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---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration, recording of---Capability and consciousness of deceased at the time of making dying declaration not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the complainant then injured, and his companion by firing---Dying declaration was recorded by Investigating Officer---In his testimony, the witness candidly admitted that he did not obtain a certificate from the Medical Officer regarding the complainant's ability to speak at the time of taking down his report---Similarly, Casualty Medical Officer, who examined the deceased then injured and furnished the Medico-Legal Certificate Report, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not provide any certificate about the victim's alertness regarding surroundings, orientation in time and space, or capability to make a lucid statement---Although, both the scribe and the Medical Officer unanimously stated that the deceased then injured was conscious and capable of speaking, however, that alone was not sufficient to conclusively establish his ability to speak at the time of making the report---Record revealed that the deceased then injured sustained a cluster of six firearm entry wounds on the outer right side of the chest and the right side of the abdomen, along with three firearm exit wounds on the left lower chest---Considering the medical condition of the victim vis-a-vis the number of injuries he sustained in the incident, the scribe was required to obtain, and the Medical Officer was also obligated to provide, a certificate affirming that the deceased then injured was conscious in time and place and capable of speaking at the time of making the report---However, in the absence of such a crucial piece of evidence, it could not be definitively held that the victim was conscious and capable of speaking under the compelling circumstances---Omission to secure or render a certificate regarding the victim's consciousness and capability to speak was detrimental to the prosecution case---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