AJMAL vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 1290 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.

AJMAL VS STATE Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence contradicting the ocular account---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---According to all three ocular witnesses, the firing was done with a 12-bore firearm---Eye-witness specifically stated in cross-examination that two 12-bore cartridges were recovered from the scene one from inside the shop and one from outside---Said testimony suggested that the homicide was committed with a shotgun---However, the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem stated that he retrieved two metallic bullets from the bodies of each deceased, one from the inguinal region and another from the medial thigh area---A .12-bore shotgun, being a smooth-bore weapon, did not discharge metallic bullets; it fired pellets or, at most, a slug, but not metallic jacketed bullets---Such medical finding was, therefore, entirely inconsistent with the prosecution's claim that a 12-bore firearm was used---In a case of murder, where the type of weapon was a crucial factor, contradictory medical evidence completely weakened the prosecution's stance---Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not establish from where precisely the empty cartridges were recovered, nor did he prepare any sketch or measurement---There was no explanation for how metallic bullets were found in the bodies while only 12-bore empties were recovered---Said omissions were not minor; they strike at the heart of the prosecution case and demonstrated that the story of the eye-witnesses did not align with scientific and medical realities---When medical evidence directly conflicted with the ocular account and when the prosecution failed to resolve the inconsistency, the benefit would necessarily go to the accused---Here, the contradiction was not trivial; it was fundamental and structural, affecting the entire prosecution edifice---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of complainant---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Complainant did not accompany the Investigation Officer to the spot at the time of the site inspection, nor did he point out any place or mark of the occurrence---Investigation Officer conceded during cross-examination that the complainant was not present at the time of the site inspection---It further appeared from the prosecution evidence that material evidence, including the jeep allegedly involved and the blood-stained garments of the eye-witnesses smeared with the blood of the deceased, was never produced---Complainant admitted that his brother and other relatives of the witnesses did not communicate with one another before the occurrence, did not exchange any words and were not present with the Medical Officer during the preparation of the post-mortem report---Such conduct was wholly unnatural for a real brother of one of the deceased, who claimed to be eye-witness---Natural eye-witness, in such direct circumstances, would have insisted on accompanying the Investigation Officer to guide him regarding the precise details of the incident---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

AJMAL vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 1290 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR