Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 1795 2025 SLD 1795 = 2025 YLR 233
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 661-P of 2018, decided on 30th December, 2022.
Before Lal Jan Khattak and Sahibzada Asadullah, JJ
Mohammad Sajid Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Riaz Khan, A.A.G. for the State. Hayat Ullah Khan for the Complainant.

FAZAL KHALIQ---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Common intention not proved--Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---According to the complainant, both the accused i.e. the convict appellant and the acquitted co-accused were armed with sophisticated weapons---Surprisingly when the accused had the common intention and when they were in possession of deadly weapons, then question was what precluded them to eliminate the abandoned eye-witness, the injured witness and the deceased as well---Such particular aspect of the case was indicative of the fact that neither the accused came to the spot with the common intention nor the purpose was to eliminate the complainant side---Moreover, it could not be ignored that the deceased received a solitary injury on his forehead and the injured witness a single lacerated wound---If intention was to do away with the complainant side then there was hardly an occasion for the witnesses to escape unhurt, as the assailants were in full control of the situation, that too, having sophisticated weapons in their possession---When prosecution had failed to convince the Court regarding the preplanning, premeditation and preconcert on part of the accused, then there lurked no doubt that the incident occurred at spur of the moment---When common intention was not established from the record, then every accused was to be held responsible for his individual act and in that eventuality, it was for the prosecution to tell as to which of the accused caused which injury---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Maqsood Pervez alias Billa and another v. The State 2000 SCMR 1859 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also caused firearm injuries to his father---During spot inspection, the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register