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), 302(c) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence. Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of a 19-year old student with firearm. Record showed that one Mst. "M" was accompanying deceased in same motorcar at relevant time. Said Mst. "M" was accordingly cited as prosecution witness. Said witness although admitted having witnessed occurrence but she did not identify any of accused as persons who fired upon motorcar of deceased. Testimony of said witness proved commission of offence on day, date, time and place of occurrence as alleged by prosecution, though she had not directly named anyone by name as accused. Mst. "M" in her statement stated that deceased obtained narcotics from his friends which were available with him in motorcar as well as certain number plates and that for that reason deceased accelerated vehicle when he was signaled to stop. As per statement of Mst. "M", when deceased failed to obey signal to stop, firing was opened at his motorcar. Although Mst. "M" did not specifically name petitioners-convicts as persons who fired at vehicle of deceased, however, record showed that official weapons allotted to all accused, including petitioners-convicts, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with crime empties. Forensic Science Laboratory Report established that only official weapons allotted to petitioners-convicts matched with crime empties. Testimony of Mst. "M" further revealed that narcotics and certain number plates were present in vehicle, suggesting that deceased attempted to flee, presumably to evade arrest and did not comply with police signal. Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, 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