Dildar vs State S — 2026 YLR 766 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.

Dildar VS State S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Delay in sending of case property to laboratory for analysis---Delayed sending of case property to Forensic Science Laboratory would depreciate the evidentiary value of such piece of evidence and make it unsafe to be relied upon, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report as the possibility of substitution of the empties as well as crime weapon could not be ruled out. Citation Name: 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Dildar VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient, the acquit an accused. Citation Name: 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Dildar VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Justification for the presence of eye-witness, at the spot not proved---Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his real brother/husband of complainant by firing---In her report, the complainant stated that after receipt of injuries her husband had died at the spot while during her examination-in-chief she deposed that her husband died after half an hour of receiving injuries---However, when confronted with the said discrepancy complainant admitted to have not disclosed in her initial report about aliveness of her husband for half an hour---Contradiction in the statement of star witness raised finger towards his presence at the crime spot---During the course of her cross-examination the complainant admitted that her brother-in-law was having a vehicle with him at the time of commission of the offence, if so, then for what they remained at the crime spot for such a long time i.e. half an hour and did not opt to shift the injured to the hospital within time instead of waiting till last breath of the deceased at the crime spot---Furthermore, the complainant also admitted that place of occurrence was situated on link road, which was a public place, however, astonishingly except her and the two alleged witnesses none else was present at the spot, moreso, when the occurrence was stated to have taken place in the broad day light---Besides, complainant herself had negated her said stance in the next line of her cross-examination by deposing that many people had gathered at the crime spot after the occurrence and when questioned she admitted as correct that none of them could be produced at the trial, thus, possibility of her being achance witness could not be ruled out of consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Dildar vs State S — 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR