SULTANI ROOM vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 327 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.

SULTANI ROOM VS STATE Ss. 302(b) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Prosecution's case hinged upon the testimonies of two witnesses as well as the ocular-account furnished by another eye-witness of the occurrence---One of the eye-witness in his examination-in-chief almost reiterated the same facts as advanced in the 'Murasila' followed by the FIR lodged by the complainant, qua the effective role of committing the murder of the deceased, by the accused/appellant, by firing at him through his Kalashnikov and that too inside the premises of his house---Said witness had come up with a very straight-forward and natural narrations of the occurrence in terms that on the fateful day he in the company of other witness, accompanied the deceased, in order to bring the female witness to the house of her parents and at the relevant time they were sitting in the Baitak/guest room and upon hearing the sound of quarrel as well as pursuant to the call of female eye-witness when they went inside the house they saw the accused/appellant, while being duly armed with Kalashnikov started firing at victim, as a result of it, he got hit and died on the spot---Said witness was cross-examined at considerable length by the defence, however, the probative worth of his testimony qua the effective role of committing the murder of the deceased could not be shattered---Same was the case with the testimony of another eye-witness of the occurrence, i.e. female witness---Said witness in her examination-in-chief deposed almost the same narrations of the occurrence as advanced by eye-witness, qua the murder of the deceased, committed by nobody else but her real husband, therefore, this element alone excluded all possibilities of consultations or deliberations on the part of the complainant-party qua implication of the accused/appellant as a single accused in the case in hand---Though, complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, however his account furnished in the Court was adamant of the fact that the deceased, in the company of other eye-witnesses, went to the house of the accused/appellant in order to pick the other female witness---Prosecution also made reliance on the account of another female witness, who in her examination-in-chief had put-forward the purpose of the visit of the complainant party to the house of the accused/appellant---Complainant as well as the eye-witness were cross-examined at a substantial length, however, nothing favourable to the accused/appellant could be extracted from their mouths qua the presence of the deceased and other eye-witnesses at the venue of crime i.e. the house of the accused/appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed.

SULTANI ROOM vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 327 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR