MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs WALI MUHAMMAD Ss — 2026 YLR 1255 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.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR VS WALI MUHAMMAD Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(v) & 34---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah hashimah, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the complainant then injured through firing and causing firearm injuries to two other persons---Motive behind the occurrence, as consistently admitted by both parties, was a verbal altercation earlier in the day concerning the children---Said dispute led both sides to the eventual confrontation---On one hand, the report was lodged by the deceased, while on the other, two persons sustained butt-blow injuries, as reflected in daily diary dated 13.09.2016---Thus, the motive was the factor that brought both parties together and ultimately resulted in the disturbance---Motive was not one-sided; both parties were equally involved and connected to the incident---However, the responsibility of the appellant was greater, as he, along with the absconding co-accused, resorted to the use of firearms---In these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in awarding the sentence imposed---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(v) & 34---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah hashimah, common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the complainant then injured through firing and causing firearm injuries to two other persons---Report was lodged by the deceased while he was in an injured condition and, therefore, the same carried the legal status of a dying declaration---Deceased did not expire on the day of occurrence but succumbed to his injuries on the following day---Such circumstance, by itself, reasonably indicated that at the time of his arrival at the hospital, his condition was not so critical as to render him incapable of making a statement---Had condition of deceased been immediately life-threatening, he would have either died at the spot or shortly after reaching the hospital---Scribe categorically stated that the injured was brought to the hospital; that the report was recorded in his presence, and that the contents thereof were read over to the deceased and verified in the presence of one of the eye-witnesses---Said witness was confronted in cross-examination on the issue of mental orientation of the deceased or capacity to speak---No suggestion was put to said witness that the injured was unconscious, disoriented or incapable of making a coherent statement---Similarly, the Medical Officer, who initially examined the deceased, was questioned regarding the arrival and medical examination of the injured---However, the defence failed to extract anything from his cross-examination which could establish that the deceased was unfit to make a statement---Neither it was suggested that the injured was in a state of shock, unconsciousness, or medically unfit to communicate---Prosecution was under an obligation to establish the authenticity and reliability of a dying declaration; it was equally incumbent upon the defence to challenge such evidence effectively if it sought to discredit it---In the present case, although the prosecution produced both the scribe and the Medical Officer and explained the circumstances in which the report was recorded and the injured was examined, but the defence failed to bring on record any material which could create doubt regarding the capacity of the deceased to speak or understand---Present case, however, did not rest solely upon the dying declaration---Rather, it stood fortified by the testimony of three independent eye-witnesses who appeared before the Trial Court, and were subjected to extensive cross-examination, and successfully established their presence at the spot---Presence of said witnesses was further corroborated by the fact that some of them sustained injuries in the same transaction, thereby lending intrinsic reliability to their version---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs WALI MUHAMMAD Ss — 2026 YLR 1255 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR