Sahib Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2298 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.

Sahib Zaman VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 201 & 34---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by sole eye-witness/injured in his statement---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing and causing injuries to an eye-witness---In his initial statement, the injured had nominated all the three accused for firing upon the complainant-party, whereby it was specifically deposed by that injured witness that at the relevant time the present appellant had muffled his face---Injured witness did not disclose in his statement before the Judicial Magistrate that how he was able to identify the appellant amongst the set of three assailants when admittedly he had muffled his face with cloth and more importantly his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., was recorded after considerable delay of 22-days---In that regard too, prosecution had not come up with any plausible explanation that why statement of that sole eye-witness of the occurrence was not recorded at first instance, especially, when as per card memo., the appellant was shown arrested on 10.8.2022 i.e. on the third day of the occurrence---If injured witness had received severe firearm injuries on his thighs, then his statement should have been recorded in the hospital qua his effective role of firing, however, the available record suggested that no visible efforts had been made in that regard, rather the Investigating Officer kept mum for considerable period of 22-days---Injured witness, in his examination-in-chief, had come up with another version of the occurrence to the effect that it was the appellant who had opened firing upon the deceased---Said witness had reiterated his earlier stance in terms that though appellant had muffled his face with cloth, however, when he had started firing upon deceased, the cloth slipped-away from his face, therefore, he was identified amongst the set of three accused---Said revelation/improvement was not part and parcel of his earlier two statements recorded under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C., respectively---Injured witness had disclosed the factum of identity of the appellant qua removal of cloth from his face for the first time in his Court statement recorded on 10.7.2023 i.e. after more than 11 months of the occurrence and that too in his examination-in-chief, therefore, those delayed revelation on part of the injured witness would no doubt fall within the category of dishonest improvement---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, his conviction could not be maintained---Resultantly, appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Sahib Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2298 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR