Muhammad Ishtiaq vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 901 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 Ishtiaq VS State Ss. 458 & 392---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (XLVII of 1985), S. 17(3)---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, robbery, haraabah, possession of illegal weapon---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused entered into the house of complainant and robbed different articles on gun point---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two witnesses---Both eye-witness testimonies were consistent with the original report, establishing a credible narrative of the incident that withstood cross-examination, leaving little room for doubt regarding the sequence of events and the identity of the accused---Detailed and consistent statements provided by eye-witnesses, corroborating the complainant's account, reinforced the prosecution's case, creating a solid foundation for the charges levelled against the convict---Other prosecution witnesses who were recovery witnesses also stated in their Court statements that police recovered from convict a necklace, one bangle, and a ring---30-bore pistol was also recovered based on convcit's pointation---Said two witnesses were also the recovery witnesses of the other ornaments recovered from co-accused---Evaluation of the statements from eye-witnesses indicated that the incident unfolded precisely as described in the prosecution's narrative---Testimonies of said witnesses remained credible and consistent throughout their statements, with no major contradictions or embellishments noted---Said witnesses corroborated the allegations detailed in the FIR and attributed direct responsibility to the convict-appellant for the commission of the offence---In addition to these primary eye-witnesses, other prosecution witnesses, also provided testimony linking the convict-appellant to the offences---Statements of said witnesses collectively strengthened the prosecution's case by corroborating key facts and confirming the involvement of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the appellant's sentence of seven years was reduced to the period already served---appeal was partly allowed with said modification in sentence.

Muhammad Ishtiaq vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 901 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR