Akhtar Nawaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1178 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.

Akhtar Nawaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Vicarious liability---Aplicability---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant, his father and two other sustained firearm injuries, and later, the complainant died---In the case in hand appellant and his brother/dead co-accused had been charged for firing upon the complainant and three (03) injured while in the cross case FIR No. 373 the appellant had also charged the injured for firing at him and dead complainant for inflicting pistol butt blows to him on his head whereas injured persons had been charged for inflicting baton blows to dead co-accused---No doubt the dead co-accused was charged for firing at the complainant, who died after 72 days of the occurrence due to the injuries sustained at the hands of dead co-accused, while the present appellant was charged for causing injuries to two injured, however, at the same time it also had to be taken into consideration that the appellant had also received injuries in the same incident---During evidence it could not be proved that which party was the aggressor and which was aggressed upon, thus, it could not be said with certainty that the appellant had either shared his common intention with his dead co-accused or he in self defence had committed the offence---On one hand possibility of appellant arriving at the crime spot with premeditation could not be ruled out of consideration, however, at the same time gathering of the complainant party, duly armed, at the crime spot could not be brushed aside---As both the parties had dispute over the construction/paving of street and they were duly armed, and during combat both the parties had sustained injuries, and in evidence it could not be ascertained that which party was aggressor and which was aggressed upon, thus, in such a situation the appellant could not be held responsible for sharing common intention in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Akhtar Nawaz vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1178 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR