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---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the deceased by inflicting hatchet blows---In the case, appellant-convict and co-accused A were attributed the role of inflicting hatchet and axe blows, respectively, on the head of the deceased---Co-accused M, Ak and An were assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased while co-accused Bk was alleged to have raised lalkaras---Co-accused Gz was charged for abetment of the crime---Admitted position was that all the co-accused including A, whose role was identical to that of the appellant, were acquitted by the Trial Court---Accused A was specifically assigned the role of giving axe blow on right-side of head of the deceased---According to opinion of the Medical Officer, both the injuries individually and collectively were sufficient to the cause of death of the deceased---Injury attributed to acquitted co-accused A was bigger in size than the injury assigned to the appellant, but co-accused A was acquitted by the Trial Court---Though, the complainant did file an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused including accused A before the High Court, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn and in this way the findings of acquittal had attained finality---It was matter of record that the Courts below, on the very same set of evidence furnished by the alleged eye-witnesses, which was disbelieved in respect of the acquitted co- accused, particularly, co-accused A, proceeded to convict the appellant without referring to the evidence so as to distinguish the role of the appellant from that of co-accused A---Conviction of the appellant was primarily based on the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses along with the supporting medical evidence---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