MUHAMMAD DANIYAL vs State — 2026 SCMR 743 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.

MUHAMMAD DANIYAL VS State. Ss.302(b) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Scope. Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of 19-year old student with firearm. Record revealed that there were complaints to police about street crime, snatching and motorcar theft, therefore, petitioners-convicts, who were Police Constables, might have formed belief that deceased was a criminal and trying to make his escape good from the spot. Acting on that assumption, petitioners-convicts resorted to firing at the motorcar. However, even if such belief was assumed, act of opening fire in those circumstances was wholly disproportionate and amounted to excess of authority vested in petitioners-convicts by law, resulting in fatal injury to deceased. No prior enmity, ill will or motive against deceased had been established on part of petitioners-convicts. Likewise, there was no evidence on record to suggest any premeditation or prior consultation between them in commission of offence. Therefore, from facts and circumstances emerging from available evidence, petitioners-convicts, while acting in purported discharge of official duties and treating deceased as a suspect, fired at his vehicle. As a consequence thereof, one of the bullets struck deceased, resulting in his unnatural death. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence to establish as to which of petitioners-convicts fired fatal shot. However, according to Forensic Science Laboratory Report, official weapons allotted to both petitioners-convicts matched with crime empties recovered from spot. In these circumstances, question as to whose shot actually hit deceased became immaterial, as both petitioners-convicts actively participated in firing which led to fatal consequence. Thus, ingredients of offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C., were attracted in present case rather than those of Section 302(b), P.P.C. Convictions under Section 302(b), P.P.C., were converted into Section 302(c), P.P.C., and accused were sentenced to undergo 15-years imprisonment. Petition was converted into appeal and disposed of accordingly.

MUHAMMAD DANIYAL vs State — 2026 SCMR 743 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR