Dildar vs State Chance witness, evidence of — 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 Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---If testimony of the witnesses of ocular account, who are chance witnesses, remains uncorroborated, then it is highly unsafe to rely upon their testimony. Citation Name: 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Dildar VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his real brother/husband of complainant by firing---Complainant while lodging report alleged that motive for the crime was constituted due to dispute over landed property but the same could not be proved at the trial despite giving her opportunity of producing the copy of report or investigation conducted in the matter---Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the motive through confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Dildar VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence contradicting prosecution's case---Accused was charged for committing murder of his real brother/husband of complainant by firing---According to initial report the deceased alleged to have received multiple injuries on different parts of his body without specifying that on which parts of his body he had receivedinjuries, however, the Medical Officer while conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had found seven (07) firearm entry wounds with six (06) corresponding exits, while the Investigating Officer had statedly recovered five (05) empties from the spot---According to site planposition the distance between the deceased and the appellant was shown to have been five (05) feet away from each other, however, a glance over the postmortem report divulged that no charring marks were found on any of the injuries, which aspect of the case created reasonable doubt about commission of the offence---Besides, the Medical Officer admitted that blackening could be found within the range of six (06) feet---Besides, there was also inconsistency between the inquest report and the postmortem report as according to the inquest report, duly endorsed by the Medical Officer, total nine (09) injuries were found on the body of deceased while according to postmortem report, conducted by Medical Officer, thirteen (13) injuries were found on the body of deceased---All the said discrepancies when taken in juxtapositionwith the contents of FIR created reasonable doubt, benefit of which would have to be extended to the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Dildar vs State Chance witness, evidence of — 2026 YLR 766 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR