Shahid Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2412 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.

Shahid Zaman VS State Ss. 302 & 311---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his wife by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be illicit relations between the nephew of complainant and wife of the accused---It was an admitted fact that eye-witness was the resident of a village, which was admittedly situated at a distance of 1 ½ hours travel from the house of the complainant---Apart from the complainant, there was no eye-witness to the first incident, where the deceased/nephew of complainant lost his life, so the Court was to test the credibility of that witness by taking into consideration the manner in which the incident occurred---Complainant stated that when the deceased did not return, it increased his anxiety,so he and the eye-witness left the house to inquire---Complainant could not explain that for what purpose eye-witness had come to the house and that why both decided to go after the deceased, as the deceased had hardly left an hour before---Complainant could not explain that the appellant had enmity in the area or that he was of such a character, that his late return increased his anxiety, as well as that of the eye-witness---Nothing was brought on record, which would confirm to the Court that the witnesses were worried about the late return of the deceased and that the deceased had enmity in the area---When nothing was brought on record, then the anxiety of the complainant and that of the eye-witness failed to convince the very purpose of their leaving the house and of their reaching to the place of incident---Moreover, it was nothing, but a co-incidence that at that very time, the eye-witness arrived and the deceased was fired at---Eye-witness neither visited the house of the complainant, nor accompanied the complainant to the place of incident---Even otherwise, the manner in which the complainant explained the circumstances, did not appeal to a prudent mind and his conscious attempts had disturbed the judicial mind of the Court, regarding his presence on the spot---When the witnesses failed to convince that they were present on the spot and that the incident occurred in their presence, then the Court was left with the only option to hold that the presence of witnesses was procured, after the incident, so the possibility could not be excluded that preliminary investigation was conducted in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Shahid Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2412 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR