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---Free fight---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---Record showed that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as narrated by the complainant in his report---Moreover, it appeared that first the appellant and his dead co-accused on reaching at the crime spot tried to stop them from paving the street, whereafter perhaps an altercation might have taken place, which resulted into firing upon each other---On one hand the complainant had lodged the instant FIR while, on the other hand, the appellant had also lodged a cross case bearing FIR No. 373 of even date---Besides the above, a witness while further exaggerating his stance also stated in his examination in chief that after commission of the offence the accused decamped from the scene while such fact could not be mentioned in the FIR by the complainant---Complainant was Naib Nazim while dead co-accused was Councilor of the area and both had dispute over construction/paving of the street near the house of "N"---From the facts narrated in both the FIRs it had become clearer than crystal that despite having dispute over construction of the street the complainant party was present at the crime spot, duly armed, and when the appellant and his dead co-accused arrived at the spot, first both the parties might have exchanged hot words, whereafter an altercation took place, however, when the sentiments of both the parties peaked, they started firing upon each other, resulting in causing firearm injuries not only to the complainant party but also to the appellant and his brother---When both the parties had admittedly exchanged hot words, followed by firing upon each other, question arose as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon---Although the prosecution examined number of witnesses but it could not be gathered therefrom that which party was aggressor and which party had been aggressed upon---Glance over the statement of Investigating Officer divulged that he had not specifically mentioned in his entire investigation that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon, meaning thereby that this question had been left unanswered---If so, then none of the parties could be held responsible for aggression---Both the parties in their respective reports had suppressed the injuries of each other by concealing the real facts---No credible evidence was on record to prove that which of the two parties was the aggressor and initiated the fight and which party had acted in self defence---Evidence on record was not clear enough to establish that appellant and his dead co-accused were either aggressors, being responsible for initiating the fight, or they had exceeded the right of private defence---Therefore, they were entitled to get benefit of the said doubt---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