Umar Daraz alias Muhammad Umar vs Mst — 2025 YLR 1284 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.

Umar Daraz alias Muhammad Umar VS Mst. Durdana Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the complainant then injured and his companion by firing---Eye-witness stated that he had no relationship with either of the deceased, as they were merely his neighbours---If that was the case, the question remained as to why the culprits spared the eye-witness and killed both the deceased, a question that the prosecution had failed to answer convincingly---Notably, the eye-witness was all alone and at the mercy of three armed assailants, yet he did not receive a single injury despite being simultaneously fired at by three assailants from a short distance of about 28 paces---Eye-witness stated that he remained standing in his place and did not seek shelter---Eye-witness's escape unhurt, in the attending circumstances, raised reasonable doubts qua his presence at the spot, especially when three shots were fired at him from a 12mm bore pistol---Eye-witness stated that while deceased was being taken to the hospital, blood was oozing from his wounds, adding that his clothes were also smeared with that blood---Yet, neither did the witness take pain to hand over those clothes to the Investigating Officer, nor did the Investigating Officer brought such fact on the record, let alone taking into possession those clothes and dispatching them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis---Eye-witness failed to establish his presence at the spot at the fateful time---Therefore, when the eye-witness failed to establish his presence at the fateful time, and when the collected evidence was also not of the standard that could reasonably link the appellant to the commission of the offence, the benefit accrued would go in favour of the appellant---Prosecution had been unable to prove the charge against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Umar Daraz alias Muhammad Umar vs Mst — 2025 YLR 1284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR