YASIR ARFAT vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 426 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

YASIR ARFAT VS STATE. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the place of occurrence not proved---Scope. The accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing. The record showed that the occurrence was reported to have taken place at 6:45 p.m., whereas the police report was lodged at 7:30 p.m. The complainant stated that he was present at the place of occurrence and claimed that the police arrived within ten minutes of the incident, whereas his brother died twenty minutes after receiving firearm injuries. The complainant further stated that he did not touch his brother after he was shot until his death. However, there was a significant discrepancy because the FIR was lodged with a delay of thirty minutes. The Medico-Legal Certificate showed that the deceased reached the hospital at 7:05 p.m., within twenty minutes of the occurrence, which suggested that the deceased was taken to the hospital while the police were waiting for the complainant to arrive and lodge the report. The said fact indicated that the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. According to the complainant's statement, the deceased was caught hold of by one accused and thereafter another accused fired upon him. The Medico-Legal Certificate issued by the Medical Officer showed an entrance wound on the left side of the neck with an exit wound on the left side of the back of the neck. However, the accused who was allegedly holding the deceased did not sustain any injury. The said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind and created doubt regarding the prosecution version, indicating that the complainant had narrated a story and was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. The complainant stated that his brother died twenty minutes after being shot and he did not touch his brother after the firing until his death. Such fact implied that the deceased remained lying at the place of occurrence for twenty minutes with a gunshot wound on his neck, yet no effort was made to shift him to the hospital. It was difficult to believe and contrary to normal human conduct that a close relative would allow an injured person suffering from a firearm injury to the neck to remain unattended without making any attempt to provide medical assistance or save his life. The said circumstance also indicated that the complainant was not present at the scene of occurrence. If the complainant had actually been present, he would have immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital, as it is the normal human conduct to provide medical treatment to an injured person. The Medico-Legal Certificate further revealed that the deceased was brought to the hospital by a Police Constable. If the deceased was taken to the hospital by a police official in the absence of any close relative, then the presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence could not be believed. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

YASIR ARFAT vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 426 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ