AJDAR vs RAZIMAND Ss — 2026 YLR 254 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.

AJDAR VS RAZIMAND Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential--- Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant--- Record showed that weapon of offence i.e. a .30 bore pistol, was allegedly recovered on the pointation of the accused/respondent vide recovery memo--- Marginal witness to the recovery memo had stated in his examination-in-cross that the place wherefrom the alleged recovery of pistol had been made was commonly used by the inmates of the house of one "AK", therefore, when the place of recovery of weapon of offence was admittedly neither an abandoned place nor a hidden one rather an open place then how for such long period it remained unnoticed and not spotted by anyone, as such, this element alone made the very recovery of weapon of offence doubtful--- Same was the case with another alleged weapon of offence i.e. a .30 bore pistol, allegedly used by the other accused--- First of all, said pistol was not recovered on the pointation of the said accused/respondent, rather it was produced to the police by son of the accused/respondent--- It was evident from the recovery memo that during the course of spot inspection, the Investigation Officer had recovered two empty shells from the venue of crime--- Forensic Science Laboratory Report was also not in line with the version of the prosecution qua the recovery of weapon of offence, whereby, it was reported that the two crime empties, allegedly recovered from the motorcar vide the recovery memo, were fired from pistol and not from the pistol in question--- Therefore, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report was of no use to the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/respondent, which had rightly been disbelieved and discarded by the Trial Court through the impugned order/judgment of acquittal--- Even otherwise, when substantive evidence failed to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or was disbelieved, corroborative evidence was of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence could not by itself prove the prosecution's case--- Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

AJDAR vs RAZIMAND Ss — 2026 YLR 254 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR