UMER DRAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1185 SUPREME-COURT

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

UMER DRAZ VS State. Ss. 302(b), 452, 109, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Withholding material witnesses from giving evidence---Adverse presumption---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the deceased by inflicting hatchet blows---Complainant was the real father of the deceased---However, in his initial version recorded in the FIR, the complainant did not mention the presence of MS, Mst. N and Mst. J at the spot at the time of occurrence---Later, said persons were not only introduced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence but also alleged to have sustained injuries in the occurrence---More importantly, both the female witnesses of the family of the complainant were abandoned by the prosecution without furnishing any cogent or justifiable reason---Occurrence took place on 27.08.2010, but astonishingly, injured was medically examined on 14.09.2010, after two weeks of the occurrence by Medical Officer, who opined that the injury sustained by injured was caused with a blunt weapon and within a range of 01 to 3 weeks---No explanation was offered by injured witness for this unexplained delay in seeking medical examination---Similarly, the complainant also failed to explain why he omitted the names of the alleged eye-witnesses in his FIR if they were genuinely present and sustained injuries during the incident---Non-production of the two female witnesses, who were close family members of the complainant party and the unexplained silence about their alleged injuries, amounted to withholding of the best available evidence---In such circumstances, an adverse inference, in terms of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was to be drawn against the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

UMER DRAZ vs State — 2026 SCMR 1185 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR