AMJAD vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 1205 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

AMJAD VS STATE Ss. 302(b), 364, 365, 201, 202, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person with the intent to murder or to place them in danger of murder, kidnapping, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information about an offence by a person legally bound to inform, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Insufficient circumstantial evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend after their abduction---In the initial report, lodged on 13.01.2017, the complainant stated that he had neither any motive nor any doubt about anyone for kidnapping or otherwise of the deceased then alive whereas after long eighteen (18) days he submitted a written application for registration of FIR against the appellants and others with allegations that as in the murder case of his wife registered vide FIR No. 475 on 03.06.2014, he had been extended threats of dire consequences by the appellants' side for compromise, thus, it was none else but the appellants, who had kidnapped the deceased for pressuring him or committed their deaths---Said story was not at all appealable to a prudent mind, if really he had been pressurized by the appellants' side prior to the present incident then why he remained mum at the time of lodging initial report---Besides, during the course of his cross-examination complainant admitted that his wife had been murdered in the year 2014, wherein the appellants were acquitted---If appellants were already acquitted then how he could be pressurized for compromise, was a question looking askance---Complainant stated that he had not remembered the date as to when the accused party put pressure on him in the murder case of his wife---Such cross-examination badly put the version of complainant into doubt as the same was not found in consonance with the variety narrated in the application while nominating the appellants for commission of the offence---Furthermore, the complainant also failed to explain the reason of delayed nomination of the appellants for commission of the offence and that too without disclosing the source of satisfaction except with a plea that as he had been extended threats of dire consequences, which factum he could easily narrate in his initial report but the same was not mentioned therein---In the case in hand, keeping in view the conduct of the complainant by not narrating the motive coupled with delayed charging of the appellants for commission of the offence, made the case of prosecution one of insufficient circumstantial evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

AMJAD vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 1205 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR