Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 285 2026 SLD 285 = 2026 SCMR 47

Jail Petition No. 479 of 2019, decided on 26th September, 2025. (On appeal against the judgment dated 26.06.2019 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 292-P of 2015).
Presented By: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for the Complainant. Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General KPK for the State. Date of hearing: 26th September, 2025.

IMRAN ---Petitioner

VERSUS

The STATE ---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 34

  (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant--Motive behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute regarding amount of cement blocks between the deceased and the accused---Motive was jointly alleged against petitioner and co-accused that they had a dispute with deceased regarding an amount of cement blocks----It was not brought on the record as to whether deceased had to pay any amount to the petitioner and his co-accused or the petitioner had to pay any amount to the deceased---It was not stated that who out of the two (02) accused or the deceased was running the business of sale and purchase of cement blocks---Rather complainant admitted during his cross-examination that neither the deceased nor the accused were having any business of blocks---Specific amount, which was the bone of contention between the parties, had also not been brought on the record---Vague and ambiguous motive was alleged by the prosecution witnesses---Petitioner was a minor of the age of 17 years, at the time of occurrence, therefore, it was not expected that he was running the alleged business at such a tender age---Thus, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in this case against the petitioner---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Recovered weapon and empties sent together for forensics---Effect---Petitioner-accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that a pistol was recovered at the pointing out of the petitioner and the positive repot of Forensic Science Laboratory was on the file--Notable that the empties and the pistol were…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register