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---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Principal reliance of the prosecution in the case was upon the statements of three closely related individuals, the complainant, brother of deceased and a relative of deceased---Said witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, could not be treated as independent eye-witnesses and their presence at the spot had not been established by the circumstances of the case---Evidence of chance or interested witnesses was always treated with caution---When such witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident, their presence must be independently corroborated by circumstances that rendered their testimony credible---In the present case, the prosecution had failed to place any material evidence on record to corroborate the claimed presence of eye-witnesses at the relevant time---During cross-examination, complainant and relative of deceased admitted that they were on duty at hospital, with brother of deceased serving as a medical technician and employed as Class-IV staff---Witness/brother of deceased, who was a driver, was accompanying the complainant at the hospital---Attendance of said witnesses was duly marked in the hospital records, indicating that it was highly improbable that they could have been present at a shop at the relevant time---Further contradictions emerged in the statements of said witnesses---One of the witnesses stated that complainant came to the spot only to deliver milk for his child, directly contradicting complainant's statement in the FIR that they had jointly come for the purpose of vehicle repair---Such a fundamental discrepancy regarding the reason for their presence at the scene seriously undermined the prosecution's version---Said factors demonstrated that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene of the occurrence remained unproved---Testimony of said witnesses could not, therefore, be relied upon without independent corroboration---Said inconsistencies, contradictions and failure to establish presence at the scene rendered the ocular account of three eye-witnesses inherently unreliable---Consequently, the prosecution had failed to establish the presence of its principal eye-witnesses, significantly weakening the foundation of its case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Identity of the accused not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Eye-witnesses claimed that two motorcycles were involved in the incident, and that all the accused, except the appellant, were masked---However, during cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he did not record the colour, make, model, registration number, or any distinguishing features of the motorcycles in the FIR---Investigation Officer also confirmed that neither the murasila nor any other investigation record contained such particulars---In the absence of these essential identifying details, any subsequent claim of recovery became inherently doubtful and artificial, as it could not be reconciled with the omissions in the original report---Credibility of the ocular witnesses was further undermined by their inability to provide any description of the masked assailants---Eye-witnesses did not furnish any information regarding the assailants' approximate height, age, build, complexion, clothing, or mannerisms---Investigation Officer also admitted that no such particulars were recorded in the FIR or the murasila---Said omissions were highly significant, as it was difficult to accept that eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen masked persons firing at them and their loved ones from close range would be unable to describe even basic features or clothing of the assailants---Further, the complainant, in a supplementary statement recorded on 12.04.2022, implicated six additional persons for vicarious liability under S.34 P.P.C and for abetment under S.109 P.P.C, without disclosing the source of his information and without conducting any identification parade---At the time of the original report, the complainant had stated that, except for the appellant, the other three accused were masked---Trial Court subsequently acquitted all other accused, leaving only the present appellant under conviction---Such fact casted a heavy shadow on the credibility of the ocular version---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