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), 302(c) & 210---Qatl-i-amd, causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Spur of the moment occurrence---No premeditation to murder---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by firing---Record showed that there was an ordinate delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police despite the fact that as per version of the prosecution the complainant was informed well within time by the eye-witness, through his mobile phone from the alleged occurrence of the murder of the deceased, therefore, he was under statutory obligation to inform the local police with utmost promptitude, however, as per available record, the prosecution could not furnish any plausible explanation qua the delay of one hour in reporting the matter to the local police---It was evident from the bare perusal of the record that the most important and relevant eye-witness of the occurrence was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, an inference could be drawn within the meaning of Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had he been produced he would have not supported the case of prosecution---In the present case, the testimony of female witness was of no legal worth for the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/appellant, as her name had neither been mentioned in the 'Murasila' followed by the FIR nor she had been cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence in the site plan---There was also in field the delayed statement of the said female witness, whose testimony could be of paramount importance to the case of prosecution as she was nobody else but the real wife of the accused/appellant and aunt of the deceased---Other than this, the prosecution had not been able to bring on record motive that why the accused/appellant was all-out to kill the deceased and that too inside the premises of his house rather the motive as set-up by the prosecution in the form of verbal altercation prima facie suggested that the occurrence might have taken place at the spur of the moment, therefore, prima facie, it seemed that the accused/appellant was having no premeditation or intention to kill the deceased---Such minor weaknesses might be considered for reduction of the sentence---Similarly, in eventuality when an accused person committed an offence without any premeditation or planning and in the heat of a free-fight struck the deceased with a single blow the case of accused would come within clause (c) of S.302, P.P.C---Conviction of accused recorded under S.302(b), P.P.C, was altered to one under S.302(c), P.P.C---Consequently, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was reduced to ten years imprisonment---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was partially allowed, in circumstances.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR