STATE vs AFTAB KHAN Double presumption of innocence — 2026 YLR 1345 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.

STATE VS AFTAB KHAN Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Acquittal carried with it double presumption of innocence; it could be reversed only when found blatantly perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage of justice---Acquittal could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contrary view. Ss. 302(b), 114 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when the offence was committed, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---In his cross-examination, complainant stated that eye-witnesses were his close relatives---One of the witnesses was having a business of poultry, whereas other witness was driver by profession and likewise complainant was working as teacher in Madrassa, therefore, presence of all those three witnesses at the venue of crime and that too at the same time, was not appealable to a sane mind, as otherwise, they should have been busy in their respective professions instead of enjoying a get-together on a working day in a public thoroughfare---There was also an admission on part of complainant that he was imparting religious education to children of the locality at Madrassa from 08:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and on the day of occurrence he went out of the Madrassa and came to the spot of occurrence, however, in subsequent part of his cross-examination he admitted that the Madrassa and his house were poles apart from each other, therefore, complainant could not put-forward any logical and plausible explanation qua his presence on the spot at the relevant time---Likewise, the other alleged eye-witness of the occurrence deposed in his cross-examination that the accused had spotted them (complainant-party) at the time of firing, however, they had been spared and amongst the set of four accused, two of them were present on the spot for surveillance---Said witness also added that the complainant-party was not armed with firearms at the relevant time and as a whole 12 fire-shots had been made---However, such narrations of alleged eye-witness were not appealable to a prudent mind because if complainant-party was present on the spot being empty-handed, then why the accused-party spared them to depose against them in Court, especially, when one of them was none else but real brother of deceased, therefore, the story advanced by eye-witness was illogical and unnatural---Said witness also admitted in his cross-examination that except one accused, the other three members of accused-party were his cousins and with whom they had land dispute, therefore, the alleged mala fide of said eye-witness against accused-party was not out of question---In such circumstances, Trial Court had rightly disbelieved testimonies of these alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence being contradictory in nature---Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed in limine. Appeal against acquittal---Scope---Acquittal could not be reversed merely because another view was possible---Interference was justified only where the acquittal judgment was patently perverse and resulted in miscarriage of justice.

STATE vs AFTAB KHAN Double presumption of innocence — 2026 YLR 1345 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR