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---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during robbery---alleged by defence that there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding time of occurrence and time of arrest---Said were not material contradictions but minor discrepancies regarding the exact timings, which were natural and to be expected, particularly when statements were recorded years after the incident, often three to four years in such cases---Minor variances of that nature did not necessarily cast doubt on the overall credibility of the witness and prosecution's case---Such inconsistencies might have raised questions about specific aspects of the evidence, they did not, in isolation, undermine the entirety of the case---Courts had recognized that minor lapses in recollection, especially concerning precise timings, were common in witness testimonies---Such variances were insufficient to exonerate the accused when the broader evidence firmly connected them to the crime---at the best, such discrepancies could be considered mitigating factors if they affected the substantive elements of the prosecution's case---However, in the present case, the evidence against the accused remained robust and cohesive despite those minor discrepancies---Stance taken by defence lacked merit and could not be made a basis to challenge the conviction---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