Aqal Zeb Vs The State& others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

MINGORA BENCH

(Judicial Department) Cr.A No. 69-M/2024 With M.R. No. 01-M/2024 Aqal Zeb son of Raza Khan (Appellant) Versus State & others (Respondents) Present: M/S Aurangzeb Khan & Hafiz Ashfaq Ahmad, ASCs, for appellant/ convict.

Mr. Haq Nawaz Khan, Astt: A.G, for State.

Mr. Irshad Khan, AHC, for respondent/ complainant.

Dates of hearing: 15.7.2025

JUDGMENT

SALAH-UD-DIN, J.- Appellant namely Aqal Zeb has called in question order/judgment of his conviction and sentence, passed by learned Sessions Judge/ Zila Qazi, Buner at Daggar, dated 05.3.2024, rendered in case FIR No. 462 dated 14.5.2022, registered U/S 302 PPC, R/W section 15-AA at P.S Daggar, District Buner, whereby upon conclusion of a full-fledged trial, he was convicted and sentenced as follows: -

17.Consequently, in wake of above set of affairs, the prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused facing trial without any reasonable doubt for the murder of deceased Noor Muhammad by firing at him by accused facing trial Aqal Zeb, accordingly he is found guilty for the offence U/S 302(b) PPC. So far as sentencing is concerned, there are no Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

extenuating circumstance to justify awarding of lesser punishment. Resultantly, accused Aqal Zeb is, hereby, awarded with the sentence of death under section 302(b) of Pakistan Penal Code as Tazir. Convict Aqal Zeb be hanged from the neck till he is dead and has been confirmed to be dead by the Medical Officer in the presence of Judicial Magistrate on-duty in Jail, subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble PHC, Mingora Bench (Dar- ul-Qaza), Swat. The convict is further sentenced to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Ten Lac Rupees) to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. The entire amount of compensation, if realized, be paid to the legal heirs of deceased in terms of section 544-A of the Cr. PC.

18.Prosecution also established the guilt of the accused with regard to S.15 AA through unimpeachable ocular & documentary evidence as accused was arrested with weapon of offence i.e. 30 bore pistol and hecould not produce its valid license. As such, he is convicted U/S 15 AA and sentenced to three years RI with fine of Rs. 20.000/- (Twenty Thousand Rupees) or in default thereof, to suffer three months SI.

19.Both the sentences awarded to the accused shall run concurrently and he is also extended to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr. PC. The accused is also given the copy of judgment free of cost and to this effect his thum impression was obtained on the margin of order sheet.

2.Arguments of learned counsel for parties as well as learned Addl: A.G for State were heard and requestioned record gone through with their valuable assistance.

3.As per prosecution story, local police under command and supervision of Khurshid Ali Khan, ASI, attracted to Daggar hospital pursuant to receipt of prior information, wherein the then injured Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

now deceased namely Noor Muhammad in presence of doctor-in-duty namely Amjad Ali and his cousin namely Farman Ali reported the matter to them, in the emergency ward of Daggar hospital. It was alleged in the report that on the day of occurrence, he (complainant) along with his uncle have come to the Daggar Courts in connection with Court proceedings. After appearance in the Court, they have been waiting in car parking of Purana Malook Abad, waiting for arrival of the vehicle, in the meanwhile, accused namely Aqal Zeb (appellant herein), while being duly equipped with pistol came there and made firing at him. Due to firing of accused, complainant got hit on right side of his ribs.

In addition to complainant, subject occurrence was witnessed by cousin of the complainant namely Farman Ali. Motive qua commission of offence was disclosed to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties. In view of report of injured/complainant “Murasila” (Ex. PW-8/2) which culminated into ibid FIR (Ex. PA) registered U/S 324 PPC against present appellant at P.S concerned. On the fateful day within a span of few hours, the complainant/ Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

injured succumbed to his injury at Daggar hospital, therefore, section 302 PPC was added to the already chalked-out FIR.

4.Without any exaggeration, it is an admitted fact on both ends that we have a single accused in our sight i.e. present appellant namely Aqal Zeb, who has singularly been charged for committing the murder of deceased then injured namely Noor Muhammad. There was also a specific motive in field which was stated to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties and in-fact on the day of occurrence both the rival parties have come to the premises of Daggar Courts in connection with their Court proceedings. It is also part of record that both the parties were known to each other due to existence of previous motive, therefore, prima facie, there was no zero chance of mis-identification or false implication on part of the complainant-party.

5.In order to prove their charge against present appellant, prosecution has relied upon ocular-account of Farman Ali, who was examined in Court as PW-12, dying declaration of deceased then injured Noor Muhammad and in support thereof, as a Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

first responder in the hospital Dr. Amjad Ali was examined in Court as PW-2, along with Khurshid Ali Khan, ASI, as PW-11. Prosecution has also been relying upon other circumstantial evidence in the shape of certain recoveries along with matching FSL report, in respect of weapon of offence i.e. a .30-bore pistol.

6.First & foremost, we would take dying declaration of deceased then injured for discussion.

Dying declaration was previously governed U/S 32 of Evidence Act, 1972. In Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 relevant provision thereof is Article 46, which provides that statement of a person who is dead is relevant if it relates to a circumstance which resulted in his death and is admissible in proceedings wherein cause of his death is a matter-in-issue. A dying declaration, being last words of a dying person, is an exception to hearsay rule, may be admitted as evidence in criminal law . Rationale is that someone, who is dying or believes death to be imminent, would have less incentive to fabricate testimony. No doubt, superior Courts have held that dying declaration is a weak type of evidence which Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

requires deep scrutiny with great care and caution but on the other hand it is also a settled proposition of law that a dying declaration can be considered as a substantive piece of evidence if Court is satisfied about its genuineness and authenticity. Thus, dying declaration is required to be considered on case-to- case basis in view of attending circumstances of each case and, if found genuine, may be relied upon against an accused person. Question that when can conviction of an accused person be based on dying declaration of a dead person, guiding principles in this regard have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in a good number of cases, however, reference can be made to case titled “Farman Ullah Vs. Qadeem Khan and another” (2001 SCMR 1474). Law enunciated in respect of a dying declaration in ibid judgement can be enumerated as under: -

(i)No specified forum is available before whom dying declaration is required to be made;

(ii)There is no bar that it cannot be made before a private person;

(iii)There is no legal requirement that the declaration must be read over or it must be signed by its maker;

(iv)It should be influence free;

(vi)In order to prove such declaration, the person by whom it was recorded should be examined;

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

(vii)Such declaration becomes substantive evidence when it is proved that it was made by the deceased;

(viii)Corroboration of dying declaration is not a rule of law, but requirement of prudence and such declaration when proved by cogent evidence can be made a base for conviction.

Likewise, in case titled “Muhammad

Saeed & another v/s State & another” reported as 2024 SCMR 1421, in respect of utility and relevancy of dying declaration, in context of peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case has held as under: -

“That under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the sanctity of a dying declaration has to be evaluated with great care and caution and the evidence consisting of dying declaration has to be appreciated with due diligence. dying declaration is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. To find out truth or falsity of a dying declaration, a case is generally to be considered in all its physical environment and circumstances. A dying declaration can be made before a private person but it should be free from any influence and the person before whom it is made has to be examined. It is necessary to ascertain that the dying declaration was made honestly, its maker was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, its maker was free from outside influence, its maker was fearing death and had made truthful statement In support of same rational, further

reliance can also made to case law titled “Muhammad Abdullah v/s Muhammad Sapdar

Khan & another” reported as 1973 SCMR 26 and case titled “Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen & another v/s State & another” reported as 1996

SCMR1747.

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

7.In context of the case in hand, the deceased then injured namely Noor Muhammad was brought to Daggar hospital by of officials of Rescue 1122, in severe injured condition. Initially, as a first responder, he was examined by Dr. Amjad Ali, PW-

2.As per his report in the form of injury sheet, Ex.

PW-2/1, he found the following wounds on the body of deceased then injured: -

(i)An entrance wound of 1 inch on left side of chest with inverted edges and fresh bleeding. Bullet is felt on back left side under the skin.

(ii)First aid given and referred to main OT from where, the patient was referred to tertiary care. X-ray chest advised and referred to radiologist for opinion. He has also issued consciousness

certificate, Ex. PW-2/2, along with endorsement of radiologist as Ex. PW-2/3. In his examination-in- chief, he deposed that the deceased then injured Noor Muhammad was brought to hospital by rescue 1122 on 14.5.2022 at 11:10 hours (a.m.). It was also specifically deposed by doctor concerned in his observatory statement that after provision of first-aid the deceased then injured was referred to Operation Theater (O.T.) for tertiary care. He was cross- examined at a substantial length, however, he remained stick to his stance in terms that the injured Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

was brought to hospital at 11:10 hours. He also deposed that he had consumed 30 minutes on examination of the injured and thereafter straight- away he was referred to surgical ward due to his critical condition. In his cross-examination, PW-2 was not confronted with the fact that as to whether the deceased then injured was able to talk at the relevant time or to as to whether he was well oriented in time and space to lodge his report in the form of a dying declaration, therefore, this crucial aspect of the case remained unrebutted during the course of cross-examination of PW-2. Likewise, Farman Ali, cousin of the deceased then injured, sole eyewitness of the occurrence, was examined in Court as PW-12. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on the day of occurrence, he in the company of deceased then injured Noor Muhammad had come to the Court of Mr. Ihtisham-ul-Haq, learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Buner in connection with Court proceedings. It was also specifically deposed by PW- 12 that he and the deceased then injured Noor Muhammad have been charged by the complainant now appellant for the murder of his brother namely Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Umar Zeb and on that particular date of hearing the case was adjourned due to non-availability of counsels.

He also clarified that after appearance in the Court they have been waiting in the car parking area i.e.

venue of crime for arrival of vehicle, when in the meanwhile, the appellant came there and made resort to firing upon Noor Muhammad, which resulted into his death. Same is the case with statement of Khurshid Ali Khan, ASI, who was examined in Court as PW-8. In his Court statement, he deposed that during the days of occurrence he was posted as In-charge in the casualty of DHQ hospital Daggar.

On the fateful day, he went to the hospital, pursuant to receipt of prior information about shifting of the injured, wherein in his presence the deceased then injured Noor Muhammad had lodged report of the occurrence, which was reduced by him in the shape of “Murasila” Ex. PW-8/2. He also stated that the contents of report were duly explained to the complainant and who after admitting it as correct thumb impressed the same, along with cousin of the complainant namely Farman Ali as its verifier. He also obtained consciousness certificate, Ex. PW-8/1 Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

from on-duty doctor namely Amjad Ali, PW-2. This PW also carved-out the injury sheet of the deceased then injured as PW-8/3. Both these PWs were cross- examined by learned counsel for defence, however, the probative worth of their testimonies qua the effective role of firing upon the injured by present appellant, could not be shattered, in any manner. In view of the above-referred overwhelming evidence of prosecution, dying declaration in the present case cannot be discarded by any stretch of imagination qua guilt of present appellant/accused.

8.During the course of arguments,

learned counsel for appellant laid much stress on the point that the alleged dying declaration of deceased then injured has been recorded before private person i.e. PW-12, who has not only been closely related to the deceased then injured but his very presence in the hospital at the relevant time is disputed, therefore, his testimony has no value or worth in the eyes of law. This objection so raised by learned counsel for appellant had earlier been expounded by Hon’ble apex Court in case titled “Majeed V/s. State” (2010 SCMR 55) by declaring Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

that a dying declaration, if made even before a private person, is free from influence and person before whom such dying declaration was made was examined then it becomes substantive piece of evidence and for that no corroboration is required and such declaration can be made basis of conviction, as such, in light of the rule laid down in afore-referred judgment, corroboration of dying declaration is not a rule of law, but requirement of prudence. In the case in hand, besides dying declaration, which by itself is sufficient to base conviction of appellant, there is also unimpeached ocular account and circumstantial evidence of convincing nature on record, through which prosecution has proved guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Appellant was also known to PW-12 being complainant of the criminal case pending adjudication before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st Buner, wherein he (PW-12) along with deceased then injured were charged as accused, allegedly for committing the murder of brother of complainant now appellant namely Umar Zeb, therefore, the Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

possibility of substitution was next to impossible.

No doubt, PW-12 was close relative of the deceased being his cousin, however, his account cannot be disbelieved on the sole ground of his close relationship with deceased when otherwise he has given a truthful account of occurrence in a straightforward manner nor there was any previous enmity between the parties except the one referred to above or other ulterior motive to charge appellant in a false case. Reliance is placed on “Sajid Mehmood Vs. The State” (2022 SCMR 1882) wherein Hon’ble apex Court has held that: -

“As far as the question that the complainant was brother of the deceased, therefore, his testimony cannot be believed to sustain conviction of the appellant is concerned, it is by now a well-established principle of law that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses unless previous enmity or ill will is established on the record to falsely implicate the accused in the case.

In view of above settled principle,

testimony furnished by PW-12 is worth reliance, irrespective of his close relationship with deceased.

It is not a rule of universal application that a disinterested or independent witness will always tell the whole truth and a related or interested witness will utter only lies before the Court. When Court is Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

satisfied that a witness, though related to deceased or interested in conviction of accused, has told truth then his/her testimony should be accepted without any hesitation.

9.Learned counsel for appellant also argued that if for the sake of arguments it was present appellant who has allegedly committed the murder of the deceased Noor Muhammad due to his previous blood feud enmity between the parties, then why he would spare the alleged eyewitness Of the occurrence namely Farman Ali, knowingly that in future he will depose against him in the Court and his status could at the most be that of a chance witness, therefore, the whole story advanced by the prosecution is not appealable to sanity and sound reason. Such kind of objection had earlier been raised by learned counsel for defence at the time of his arguments before learned trial Court, in response whereof, learned counsel for complainant had produced an attested copy of statement of one Aziz Ullah recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 28 dated 31.01.2021, registered U/Ss 302,324,337-F (iv), 34 PPC at P.S Jowar, wherein it was explicitly Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

deposed by said eyewitness of that particular case that it was the deceased then injured Noor Muhammad who could be saddled for firing upon the deceased brother of present appellant then complainant namely Umar Muhammad, therefore, it prima facie seems that Noor Muhammad was targeted by the appellant in his view of his specific role in terms of firing upon his deceased brother, as such, this objection of learned counsel for appellant hold no water.

10.Now coming to the ocular-account

offered by cousin of the deceased namely Farman Ali. He was examined in Court as PW-12. In his Court statement, he almost reiterated same facts as advanced by deceased then injured Noor Muhammad in his initial report in the shape of “Murasila” followed by ibid FIR. In his cross-examination, he remained firm and consistent on almost all material particulars of the case qua effective role of firing upon the deceased by present appellant. In his cross- examination, he also admitted the factum of attendance of Court proceedings in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Buner in Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

company of deceased then injured, in connection with criminal case bearing FIR No. 28 dated 31.01.2021 registered against him and deceased then injured at P.S Jowar under the charge of section 302 PPC etc. Likewise, this PW also deposed about their arrival to the spot of occurrence .i.e. the car parking of Purana Amlook Abad after Court proceedings, arrival of appellant to the venue of crime and his effective role of firing upon the deceased. Neither any dishonest improvements appear in his statement nor the story advanced by him appears to be unnatural or concocted-one, as such, his testimony has remained un-impeached or un-shattered despite taxing and searching cross-examination by defence counsel. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment rendered in case titled “Aurangzeb v/s State” reported as 2020 SCMR 612, while relying upon eye-witness account of occurrence has observed: -

“Prosecution case is primarily hinged upon ocular account furnished by Haqnawaz (PW-1) and Munir Hussain (PW-2); former is father of the deceased whereas the latter is former's collateral; their close relationship notwithstanding, both of them have plausibly explained purpose of their presence at the crime scene; they had assembled to watch a Kabaddi match, annually held by tradition at a nearby Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

mausoleum. To the extent of role assigned to the petitioner in the crime report, they remained consistent and straightforward; their failure qua the co-accused and complainant's recourse to a supplementary statement in order to nominate unknown assailants, though an embarrassing failure for the prosecution, however, does not tremor its mainstay. Assembly of the accused in the stated numbers, in a festivity, is a possible scenario; they appear to have been let off by the learned trial Court out of abundant caution, an option found by us most expedient in circumstances; their departure does not cast away the case against the petitioner, singularly blamed for the crime.”

Similar observations have also been

recorded by Hon’ble apex Court in case titled “Muhammad Waris v/s The State” reported as “2008 SCMR 784”, in the following words: -

“The explanation offered by the said two eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time had been accepted by the two learned Courts and no reason exists which could persuade us to hold otherwise. Both these P.Ws. were thus, natural and independent witnesses of the occurrence who had been rightly delivered by the two learned Courts. Corroboration is only rule of caution and not a rule of law and if the eye- witness account is found reliable and trustworthy then there is hardly any need to look for any corroboration.”

11.No doubt, there were certain minor

contradictions in statements of PW-2, PW-8, and PW- 12, however, it is equally important to note that these PWs have been examined in Court after more than one-year of the tragic incident and occurring of such minor contradictions as mentioned earlier were quite natural. When witnesses were examined after more than one-year of the occurrence a photographic narration of the occurrence cannot be expected from Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

them. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment rendered in case titled “Khadim Hussain v/s State” reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court 669 has held that creeping of such minor contradictions in testimony of PWs, with passage of time, have been natural and same could easily be ignored. Relevant part of observation of august Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -

"We have also adverted to the contention of learned ASC that various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have not been taken into consideration causing serious prejudice against the appellant. It has been held time and again by this Court that minor contradictions do creep in with the passage of time and can be ignored safely.”

Similarly, in case titled “Muhammad

Ilyas v/s State” reported as 2011 SCMR 460, Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed aforesaid rational of law by observing as under: -

“Contradictions which are not grave in nature can be ignored safely as minor contradictions creep in with passage of time. Merely on the basis of contradictions, statement of a prosecution witness cannot be discarded if corroborated by other incriminating material.” Further reliance in this respect may also be placed on judgment of Hon’ble apex Court rendered in case titled “Zulfiqar Ahmad v/s State” reported as

2011 SCMR 492.

12.Learned counsel for appellant also disputed the very presence of the complainant-party Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

including deceased on the spot, in view of non- recovery of blood therefrom coupled with the fact that if the appellant was having any ill-will or previous motive with the complainant-party then why he would opt to settle his score with them, relatively in a public place situated in thickly populated area. It is part of record that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer namely Nowshed Khan, PW-7 by dint of an application, Ex.

PW-13/7 obtained attested of order sheets of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Buner (consisting of 06 pages). Relevant extracts of order sheet No. 24 dated 14.5.2022 of the Court of learned A.S.J 1st Buner, in case titled “State v/s Farman” of case FIR No. 28 of 2021, are reproduced hereunder for ready refence:-

"Mr. Farman APP for the State present and Complainant in person present. Accused Farman and Noor Muhammad on bail present. As lawyers are not appearing before Court today due to the PHC/Mingora Bench Bar election, therefore, adjourned. PWs are not present. Be summoned afresh for 30.05.2022".

(underline supplied) From above quoted order sheet No. 24

dated 14.5.2022, it is crystal clear that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.5.2022 the appellant then Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

complainant of case FIR No. 28, the deceased then injured Noor Muhammad and Farman Ali

(nominated accused of case FIR No. 28) have attended the Court proceedings, being carried in the Court of learned A.S.J 1st Buner. Thus, in view of this documentary evidence and that too of a Court of competent jurisdiction, which has got a high degree of presumption of sanctity being judicial proceedings, presence of both the rival parties i.e.

appellant and complainant-party including the deceased cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, as per contents of “Murasila” followed by ibid FIR, the occurrence of murder of deceased has taken place on 14.5.2022 at 11:00 hours, whereas the report was lodged to local police just within a span of 10 minutes i.e. at 11:10 hours, therefore, this prompt report excludes all possibility of deliberations and consultations on the part of complainant-party. The matter not ended here, as evident from testimony of PW-4 namely Shamshad Ali, ASI, in particular, card arrest memo, Ex. PW- 4/1, wherein it was specifically deposed by this PW that on the day of occurrence after a hot pursuit he Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

arrested the appellant and from his personal possession he recovered a .30-bore pistol, along with charger having 03 live rounds. Said weapon of offence was taken into possession by the I.O. on the strength of independent recovery memo, Ex. PW- 4/2. Likewise, during the course of investigation, I.O. has recovered a spent bullet of .30-bore vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-10/1, retrieved from the body of deceased then injured. When the aforesaid weapon of offence i.e. a .30-bore pistol recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest and a .30- bore crime empty, have been to the FSL for comparison, the FSL report, Ex. P-Z/1 was indicative of the fact that “30 bore crime empty marked as C was fired from 30 bore pistol No. Nill in question”, therefore, dying declaration of deceased then injured is duly supported by corroboratory and circumstantial evidence.

13.Version of deceased then injured in his dying declaration and ocular account is further corroborated by circumstantial evidence on record.

Medico-legal/post-mortem reports of deceased are in line with prosecution version, whereby medical Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

officer opined that it was a case of firearm injury on right hypochondria (entry wound) with no exist and bullet was stuck and left under skin. Prosecution has discharged its onus in bringing home guilt of appellant beyond shadow of doubt through direct as well as circumstantial evidence, therefore, he was rightly convicted by learned trial Court.

14.Motive part of the case has also been stood proved on record which was stated to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties and in-fact on the day of occurrence both the rival parties have come to the Court of learned A.S.J 1st Buner in connection with their criminal case bearing FIR No.

28, therefore, motive highlighted by prosecution is in complete synchronization with the story put- forward by the deceased then injured in the form of his dying declaration. Even otherwise, law is settled that motive is not the requirement of law and conviction can be recorded even in absence of motive. Reliance in this regard is placed on “Mukhtar Ahmad and others Vs. The State”

(PLD 2004 S.C 563).

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

15.In the last leg of his arguments, learned counsel for appellant argued that only a single shot has been made upon the deceased and if the appellant was having any intention to kill the deceased then injured, he would have definitely repeated the firing, coupled with the fact that appellant has not caused any harm to his accomplice i.e. the eyewitness namely Farman Ali, therefore, this aspect of the case could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence of the appellant from that of major dose of death to life imprisonment. In this respect, suffice it to say, that vital part injury needs no repetition. No doubt, situation would have been altogether different and distinct, if the appellant would have made firing on non-vital part of the body of deceased, then injured, which is not the case here. In this regard, we are fortified to place reliance on the recent judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan, rendered in case titled “Muhammad Kamran v/s State & another” (Criminal Appeal No. 91/2024) decided on 05.5.2025, which judgment has though been approved for reporting, however, the same has not Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

yet been published in journal publication, wherein in respect of the matter-in-issue, the following observations have been made by august Supreme Court of Pakistan:-

“4. The defense's argument that a single shot constitutes a mitigating factor is untenable. Targeting the chest with a firearm is a deliberate act aimed at causing death, not an act done in the heat of passion or without intent to kill. Furthermore, it is no mitigating circumstance to shoot a woman in the chest and then plead for leniency on the basis that only one shot was fired. A single fatal shot to the chest is sufficient to demonstrate lethal intent. The absence of a second shot does not dilute the severity of the crime. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v Muhammad Azam (2005 SCMR 427) wherein it has been held as under:- "Needless to add that in the case where a fire-arm is aimed at the chest of the victim and causes fatal injuries on the said vital area then non repetition of the said act is hardly of any consequence in the matter of determining the quantum of punishment deserved by the assailant."

In this regard, reliance can also be

placed on the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court, rendered in case titled “State v/s Muhammad Yasin Memon alias Yasin Memon & another”

reported as 2011 SCMR 401.

In such a situation, this last resort of

learned counsel for appellant is also regretted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the event in hand.

16.Prosecution has proved its case against appellant beyond shadow of doubt through

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

trustworthy and reliable direct and circumstantial evidence which has properly been appreciated by learned trial Court, hence, conviction of appellant for murder of deceased is not open to any exception.

17.In view of what has been discussed above, instant criminal appeal being devoid of any merits stands dismissed and as a natural corollary impugned conviction and sentence of appellant recorded by learned trial Court through impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024 is upheld and maintained.

18.Murder Refence No. 01-M/2024 is answered in affirmative.

Announced Dt.15.7.2025 Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Nawabwab (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din