Zulfiqar Khan vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 142 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Zulfiqar Khan VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged for making indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and one person sustained firearm injury---In the FIR, appellant had been ascribed specific role of causing pistol fire shot hitting on the head of deceased when he was turning back---Complainant in his examination-in-chief although had stated the same story but injured in his examination-in-chief stated that the first fire was made by accused with his pistol which landed on the back side of his head while he was turning back and he fell down---From the said version of the injured, it was clear that he did not name the person on whose head the injury was caused by appellant whereas as per story put forth in the FIR and the statement of complainant/ eye-witness, deceased had received the injury on his head---Thus, it remained shrouded in mystery that as per statement of injured as to who had caused injury to deceased on his head---Had injured been present at the time and place of occurrence, there should not be such like contradiction in his statement rather he had to make his statement in line with the prosecution case---As per prosecution's own case, appellant made a straight fire shot which hit injured on his chest---Although complainant in his examination-in-chief had narrated the same story but injured in his examination-in-chief had changed the role of appellant who caused him fire shot injury---From the perusal of the statement of injured, it was clearly established that injured had changed the role of appellant of causing him fire arm injury by stating that the appellant made fire shot which hit him at his back whereas the prosecution case was that appellant made straight fire shot which hit injured on his chest---Besides the contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, they had also made certain dishonest and substantial improvements in their statements---From the contradictions as well as dishonest improvements of complainant and injured, it appeared that if these witnesses of ocular account were present on the spot then they did not have to make dishonest improvements in their statements in such amanner to strengthen the prosecution case---Such flaws, contradictions and improvements in the statements of said witnesses created doubts in the prosecution story---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Zulfiqar Khan vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 142 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR