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---Withholding testimony of material witness---Adverse presumption---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Place of occurrence was situated in a busy commercial market---Site plan showed that the shop was surrounded by several other shops, a hotel, and a bank---Yet, not a single independent witness, including shopkeepers, vendors, passers-by, or residents, was produced to corroborate the prosecution version---More significantly, the prosecution withheld the testimony of the owner of the shop where the occurrence allegedly took place---Said owner was the most natural and independent witness, yet he was not produced at trial---Statement of said shop owner under S.161, Cr.P.C had been recorded---When this statement was read, it transpired that said shop owner did not support the version advanced by the prosecution---On the contrary, statement of said witness contradicted the prosecution narrative and revealed that complainant and his brother were not present at the spot at the relevant time---Furthermore, the record revealed that at the relevant time the witness/shop owner was positioned underneath a vehicle, a fact clearly reflected in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C---In that statement, he categorically stated that due to being under the vehicle he could neither see the surrounding situation nor observed who fired the shots---Withholding of such material evidence, which constituted the best evidence capable of establishing the truth, together with the unnatural conduct of the eye-witnesses, casted grave doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Allegedly, a motorcycle and two empty 12-bore shells were recovered from the spot, as well as one pellet from a wooden box at the place of occurrence, which were recorded; however, the appellant was not arrested until 31.05.2022, more than two months after the incident---Purported recovery of a 12-bore and a 30-bore pistol from the house of the appellant, neither of which were in his personal possession and both were unlicensed, raised further doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution version---From a forensic standpoint, no evidence was produced to establish that the recovered firearms or ammunition were actually used in the commission of the crime---Similarly, no independent forensic report, ballistic analysis, or fingerprint examination was made available to corroborate the recovery---Absence of such crucial forensic verification rendered the evidentiary value of these items highly questionable---From a circumstantial perspective, the chain of events linking the appellant to the recovered items was weak and uncorroborated---Delay in the arrest, the lack of immediate recovery from the accused's personal possession and the absence of independent witnesses or documentation to support the recovery, all weakened the prosecution narrative---Reliance on circumstantial evidence required a complete chain of facts connecting the accused to the offence beyond reasonable doubt---In the present case, the missing links in the forensic and circumstantial evidence raised doubts regarding the involvement of the appellant---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