Mumraiz Ali vs Anwar Ali Ss — 2025 YLR 2541 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.

Mumraiz Ali VS Anwar Ali Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii), 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifahbadiah, house-trespass, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of father, brothers, daughter and sister-in-law of complainant and causing fire arm injures to the complainant and his brother---Motive behind the occurrence was disclosed as dispute over employment of brother of complainant at a tube well---Record showed that the witnesses remained consistent regarding the place of incident, which was inside the house, and it was for the complainant to tell that at what time and in what manner the four deceased persons came out of the house---Not only some of the deceased, but one of the injured eye-witness was also shown outside the house at the time of firing---When the main gate of the house was fully occupied by the accused including the appellants, then why an opportunity was provided to some of the deceased to leave the house---If taken otherwise, then all the deceased and the injured eye-witnesses were supposed to be present in the house, before the incident, at the time of incident and after the incident---If the accused had an interest in the post and when the same was occupied by the deceased brother of complainant, then instead of eliminating the entire family the prime target would have been the person occupying the post and he was no other than the deceased brother of complainant---Surprising to note that the deceased, who lost their lives outside the house, were never fired at in the house and even they did not receive any injury inside the house---When admittedly, the house where the incident occurred was measuring 05 Marla, so there was hardly an occasion for the deceased to run out of the house, that too, when the accused had come with the only purpose to eliminate and when the accused were occupying the main gate of the house---If the deceased had received injuries inside the house, then the complainant and the eye-witnesses would have shown their respective places inside the house and thereafter outside the house, where the deceased was done to death---Deceased father of complainant was shown at Point No.3 at the time of firing and at Point No.3-A to which he travelled and fell down, but the Investigating Officer could not notice trail of blood between the places and even the complainant could not convince that how the said deceased succeeded in reaching to Point 3-A---Moreover, it had never been mentioned by the witnesses that some of the deceased were fired at outside the house and some in the tube well---Accused while reaching to main gate of the house were to pass through the vacant plot, but interestingly, they did not fire at the deceased, who were shown dead in the vacant plot---When the desired target was available in the tube well, then why rest of the deceased, outside or inside the house, were fired at---Complainant created an atmosphere of uncertainty and despite efforts could not clarify the same---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mumraiz Ali vs Anwar Ali Ss — 2025 YLR 2541 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR