident but he stuck to his stance as set forth by him in his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Besides charging the appellants directly in his statement under S.164 Cr.P.C, the complainant had also identified them during identification parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate on 15.03.2021 inside jail premises---Defence in the cross-examination of the complainant itself had admitted presence of the appellants on the spot at the time of occurrence by putting some suggestions to him---Deceased was paternal cousin of the complainant and no evidence had been brought on record by the defence so as to remotely suggest false implication of the appellants by him---Due to close relation of complainant with the deceased, it was not likely that he would let off the actual perpetrators of the offence by falsely implicating the appellants, against whom he admittedly had no previous malice, ill-will, animosity or grudge---Substitution of real culprits especially in cases where the eye-witnesses lost their kith and kin before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Eye-witness had also been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable to defence or adverse to prosecution could be extracted from his mouth---Said witness also stuck to his stance and fully corroborated the complainant on each and every material aspect of the occurrence such as the day, date, time and place of occurrence as well as the mode and manner in which the incident took place---Eye-witness was also unanimous with the complainant on the events as to how the deceased then injured, was shifted from the spot to the hospital---Said witness too had identified the appellants during identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, who while appearing in the witness box has deposed that during identification parade both the eye-witnesses had correctly identified the appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved murder of the deceased by appellant "R" through cogent and confidence inspiring direct evidence corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence and supported by medical evidence---appeal against conviction filed by appellant "R" was dismissed accordingly.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR