Muhammad Younas vs Usman Ss — 2025 YLR 1888 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Younas VS Usman Ss. 302(b), 394, 341, 201, 204, 109 & 34---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, wrongful restrain, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen defenders, destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence, abetment, common intention, harabbah, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during robbery---according to the prosecution's narrative, convict fired two shots at the victim, one striking the head and the other hitting the ribs, exiting through the abdomen and injuring other accused---Meanwhile, injured convict allegedly fired one shot at the victim, hitting him in the right arm---Three bullets in total were reportedly discharged during the incident---Furthermore, two thirty-bore pistols were recovered on the pointation of the convicts---Examiner analyzed evidence submitted in connection with the case involving two pistols, a bullet, and three cartridges---Pistols were recovered from accused persons, both of which were found to be in working condition with their safety features intact---analysis revealed that cartridge cases were fired from injured accused's pistol---While, none of the bullet empty was found to have been fired from other accused's pistol---Findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report highlighted notable discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative---allegedly, injured accused fired one shot and other accused fired two gunshots---However, the forensic evidence indicated that two shots were fired from injured accused's pistol, whereas no shot was fired from other accused's pistol---Such discrepancy raised questions about the accuracy of the prosecution's claims---Despite those inconsistencies, there was still supporting evidence, such as the recovery of the pistols from both individuals and the presence of empties at the crime scene which aligned partially with the events described---Contradictions in the Forensic Science Laboratory findings somehow weakened the prosecution's story---as a result, the benefit of doubt should favour the accused as a mitigating factor, entitling them to a reduction in their sentences---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however due to some mitigating circumstance, the sentence of 25 years awarded to each accused was reduced to 14 years---appeal was partially allowed with said modification in sentence.

Muhammad Younas vs Usman Ss — 2025 YLR 1888 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR