HAMEED ULLAH vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 1321 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.

HAMEED ULLAH VS STATE S. 154---First Information Report---Non-mentioning of the names of witnesses in FIR---Not fatal to the prosecution case---First Information Report is not an encyclopedic document and need not contain every detail or name of every witness---Primary purpose of FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and provide a broad outline of the occurrence---Non-mentioning of a witness's name in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if the witness's testimony is otherwise credible and confidence-inspiring. Testimony of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution evidence is tested on the basis of quality of the evidence and not the quantity---Even a single testimony of a witness is sufficient to sustain conviction. Ss. 334, 337-L(2) & 34---Causing shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for causing injuries to the complainant through kicks, fists and sticks---Prosecution case hinged primarily on the testimony of the injured complainant, whose account was direct, consistent and medically corroborated---Injured/ complainant had unequivocally stated that on 03.08.2022, at about 06:45 pm, while proceeding to a shop in village, he was assaulted by the appellants by beating him with kicks, fists and sticks, and specifically, appellant “NU” bit his right ear, causing permanent injury---Complainant's narration was not only coherent but also found support from the testimony furnished by eye-witness whose testimony also appeared to be natural and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence was furnished by Medical Officer, who examined the complainant at THQ Hospital, the same evening---Medical evidence substantiated the complainant's assertion regarding the bite injury and the assault---Site plan as well as the recovery of bloodstained garments further buttressed the prosecution case---Testimony of eye-witness corroborated the complainant's version---Although, the name of the eye-witness was not mentioned the FIR, however, this omission alone did not render his testimony unreliable---In the present case, the eye-witness was examined during trial, subjected to cross-examination, and his account remained unshaken---Said witness had no apparent motive to falsely depose against the accused, and his presence at the scene was natural and well explained---Testimony of said eye-witness, therefore, could not be discarded merely on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR. Injury No.2, i.e. Excoriation mark of the medial canthus of the left eye was concerned, that injury had not been attributed either to the appellant “HU” or to “NU”, therefore, nobody could be convicted and made responsible for the said injury---Section 334, P.P.C applied only when there was dismemberment or permanent loss of a limb or organ---In this case, the ear injury was partial and healed---Therefore, the injury did not meet the legal standard for Arsh under the scheme of S.334 P.P.C---Nonetheless, the injury sustained by the complainant was not trivial, rather it involved a visible and painful wound to the ear, which, although not amounting to Arsh, qualified as hurt attracting penal consequences---In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the injury, the Court found it appropriate to modify the conviction of appellant “NU” from S.334, P.P.C to S.337-A(i), P.P.C, read with S.332, P.P.C---Accordingly, appellant “NU” was directed to pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- to the complainant as Daman---In default of payment, he shall remain in custody until payment of the said amount---As regards appellant “HU”, the prosecution failed to attribute to him any specific act of injury---There was nothing on record demonstrating that “HU” shared a common intention with “NU” to cause the alleged injury---Mere presence at the crime scene or passive involvement was not sufficient to sustain a conviction under the penal law---In the absence of any overt act, shared intent or direct participation in the alleged injury, the benefit of doubt must be extended to appellant “HU”---Thus, the appellant “HU” was accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

HAMEED ULLAH vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 1321 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR