MUHAMMAD UMAR vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ S — 2026 YLR 952 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.

MUHAMMAD UMAR VS MUHAMMAD AYAZ S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by firing---Admittedly, the house of the complainant was made of mud---However, it was observed through photographs on record, that wall had been shown which was made of bricks and had dots of bullet marks, which made the case of prosecution doubtful and reflected that the occurrence was the result of cross firing or that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as narrated by the witnesses---Version of the complainant was that both the accused had made firing---No doubt the effective shot had been attributed to the present appellant but when the 16 empties of 7.62 bore were shown recovered, it transpired through Forensic Science Laboratory that the same were fired from one and the same 7.62 bore weapon---Another aspect of the case was that the deceased died there and then on the spot, and apparently was supposed to have been shifted to the police station but instead the dead body of the deceased had been shifted to hospital---Moreover, the time of death was observed as 13.03.2015 at about 09:30 hours while report was recorded in the hospital at about 10:30 a.m.---Police station and the hospital were almost close to each other and when column of the FIR was observed, the house of the complainant had been shown at a distance of 16/17 kilometers from the police station---Thus the report was recorded in the hospital instead of police station at 10:30 a.m.---Admittedly, the place of occurrence i.e. the rooftop of the house of the complainant had no boundary walls so there was no reason for the accused to have made firing from the open plot; if they had the intention to kill the deceased they could have easily made firing from their houses as according to the site plan the house of acquitted co-accused and appellant were adjacent to each other and were close to rooftop where the deceased was hit---It was observed from the cross-examination and the site plan that at the time of firing it was impossible for the complainant and the eye-witness to identify that whose shot hit the deceased---Thus, it meant that when there was an orchard of trees then it was impossible for the complainant and eye-witness to have identified that whose shot hit the deceased---If the accused were interested in killing the deceased, then they could have easily killed him at the time of praying in the mosque or on way to the mosque or on way back to the house---Therefore, mode and manner in which the alleged occurrence had been shown to have taken place did not appeal to a prudent mind---Thus, it further confirmed that occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner and the actual mode and manner had been concealed by the complainant party, which adversely effected the prosecution story---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD UMAR vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ S — 2026 YLR 952 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR