Fazal Khaliq vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 233 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.

Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Common intention not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---According to the complainant, both the accused i.e. the convict appellant and the acquitted co-accused were armed with sophisticated weapons---Surprisingly when the accused had the common intention and when they were in possession of deadly weapons, then question was what precluded them to eliminate the abandoned eye-witness, the injured witness and the deceased as well---Such particular aspect of the case was indicative of the fact that neither the accused came to the spot with the common intention nor the purpose was to eliminate the complainant side---Moreover, it could not be ignored that the deceased received a solitary injury on his forehead and the injured witness a single lacerated wound---If intention was to do away with the complainant side then there was hardly an occasion for the witnesses to escape unhurt, as the assailants were in full control of the situation, that too, having sophisticated weapons in their possession---When prosecution had failed to convince the Court regarding the preplanning, premeditation and preconcert on part of the accused, then there lurked no doubt that the incident occurred at spur of the moment---When common intention was not established from the record, then every accused was to be held responsible for his individual act and in that eventuality, it was for the prosecution to tell as to which of the accused caused which injury---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of doubt, if arising, must be extended to the accused. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the recovered weapon and empties not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---Record showed that during spot inspection, the Investigation Officer collected from the spot ten empties of 7.62 bore, but at that time the same were not sent to the laboratory either for safe custody or for ascertaining the fact that the same were fired from one or different weapons but the same were sent to the laboratory by the time when the weapon of offence was allegedly recovered from possession of the convict/appellant---As on one hand, the prosecution could not bring on record as to where the empties were lying from the date of its recovery till the arrest of the appellant and on the other, the recovered weapon along with the empties were received at the laboratory after a considerable delay, then it lurked no doubt in mind that the prosecution could not succeed in proving the safe custody of both the empties and the weapon---When the prosecution failed to prove on record the safe custody of the collected weapon and recovered empties, and when the recovered empties were not sent to the laboratory soon after its recovery for ascertaining the fact that the same were fired from one or different weapons, no other opinion could be drawn but that such piece of evidence was lacking credence, that too, when the prosecution could not establish its safe custody---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also caused firearm injuries to his father---During spot inspection, the Investigating Officer collected 10 empties, 5 each from the place of each accused---Collected empties were sent to the firearms expert along with the recovered weapon from possession of the convict appellant, whereafter a report was received in positive---Site plan was prepared on the pointation of the witnesses and it was in their presence that the empties were collected from the places assigned to the accused, but the laboratory report told that all the ten empties were fired from the recovered weapon---This particular aspect of the case had shaken the very foundation of the prosecution case to a great extent---If it was believed that the empties collected were fired from the recovered weapon, then in such eventuality, it had to be accepted that it was the doing of a single accused, but as the recoveries were effected from two different places, then the laboratory report, in itself, went against the prosecution case and even the report, so tendered, by the Firearms Expert had belied the story narrated by the complainant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witness---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---In the present case, one "FR" was cited as the eyewitness, but he was not produced before the Trial Court, despite the fact that the complainant, in his report, stated that he was also fired at by the accused---No plausible reasons were available on record as to why "FR" was not produced---In such eventuality, Court was constrained to form an opinion that said witness was not ready to support the stance of the complainant and had he been produced, he would have disclosed the real facts before the Court of law---When best available evidence, was not produced then an inference could be drawn that had the witness been produced, he would have not supported the claim of the complainant, so an inference could be drawn adverse to the prosecution---Article 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, catered for such a situation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Firearms Expert Report---Scope---Firearms expert report is not a corroborative piece of evidence, rather it is a circumstance, which can be pressed into service, only and only, when the prosecution otherwise succeeds in bringing home guilt against the accused charged. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---Accused/appellant remained absconder for a sufficient long time, but abscondence alone was not sufficient for holding an accused guilty, rather it was a circumstance which could be weighed against the accused charged, but only when the prosecution otherwise succeeded in proving its case---As the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused charged by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring witnesses, so such piece of evidence could not be pressed into service to favour the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Un-witnessed occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---Complainant while reporting the matter disclosed that besides him, the incident was witnessed by one "FR" and other people of the locality, but when the complainant and the injured eye-witness were examined before the Trial Court, they deviated from their previous stance and stated that apart from the complainant, the eyewitness, the deceased and the injured, no other person was present on the spot---Prosecution case was that soon after performing Asar prayer, complainant and others came out of the mosque and were busy in chitchat, when the incident occurred---If it was accepted that, the incident occurred soon after Asar Prayer, then numerous co-villagers must have been present in the thoroughfare, but the witnesses made a willful attempt to deny their presence for the simple reason that no one was ready to support the claim of the complainant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---Motive was advanced as a dispute over an outstanding amount, which the injured witness spent on the trial of the convict/appellant, but neither the complainant could produce independent evidence in that respect nor the Investigating Officer took pain to collect any oral or documentary evidence in that regard---In such eventuality, the prosecution could not succeed in establishing the alleged motive---As the cause of death was the outstanding amount between the parties, so the failure of the prosecution to convince that in fact the amount was outstanding would put the prosecution at the losing end---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Motive---Scope---Weakness or absence of motive is not the sole determining factor to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case, but it is equally true that when the prosecution case rests on the alleged motive, then under such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be absolved of its liability to prove the same---In case, the prosecution cannot prove the alleged motive, then it is the prosecution that has to suffer.

Fazal Khaliq vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR