Hazrat Noor vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1371 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.

Hazrat Noor VS State Ss.302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea of alibi not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of five persons of complainant party by firing and also causing fire arm injuries to complainant---One of the appellants took a plea of alibi, recorded his statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C and presented his defence evidence---Said appellant stated that he was serving as a machine operator at a Hydel Power Station that on the fateful day, appellant left his house at about 05.30 am and arrived at his duty station within 20 to 25 minutes and remained on duty until 12.30 pm; that Security Incharge opened the entrance gate for him at his duty station and he took charge from his predecessor at about 06.00 am---To substantiate plea of alibi said appellant produced a copy of his duty-shift schedule, daily log sheet, attendance register, an application to the IGP, progress report, receipt and copies of the register of dispatched letters---In his cross-examination, the appellant admitted that on the road, which led to his duty station, there was a routine curfew on Sundays, the day of occurrence---Admittedly, appellant did not produce a shift-wise program to the Investigating Officer or even at the time of recording his statement before the Trial Court---While the appellant claimed that shifts were not regulated by a written program but by mutual consent and understanding among officials since the inception of the Power Station, he failed to substantiate that claim---Officials responsible for regulating the shift programs and the immediate officer who permitted such operations were not produced to support the stance of the appellant---Neither the Security Incharge nor the predecessor from whom the appellant took over duty on the day of occurrence at 06.00 am were produced to substantiate his presence at the place of his duty at the fateful time---Notably, no plausible reason was given for such omission---In such circumstances, adverse inference under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be drawn against the appellant, indicating that if those witnesses had been produced, they would not have supported the stance of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge against the appellants through compelling and confidence inspiring evidence beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Hazrat Noor vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1371 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR