Awal Sher & others Vs Enam Ullah & another

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Cr. A No. 739-P/2025

Awal Sher & others Vs Enam Ullah & another

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 31.03.2026

Appellants by: Mr. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate.

The State by: Mr. Jawad Ali, AAG Respondent/Complainant by Mian Sher Akbar, Advocate.

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Through this single judgment, this court is intending to decide the instant appeal as well as connected Cr.R No. 181-P/2025 titled “Inam Ullah vs Awal Sher & others” as both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lahor, District Swabi delivered in case FIR No. 666 dated

19.08.2021 under section 302/324/34 PPC at police station Tordher, District Swabi whereby, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: -

“Under section 302(b) PPC accused Awal Sher, Farukh Sair, Maaz Ullah and Nizar Ali to rigorous imprisonment for life as Tazir and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) each as compensation to the legal heirs of each deceased within the meaning of section 544-A CrPC recoverable as arrears of land revenue and, in default whereof, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

“Under section 324 PPC accused Awal Sher, Farukh Sair, Maaz Ullah and Nizar Ali to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) each for attempting at the lives of complainant and injured

PW.

All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.PC was extended in favor of the appellants.

2.The prosecution case, as set forth in the FIR, is that on 19.08.2021 injured/complainant Inam Ullah, along another injured Umair son of Atif, while accompanying the dead bodies of Atif Ullah son of Farman Ullah, Abdul Hafeez son of Fazal Bacha and Munsif Ullah son of Farman Ullah, reported the matter to the local police at QHAMC, Nowshera to the effect that he along with injured Atif and deceased was present at the place of occurrence when the accused Farukh Sair, Awal Sher, Maaz Ullah Nizar, duly armed with deadly weapons, arrived and started firing at them as a consequence of the firing of accused Farukh Sair, Munsif Ullah sustained firearm injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot; due to the firing of accused Awal Sher, Abdul Hafeez was fatally injured and died at the scene; the firing made by accused Maaz Ullah resulted in the death of Atif Ullah at the spot; whereas the firing attributed to accused Nizar caused firearm injuries to the complainant Inam Ullah and Umair; that the occurrence was further stated

to have been witnessed by Amil son of Aman Ullah and other persons present at the spot;

that motive behind the incident was disclosed to be a previous quarrel and scuffle between the parties; that on the basis of these allegations, the complainant nominated the accused for the commission of the offence, culminating in the registration of the instant

FIR.

3.It is pertinent to mention that on the same day, i.e. 19.08.2021, complainant Awal Sher (appellant), who was in injured condition, was brought alongwith deceased Muhammad Fawad to QHAMC, Nowshera and reported the matter to the effect that he alongwith the deceased was present at the place of occurrence, when in the meanwhile accused Ajmal Khan alias Raji, Mahab Munir, Abid and Inam Ullah, armed with deadly weapons, came there and started firing at them as a result of which Muhammad Fawad received firearm injuries and died on the spot while he received firearm injuries; that the occurrence was stated to be witnessed by other

persons present there; that motive was stated to be previous quarrel between the parties; that the accused were charged for the commission of offence; that the report of complainant was penned down in shape of daily diary No. 07.

4.After completion of investigation, complete challan submitted to the court.

Provisions of section 265-C CrPC were complied with and the appellants were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its claim, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 09 witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342 CrPC, wherein they posed innocence, however, neither They wished to be examined on Oath as required under section 340 (2) Cr.PC, nor wanted to produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, after full-fledged trial convicted and sentenced the appellants vide the impugned judgment hence, the instant appeal.

5.Arguments heard and record

scanned through with their valuable assistance.

6.The incident in question was of an exceptionally grave and tragic nature, resulting in multiple casualties and leaving behind extensive devastation. In the severity of its consequences, the occurrence may aptly be described as a veritable doomsday for the parties involved. On one side, three individuals lost their lives while three others sustained serious injuries. On the opposite side, one person succumbed to injuries, and another suffered bodily harm. Immediately following the occurrence, the deceased and injured were promptly shifted to the hospital, where the matter was formally reported. The initial report was lodged by the complainant himself, who had also sustained injuries in the incident.

Injury sheets of the injured were prepared and they were examined by the doctor and their medico-legal certificates were prepared. The injury sheets and inquests of the deceased were prepared and the dead bodies were dispatched for post-mortem examinations.

Simultaneously, the appellant, Awal Sher, lodged his own report of the incident. His

account was formalized in writing as a counter- version vide DD No. 07, wherein he nominated four individuals as the perpetrators, attributing to them both the infliction of injuries and the fatal assault resulting in the death. Upon receiving the copy of the FIR, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the place of occurrence and, on the pointation of the complainant, prepared the site plan. During spot proceedings, blood-stained earth via cotton was collected from the respective positions of the deceased and injured were taken into possession. The Investigating Officer also recovered scattered empties of different bores at the scene. During the inspection, the Investigating Officer recovered a .30 bore pistol lying in a nearby drain, which was taken into possession and subsequently depicted in the site plan. The weapon, alongwith the recovered empties, was sent to the Firearms Expert for forensic examination. The expert report revealed that out of 08 empties of .30 bore, 03 had been fired from the recovered pistol however, the prosecution evidence did

not directly attribute the weapon to any particular accused. Nonetheless, in light of the site plan, which indicated the positions of two accused at the relevant locations, an inference was drawn that the weapon may have been left behind by one of them during flight from the scene. It is also significant that, in the counter- version case, the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer based on personal observation of the spot. Blood samples were collected from the positions where the deceased and injured were reported to have fallen and sent to the Chemical Examiner to determine whether the blood corresponded to the individuals concerned. The Chemical Examiner report confirmed that the blood collected from the position of injured matched his blood group, while the blood recovered from the position attributed to deceased corresponded with his blood group. This corroboration of medical and forensic evidence with the prosecution narrative regarding the place of occurrence and positions of the injured and deceased was critical to establishing the

factual matrix. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused were arrested and faced trial. The learned trial court returned two separate findings: in the counter-version case, the accused were acquitted of the charges, whereas in the instant case, the nominated accused were convicted and sentenced.

Accordingly, two separate appeals have been presented before this Court: one challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused in the instant case, and the other assailing the acquittal of the accused in the counter-version case.

7.The learned trial court, upon

detailed and painstaking examination of the essential aspects of this tragic controversy, arrived at two conclusions of distinct and seemingly divergent import. The accused charged in the counter-version case were found to be innocent and were accordingly acquitted of the charges. In stark contrast, the accused nominated in the instant case were held responsible for the occurrence of grievous consequences and were consequently

convicted and sentenced therefore, it is incumbent upon this Court to examine, with deliberate care, whether the conclusions reached by the learned trial court withstand the test of law, reason, and judicial prudence. It is necessary to scrutinize the considerations which governed the trial court in acquitting certain accused in one case, while simultaneously convicting others in the present matter, particularly in circumstances where the time of occurrence, place of occurrence, and the parties involved remain identically situated in both proceedings. This Court is called upon to investigate the reasoning that underpinned such determinations, by assessing the circumstances surrounding the incident, and by determining whether the learned trial court exercised its judicial mind with impartiality and adherence to the principles of law.

Particular attention must be directed to pivotal elements such as the motive alleged to have precipitated the unfortunate events, the place of occurrence, the relationship between the contending parties, the presence of weapons,

and, above all, the critical question of aggression, which party initiated hostilities, and which responded thereto. A factor of particular significance is the disparity in the magnitude of casualties. On one side, three persons lost their lives and three others sustained injuries, whereas on the other, one person succumbed and one suffered injuries.

Such asymmetry, if not carefully accounted for, could inadvertently influence judicial perception, casting one party as principal sufferer and the other as comparatively less affected. It is therefore, imperative to ensure that the conclusions of the learned trial court were guided solely by evidence on record, uninfluenced by the numerical disparity of losses. It is acknowledged that the accused in the counter-version case were acquitted. Yet, this Court must consider whether the rationale which persuaded the trial court to record acquittals can legitimately inform the assessment of liability in the present case. The question arises whether such acquittal, in and of itself, ought to influence the determination

of culpability in a distinct proceeding arising out of the same occurrence. It is a settled that the acquittal of co-accused in one case does not ipso-facto afford a ground for acquittal in another case. Moreover, the pendency of an appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused give emphasis to the necessity for this Court to examine the matter with exacting scrutiny. The Court must ensure that the parties have approached the proceedings with candor, that no material facts have been suppressed, and that the entirety of the truth has been disclosed for judicial consideration. It is further pertinent to examine whether both parties candidly admitted the injuries sustained and the fatalities resulting from the occurrence, and whether their presence at the scene at the relevant time stands indisputably established.

The prosecution contends that the place of occurrence was the house and hujra of the deceased, namely Atif and Abdul Sattar.

Equally, the houses of the appellants are situated in close proximity to this locus, a fact not reflected in the site plan prepared during

investigation. Viewed collectively, these circumstances reveal that the premises were not exclusively confined to any single party, but were in effect shared by both. Thus, the presence of both sides at the relevant time is neither unnatural nor improbable. In circumstances where the place of occurrence is identical, the parties involved are the same, and the alleged motives arise from a common backdrop, the determinative question is whether the trial court was justified in concluding that one party acted as aggressor while the other remained the aggrieved. This Court must assess whether such a conclusion is reasonably supported by the evidence on record and whether the learned trial court showed a balanced and conscientious appreciation of the facts. A further salient feature is the promptness with which both sides reported the occurrence. The injured and the deceased were immediately transported to the hospital, and the respective versions were promptly recorded by the injured. As both parties were admitted to the same hospital,

ambiguity as to the promptness of reporting is dispelled. Similarly, it is an undisputed fact that the timing of the occurrence, the timing of reporting, and the medical officer involved were identical in both cases. The same medical officer examined the injured, conducted post- mortem examinations, and prepared medico- legal documentation for all relevant individuals. The evidence incontrovertibly establishes the presence of both parties at the locus of the incident and the resulting fatalities and injuries. Despite this, the paramount duty of this Court remains the identification of the true sequence of events, determination of the initiator of aggression, and the allocation of criminal responsibility. It is essential to ascertain whether the aggression originated with the complainant or the accused, and whether the findings of the learned trial court are consonant with a proper and thorough appreciation of evidence. Given the gravity of the occurrence, the multiplicity of casualties, and the profound human suffering involved, this Court is under a solemn obligation to

meticulously re-examine witness statements and evidence. Such reassessment is essential to determine whether the approach adopted by the learned trial court was consonant with law, equity, and sound judicial reasoning, and whether the acquittal of co-accused in the counter-version case reflects a just and principled exercise of judicial discretion. In the ultimate analysis, this Court recognizes that the preservation of justice demands neither partiality nor prejudice, but rather a judicious and evidence-based determination of responsibility. The present exercise of appellate review is undertaken in that spirit, to ensure that the scales of justice remain balanced, and that accountability is allocated precisely in accordance with law and established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

8.After hearing learned counsel and examining the record, the points for for determination before this court as to whether the occurrence took place in the mode, manner and at the stated time, and under the

circumstances alleged by the prosecution;

whether the incident was reported promptly and whether such reporting supports the prosecution case; whether the ocular testimony inspires confidence and satisfactorily establishes the presence of witnesses at the scene; whether independent or corroborative evidence exists to substantiate the allegations against the appellants; whether the appellants were the aggressors, or whether the incident resulted from a sudden confrontation involving both parties; whether the prosecution established a motive of sufficient gravity to justify the commission of the offence; whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused in the counter-version case while convicting the present appellants, and whether such divergent findings are sustainable in law;

whether the medical and scientific evidence corroborates or contradicts the prosecution narrative and whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

9.In the peculiar and complex

circumstances of the present case, it becomes necessary, at the outset, for this Court to examine the precipitating cause, which culminated in the lamentable occurrence.

Equally imperative is a scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the arrival of the respective parties at the locus, the manner in which injuries were inflicted and deaths ensued on both sides, and the subsequent conveyance of the injured and deceased to the hospital. At the hospital, the injured were subjected to medical examination, and medico-legal certificates were duly prepared, while post- mortem examinations were conducted in respect of the deceased. No less relevant is the manner in which the injured from both sides reported the incident to the authorities, for the promptness and consistency of such reporting bears upon the veracity of the narrative. It is incontrovertible that the occurrence transpired in a locality where the residences of the parties lay in close proximity. While the site plan reflects the house and hujra of the complainant,

the dwellings of the appellants have not been depicted therein. A careful reading of the statements of the witness, however, establishes that the residents of the appellants were situated nearby, slightly ahead of the mosque, which itself features in the site plan. The omission of the houses of the appellants, therefore, does not detract from their physical proximity to the scene. In assessing the evidence, it is a cardinal principle that omissions in formal documentation cannot, per se, outweigh the weight of consistent and credible testimony. In view of the rival versions advanced, it is incumbent upon this Court to examine the proximity of the residences of the parties, the nature of the inter-se relationship, and the likelihood of their habitual presence at the locus. It is equally necessary to determine whether the place of occurrence was common to both parties or exclusively occupied by one, for these considerations are determinative of which party initiated aggression and which party was the victim (Ubi jus ibi remedium). A proper

evaluation of these fundamental aspects necessitates a careful appraisal of the statements of witnesses produced in both narratives. This includes the testimonies of the complainant, the injured eyewitnesses, the investigating officer, and the medical officer responsible for the examinations and post- mortems. Simultaneously, due regard must be given to the evidence in the counter-version case, including that of the complainant therein, who himself sustained injuries, the investigating officer, the scribe who recorded the report, and the medical officer who examined the injured. Such comparative scrutiny ensures that justice is administered upon a complete view of the transaction, consistent with the principle that “the whole context must be taken into account.”

Although the counter-version case possesses its own witnesses, the fact that the site plans in both cases were prepared by the same investigating officer, who conducted the investigations in both matters, assumes significant value. This facilitates a proper

understanding of the physical layout of the locus and the relative positions attributed to the parties. Accordingly, it is appropriate to examine the site plans, the locations assigned to the deceased and injured, and the points from which blood-stained earth and firearm empties were recovered. Such material was collected not only from locations attributed to the accused in the instant case but also from the respective spots associated with the deceased and injured in both versions. The careful assessment of these aspects is indispensable to determining the fate of the present matter. It will enable this Court to ascertain whether the learned trial court adopted a legally sound approach in appreciating the evidence, reconciling the competing narratives, and arriving at conclusions consonant with the principles of justice and fair trial. In the exercise of appellate review, it is the duty of this Court to ensure that the findings are grounded in reason, evidence, and law, for “justice must not only be done; it must manifestly and undoubtedly

be seen to be done.” The complainant was examined as PW-06, while the injured eyewitnesses entered the witness box as PW- 07 and PW-08. The complainant, in his deposition, narrated the circumstances in which the unfortunate occurrence took place.

He elaborated upon the contents of the report lodged by him, the arrival of the accused at the place of occurrence, the firing allegedly resorted to, and the casualties that ensued therefrom. He further explained the manner in which the deceased and the injured were hurriedly shifted to the hospital, where the matter was reported however, it is of considerable significance that the complainant remained conspicuously silent with regard to certain material aspects of the occurrence. In particular, he did not offer any explanation concerning the injuries sustained by appellant Awal Sher, nor did he advert to the report allegedly made by the said appellant, or the death of Muhammad Fawad, which admittedly occurred in the same transaction. The injured eyewitnesses (PW-07 and PW-08), while

supporting the version of the complainant, also described the occurrence in a similar manner, reiterating the time, place, and sequence of events, including the removal of the injured and the deceased to the hospital. These witnesses were subjected to cross‐examination on the essential features of the case, with a view to extract material favourable to the defence. It thus becomes the duty of this Court to examine whether any material contradictions were brought on record, so as to cast doubt upon the prosecution version, and whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing a coherent and confidence‐inspiring case connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. There is no denying the fact that the presence of the complainant and the injured eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence stands established, particularly in view of the injuries sustained by them. Likewise, there is no dispute that the deaths of the deceased were the direct outcome of the tragic occurrence, and that the prompt shifting of the injured and the deceased to the hospital lends assurance to the

prosecution version that the injuries were sustained during the same incident. The nature and seat of injuries, therefore, prima-facie corroborate the presence of the witnesses at the spot however, mere presence alone is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability. However, the crucial question remains whether the mere presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence, coupled with the injuries sustained by them, is by itself sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the appellants. This inquiry assumes greater significance in the peculiar facts of the case, where the defence has set up a counter‐version alleging that the complainant party was itself responsible for causing injuries to appellant Awal Sher and for the death of Muhammad Fawad Hussain. In this context, this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution witnesses have disclosed the whole truth and whether they have faithfully narrated the complete chain of events leading to the occurrence. A careful appraisal of the statements of the complainant and the eyewitnesses, read in conjunction with

the report lodged by the complainant, reveals that they have maintained complete silence regarding the injuries sustained by appellant Awal Sher and the death of Muhammad Fawad. Such omission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as insignificant, rather it goes to the source of the matter and raises a serious question as to whether the witnesses have suppressed material facts. This Court is mindful of the fact that the injuries sustained by appellant Awal Sher constitute a strong circumstance establishing his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. At the same time, it must be examined whether mere presence, even when coupled with injuries, is sufficient to hold him liable for the commission of the offence, particularly when he himself has set up a version admitting the time and place of occurrence, the presence of the opposite party, and has also reported the matter from the hospital. Thus, the Court is required to determine what weight and legal effect is to be attached to such circumstances,

and whether appellant Awal Sher is entitled to any benefit arising therefrom. Furthermore, it must also be considered whether any such benefit, if found available, would extend to the other similarly placed accused persons. Given the complexity and peculiar nature of the case, this Court considers it necessary to evaluate certain aspects; the credibility of the witnesses, the conduct of the parties before, during, and after the occurrence, the facts disclosed and those withheld, and the impact of such disclosure or suppression on the overall veracity of the prosecution case and the determination of the true genesis of the occurrence. It is true that, while reporting the matter, the complainant attributed specific roles to each of the accused with regard to the injuries caused and the deaths that resulted however, the mere assignment of specific roles does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of careful scrutiny, particularly in a case of this nature.

10.An equally important question that arises for determination is whether the

occurrence was the result of a free fight between the parties, or whether it was a pre‐meditated and organized assault by one side against the other. The distinction is of considerable legal significance, as the standard and mode of appreciation of evidence differ in each situation. For a just and proper adjudication, this Court is not confined to the evidence produced in the instant case alone rather, while assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the genuineness of the competing versions, it is equally necessary to take into account the evidence adduced in the counter‐version case, including the statement of appellant Awal Sher, the testimony of the scribe of his report, the investigating officer, and the medical officer who examined the injured persons. Only through a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence brought on record in both versions, this Court can arrive at a fair, just, and legally sustainable conclusion regarding the true nature of the occurrence and the culpability, if any, of the appellants. The complainant and the eyewitnesses attributed

the motive for the occurrence to a previous quarrel between the parties. Interestingly, the complainant in the counter-version also adhered to the same explanation. Yet, notwithstanding reliance upon such alleged motive, neither side was able to elucidate the precise nature of the quarrel, the specific individuals who participated therein, the place where it supposedly occurred, or the time at which it was said to have taken place. In the absence of such particulars, the alleged motive, from the inception of the case until its culmination at trial, remained enveloped in uncertainty and ambiguity. Even the Investigating Officer failed to collect any independent evidence in support of the purported motive. There exists nothing on record to suggest that the parties were engaged in any enduring enmity or blood feud. Neither side admitted, nor was it otherwise established, that relations between them had deteriorated to such a degree as to compel one party to arrive heavily armed and unleash a devastating assault upon the other. The intensity and

gravity of the alleged motive thus, remained unexplained, leaving this Court unable to conclude that a deep-seated sense of revenge had impelled one party to seek out the other with the intent of committing so grievous an act. When no independent evidence was placed on record to substantiate the alleged motive, and even the Investigating Officer could not procure material showing the existence of such animosity, this Court finds it difficult to comprehend why the accused would have chosen to launch an aggressive assault resulting in multiple casualties. The occurrence, which claimed several lives and left others grievously injured, cannot be readily accounted for on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated allegation of a prior quarrel. It was nevertheless argued on behalf of the complainant that the appellants were the aggressors, and that the injuries suffered by the opposite side, or the death that occurred therein, ought not to be taken into consideration to absolve the accused of criminal liability. According to the learned

counsel, the circumstances were such that any injuries sustained by the opposite side were incidental to the occurrence and did not diminish the culpability of the accused. The learned counsel for the complainant further endeavored to persuade this Court that appellant Awal Sher had not received injuries at the place of occurrence, and that the deceased Muhammad Fawad had not lost his life in the same transaction. In support of this contention, it was argued that when the Investigating Officer visited the spot and conducted the initial proceedings in the instant case, no person from the opposite side came forward to identify the place of occurrence pertaining to the counter-version. It was also emphasized that the site plan prepared in the counter-version case was based solely upon the personal observation of the Investigating Officer. It was further contended that, had the injured in the counter-version case and the deceased therein actually sustained firearm injuries during the same occurrence, the Investigating Officer would have collected the

corresponding empties while conducting the spot proceedings in the instant case. Instead, it was argued that the Investigating Officer concluded the proceedings relating to the instant case first, and only thereafter, upon receipt of the copy of the FIR relating to the counter-version, proceeded to prepare its site plan on the basis of his own observation.

Another submission advanced was that, in the absence of the complainant of the counter- version at the spot, and in the absence of any eyewitness from that side, the Investigating Officer could not reliably determine that the blood collected from the two places mentioned in the site plan of the counter-version corresponded to the locations where the injured Awal Sher and the deceased Muhammad Fawad had allegedly fallen. Similarly, it was argued that the empties recovered from those places could not conclusively be linked to the firing attributed to the accused persons, particularly when the pistol allegedly recovered from the spot was found lying in a drain. These submissions, however, do not

appear to carry sufficient weight to persuade this Court. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer in both cases was the same person therefore, it was only natural that he first conducted the spot proceedings in the case in which the FIR had initially been registered, and thereafter proceeded to investigate the counter-version. Although the site plan in the counter-version case was prepared on the basis of the Investigating Officer on his personal observation, but it is equally true that, when the complainant of the counter-version was discharged from the hospital, he subsequently verified the locations depicted in that site plan and confirmed the respective places where he himself and the deceased Muhammad Fawad were present at the time of the unfortunate occurrence. The learned counsel for the complainant further sought to suggest that the occurrence narrated in the counter-version might have transpired at a different place, and possibly even at a different time. It was also speculated that, after the main occurrence had concluded and the

accused had fled from the scene, the possibility could not be excluded that some third person, having a vested interest in the matter, might have fired shots resulting in the death of Muhammad Fawad and the injuries to Awal Sher. Such an argument, however, scarcely appeals to reason. The record explicitly shows that the injured and the deceased from both sides were hurriedly shifted to the same hospital, where they arrived almost simultaneously. The matters were reported without delay, and the injured were examined by the same doctor, one after the other. In such circumstances, where events unfolded in rapid succession and in a state of urgency, the possibility of the intervention of an unknown third party appears highly impossible.

Consequently, this Court finds little merit in the suggestion that the injuries sustained by Awal Sher, or the death of Muhammad Fawad, did not occur at the place of occurrence. On the contrary, the circumstances available on record compel this Court to the firm conclusion that both Awal Sher and the deceased Muhammad

Fawad sustained firearm injuries during the same occurrence. If the submissions advanced on behalf of the complainant are examined from a different perspective, an equally pressing question emerges: how else could it be reliably ascertained that the blood collected from various locations at the scene corresponded to the blood of the respective injured and deceased individuals? This question assumes particular significance in the context of the counter-version, wherein it was contended that neither the complainant nor any eyewitness was present at the relevant time to identify with certainty the exact spots where the injured and deceased had fallen. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to scrutinize the recoveries effected from the place of occurrence during the investigation. It is an admitted fact on the record that blood- stained soil was collected from different points at the scene and sealed in separate parcels.

Similarly, the blood-stained garments of the injured and deceased were taken into possession by the investigating agency. These

items were subsequently forwarded to the office of the Chemical Examiner for forensic examination. The report received from the laboratory leaves little room for doubt.

Analysis of the blood samples collected from the scene, when compared with the blood on the garments of the injured and deceased, revealed that they belonged to the same blood groups. When the garments and blood samples recovered from the respective spots at the scene are read together with the laboratory findings, the conclusion is both clear and unambiguous: the blood collected from the scene corresponded with the blood present on the garments of the injured and deceased. This scientific determination, in itself, provides compelling corroboration of the account of the prosecution regarding the precise locations where the injured and deceased had fallen after sustaining firearm injuries. Consequently, no ambiguity remains in holding that the blood collected from the scene was indeed taken from the exact places where the injured Awal Sher and the deceased Muhammad Fawad had

collapsed following the occurrence. It is manifest on the record that the complainant spoke truthfully regarding his own conduct, yet did not exhibit equal fidelity to veracity when attributing events to the other party. In that process, two material aspects of the occurrence, the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by another individual, were deliberately obscured from view. Such concealment cannot be dismissed as a mere emotional by‐product of a tragic event; rather, it compels a careful inquiry into the conduct of both complainant and the opposing party, without which a fair and just adjudication is unattainable. The record shows that the complainant party did not fairly disclose the injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394, the Supreme Court of India held that failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused may indicate that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. A similar principle was reiterated in Mohar Rai and Ors. v. State of

Bihar (MANU/SC/0057/1968) and Vijayee Singh and Ors. State of U.P

(MANU/SC/0284/1990), where it was observed that such non-explanation casts serious doubt on the prosecution narrative and suggests that the incident has not been presented in its true perspective. At the same time, the material on record also reflects that in the counter version the accused side attempted to suppress the injuries sustained by the deceased, indicating that neither side has narrated the occurrence with complete fidelity to truth. When both parties engage in willful suppression of material facts, the threshold question arises: by what measure can this Court administer justice between them when their veracity is compromised by their own concealment? Regrettably, the learned trial court did not fully appreciate this critical dimension, erroneously concluding that the appellants alone were aggressors. If the events had occurred as the trial court posited, the complainant and eyewitnesses would have provided a coherent and consistent narrative

confirming that the deceased or the injured in the counter-version sustained harm either in retaliation or by friendly fire among the accused. Instead, the prosecution, more particularly its witnesses, undertook a calculated risk by suppressing injuries and the death of the deceased, thereby attempting to frame the narrative around the alleged assault by the appellants. Such selective disclosure cannot constitute the evidentiary foundation necessary to establish a motive of sufficient magnitude, nor can it satisfy the Court that the appellants acted with premeditated intent to exact revenge. Although numerous empties were recovered at the scene, indicating that firearms of different calibers were discharged, it is practically improbable that, had all the accused assembled with intent to kill, the complainant party would have survived largely intact, leaving one dead and one injured. The totality of circumstances suggests otherwise.

Both parties being residents of the same locality, the incident bears the hallmarks of a chance encounter, aggravated by circumstance

and misfortune, rather than a pre‐planned onslaught. The medical evidence further corroborates this account. The doctor, examined as PW-5 in the counter-version, provided a detailed account of the number, nature, and location of injuries sustained by the injured complainant, and confirmed performing the autopsy on the deceased. It was established that the injuries were neither self‐inflicted nor could they be attributed with certainty to any particular individual. When juxtaposed with ocular testimony, the medical evidence not only confirms the nature and location of injuries but also emphasizes the controversy arising from willful concealment of facts by witnesses on both sides. This deliberate suppression weakens the narrative and exposes the selective candour of the evidentiary record. Viewed collectively, these circumstances compel the Court to conclude that, owing to material concealment by both parties, the cases cannot be simplistically treated as mirror-image or cross-cases. Had that been so, witnesses would have disclosed

the full circumstances of the unfortunate incident. Instead, each party sought to exonerate itself while implicating the other.

Such conduct is neither trivial nor peripheral; it evidences malafide intent not only on the part of witnesses in this case but also on the part of complainants in the counter-version. Once a witness deliberately withholds essential facts, such concealment alone suffices to erode credibility irrespective of the side represented.

Upon a finding that witness credibility is impaired and the real circumstances of the incident are obscured, the only equitable course is to hold both parties responsible for the tragic outcome. The factual disparity, three lives lost on one side and injuries on the other, does not alter this conclusion. It is not the number of casualties alone that determines culpability, but the conduct of those involved.

The mutual concealment of the parties and selective narrative construction suffuse the record with uncertainty. It is true that in the counter-version the accused were acquitted, such acquittal does not render the

circumstances of the present case nugatory.

The cause of the incident, the injuries sustained, and the fatalities incurred retain their probative value. This Court is entitled to consider these factors in assessing how the incident unfolded and the role played by both sides. The procedural history of the counter- version, including the acquittal, cannot dilute the inquiry into the factual matrix of the present case. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court finds no alternative but to hold that the benefit of acquittal extended to the accused in the counter version must likewise be extended to the appellants herein. Both parties were equally responsible for the tragic outcome, and it was the conduct of both, marked by concealment, selective disclosure, and mutual aggression that culminated in the loss of precious lives.

Injustice would result if one side alone bore the consequences of an event in which responsibility was shared. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the apex court titled “Muhammad Ilyas vs Muhammad Abid alias

Billa and others” (2017 SCMR 54) wherein, it has been held as under: -

“A very important factor in this case was that respondent No. 1 namely Muhammad Abid had also received two incised wounds on his body, including one on his chest which injury was going deep, but the prosecution had completely suppressed the said injuries sustained by respondent No. 1. During the trial respondent No. 1 had produced the relevant doctor as DW 1 who had confirmed medically examining respondent No. 1 for his above mentioned injuries within a matter of three hours of sustaining of such injuries. Suppression of such injuries on the body of respondent No. 1 had exposed the bonafide of the complainant party in narrating the incident in issue.”

11.The cumulative effect of the attending circumstances leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case against the appellants. The learned trial court fell into error in holding the appellants guilty without adequately addressing the crucial aspects of the case. The impugned judgment, therefore,

suffers from legal and factual infirmities and calls for interference. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.

12.Now diverting to the Cr.R

No.181-P/2025 titled “Inam Ullah vs Awal Sher & others”, which has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the awarded sentence, as the accused succeeded in earning acquittal and the impugned judgement is set aside, so the instant criminal revision has lost its utility, the same is dismissed as such.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

*Muhammad Fiaz* *D.B* Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, J Hon’ble Mr., Justice Inam Ullah Khan, J