Aurangzeb vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1702 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.

Aurangzeb VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(iii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 148 & 149---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa arms act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Counter version---Real facts of occurrence suppressed---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and also causing firearm injuries to three persons---Record showed that one of the accused persons was injured then died---Moot question for determination was that how the deceased received the firearm injury and at whose hands---Counter version in the shape of Daily Diaryhad removed the ambiguity, as it was the deceased then injured who reported the matter and for the injury caused to him, two accused i.e., the deceased and the acquitted accused were charged---Site plan depicted that the deceased accused was present at point No. 11 and from his place, the Investigating Officer also collected blood stained earth---as accused received a firearm injury in the same episode, so he was hurriedly shifted to the hospital where he reported the matter---Said accused/ deceased was present on the spot at the stated time and received a firearm injury in the same transaction---In the site plan, the injury caused to the deceased was attributed to the deceased accused, likewise the injuries to deceased were attributed to the absconding co-accused, so the approach of the Trial Court qua involvement of the appellants was based on misreading of evidence---Report of the deceased/accused had clarified the circumstances and it told that both the parties concealed material facts---Court was confident in holding that the real facts had been suppressed---When the place of occurrence was the same, when people died from both the sides and when the motive was common to the parties, then the counter version could be and should have been taken into consideration---Moreover, it was the uncertainty of events which led to the tragic incident and it was the concealment of facts which overshadowed the prosecution case, so if the accused could earn benefit of the same in Daily Diary, then the same benefit should have been extended to the appellants charged in the instant case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellants---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Aurangzeb vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1702 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR