Syed Nabi Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1752 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.

Syed Nabi Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Site plan, preparation of---Doubts and inconsistencies---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Complainant claimed to have pointed out the spot to the Investigating Officer, on the next day of the incident, whereas the Investigating Officer claimed to have prepared the site plan on the pointation of the female eye-witness---As the eye-witness was not produced, so that aspect of the case could not be appreciated while referring to her statement---Site plan was shown prepared on the pointation of the eye-witness, but the complainant denied the same---Marginal witness disclosed that he along with the Investigating Officer visited the spot on the day of occurrence at 08:30 PM---Site plan was prepared on the pointation of the complainant and the Investigating Officer spent 45 minutes on the spot---Investigating Officer stated that the site plan was prepared on the pointation of the eye-witness---Investigating Officer further explained that he visited the spot on 19.02.2020, and prepared the site plan on the pointation of the eye-witness---Self-stated that as it was 12 O'clock, so some proceedings were carried out on 19.02.2020 whereas the remaining on 20.02.2020 as the day changed, so the date---When the statement of Investigating Officer was read in juxtaposition with that of the marginal witness, both were in conflict and even the complainant denied their statements qua pointation by the eye-witness---Right from the beginning till the end, the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements, trying to make the case a success, but instead they damaged the case beyond repair---Neither the complainant could tell that who prepared the site plan, and on whose pointation nor the Investigating Officer---Such inconsistency between these witnesses showered mist over the place of occurrence and even the witnesses could not confirm the venue, where the unfortunate incident occurred---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Syed Nabi Shah vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1752 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR