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---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Motive alleged by the prosecution was the existence of previous criminal litigation between the parties---However, this assertion remained unsubstantiated---Not a single FIR, challan, judgment, rapat, or even a simple police roznamcha entry was brought on record to establish any hostility---Motive, therefore, remained completely unproved---Even otherwise, where the ocular account was unreliable and the circumstantial evidence was weak, failure to prove motive would become an additional and serious setback for the prosecution---If direct evidence was doubtful and motive was not established, the prosecution case could not stand---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to the accused. Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of five hours in lodging the FIR---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and one other person through firing---Record indicated that the incident occurred on 19-03-2022 at approximately 01:45 pm inside the shop situated in the main bazaar---First Information Report however, was lodged at 06:10 pm on the same day, reflecting a delay of about five hours---According to the prosecution, the deceased were inside the shop, whereas the complainant and real brother of the deceased and a relative of both the complainant and the deceased were present outside, allegedly engaged in the maintenance of a jeep---Statements of eye-witnesses, recorded before the trial Court, attempted to justify the delay in lodging the FIR---Said witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, claimed to have been outside shop at the time of the incident---According to said witnesses, immediately after the occurrence, they, along with other persons who had gathered at the scene, transported the injured deceased to hospital, located nearby---Complainant stated that he was Class-IV employee in hospital, while relative of deceased and complainant was a medical technician---Said witnesses further stated that first aid was administered at hospital before the deceased was shifted to other hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries en-route---Despite acknowledging that the police station was on the route, the witnesses admitted that they did not report the incident to the police---Said witnesses further acknowledged that their hands, clothes, and the jeep were smeared with the blood of the deceased, yet none of those were produced to the police---No medical chit, during investigation, treatment record, or any documentary evidence from hospital was produced, nor was any Medical Officer from the hospital examined---Complainant also failed to provide a description of the weapon of offence in the FIR---Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, combined with those omissions, contradictions, and the non-production of material evidence, seriously undermined the prosecution's case---Substantial and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicion, as it allowed opportunity for consultation, deliberation, and potential embellishment---In the present case, this delay gained further significance considering the complainant's own statement that the deceased had previous enmity with the appellant---In such circumstances, the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities casted serious doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prosecution case, particularly on the allegation of a premeditated act of violence by 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