SAQIB vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 397 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.

SAQIB VS STATE S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Justification for the presence of witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Brother of complainant was eye-witness of the occurrence---If the brother of complainant had seen the appellant having fired at the deceased, why he didn't inform at least son-in-law of complainant, let alone other people present there---Purpose of the presence of the son-in-law of complainant near the spot in a Market might appear to be somewhat justified because, as per his version, he was on 28 days long leave during those days---However, the purpose of presence of brother of complainant was not clear in his statement---So, it was shrouded in mystery for what purpose he was present there---Said witness was the real uncle of the deceased---During cross-examination, said witness was confronted with his statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C.---Said witness recalled that in his S.161 statement, he stated before the Investigating Officer that father of the deceased came back, along with his son-in-law and other relatives to the spot---When asked about the presence of son-in-law, brother of complainant replied that son-in-law had reached the spot before his arrival there---Son-in-law was present at the spot right at the time of the occurrence but the latter, did not mention that brother of complainant was also present and moreso, he was the eye-witness of the occurrence---In such circumstances, material dents were visible in the evidence of the prosecution---Name of the eye-witness was not mentioned in the Murasila despite the fact that the complainant came to know about the so called eye-witness/brother of complainant---Eye-witness did not state the purpose of his presence on the scene of the incident---Admittedly, said witness was the real uncle of the victim---There was no doubt of said witness being a highly interested witness---In the circumstances, possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

SAQIB vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 397 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR