Zakir Hussain & others Vs The State & another

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Cr. A No. 944-P/2025

Zakir Hussain & others Vs The State & another

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 22.04.2026

Appellant by: Mr. Astaghfirullah and Arbab Sheraz Khan, Advocates.

The State by: Mr. Ayub Zaman, AAG.

Complainant by: - Mr. Muhammad Sareer Khan, Advocate.

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Through this single judgment, this court is intending to decide the instant appeal as well as connected Cr. R No. 249-P/2025 titled “Mst. Tahira vs Zakir Hussain & others” as both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Charsadda delivered in case FIR No. 211 dated 11.09.2020 under section 302/324/337-

A(ii)/337-F(i)/148/149 PPC at police station Khanmai, District Charsadda whereby, the appellants Zakir Hussain, Siraj-ul-Islam and Jamroz were convicted and sentenced as under:-

“Under section 302(b) PPC accused to rigorous imprisonment for life as Tazir on two counts 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 ten months.

Under section 324 PPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) each to be payable to the injured and in default whereof, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Under sections 148 and 149 PPC to rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

Under section 337-A(ii) PPC for causing hurt to Shumaila, all the accused are convicted to pay Arsh 1/20th of Diyat i.e. 491,433.50/-.

Under section 337-F(i) PPC for causing hurt to Imran, all the accused are convicted to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Damn. The amount of fine shall be recovered as arrears as land revenue and till the payment of Damn, they shall remain confined in jail and be dealt with under section 337-Y(2) CrPC.

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

2.The facts of the case, as set forth in the FIR, are that on 11.09.2020, complainant Mst. Tahira Naz, reported the occurrence at DHQ Hospital, Charsadda, stating that she alongwith her family members, was present in her house when, in the meantime, her brothers- in-law, namely Seyar, Jamroz and Siraj sons of Hasil alongwith Zaid son of Jamroz, and Zakir Hussain son of Tilawat Khan, all armed with

firearms, entered the house and started firing at them as a result of which, Mst. Kashmala sustained firearm injuries and died at the spot, whereas the complainant remained unhurt, while Mst. Wajeeha, Imran, and Shumaila sustained firearm injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over the construction of a wall. Consequently, the accused were charged for the commission of the offence and the present FIR was registered.

It is pertinent to mention that the injured Mst. Wajeeha succumbed to his injuries and in that respect, the local police were informed.

3.It is also pertinent to mention that on the same date, i.e., 11.09.2020, Mst. Gul Mina also reported the matter, stating that she alongwith her mother Mst. Minha and nephew Zakir Hussain was present in their house, when accused Imran and Rashid entered their house and started beating them with kicks and sticks;

that accused Rashid hit her mother with sharp edge weapon while accused Imran hit Zakir Hussain on his head with hammer as a result of

which they received injuries; that the report of Mst. Gul Mina was recorded in Mad No. 13 dated 11.09.2020 wherein, the accused Imran and Rashid were charged for the commission of offence.

4.Complete challan was 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 16 witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342 CrPC, wherein they posed innocence.

Appellant Zakir Hussain neither wished to be examined on Oath as required under section 340(2) CrPC nor wanted to produce evidence in defence while appellant Jamroz Khan and Siraj-ul-Islam wished to be examined on Oath and also wanted to produce evidence in defence and in that respect they were examined under section 340 (2) CrPC and Fazal-e-Khaliq and Inayat Ullah were produced and examined

as DW-1 and DW-2. The learned trial Court, after full-fledged trial, convicted the appellants vide the impugned judgment hence, the instant appeal.

5.Arguments heard and record

scanned through.

6.It was, in truth, a deeply tragic episode, marked by the loss of two innocent lives and the infliction of injuries upon two others. In the immediate aftermath of the occurrence, both the deceased and the injured were expeditiously removed to the hospital, where the machinery of law was promptly set into motion. The occurrence was duly reported, whereupon injury sheets and requisite medico- legal documentation were prepared with due dispatch. The lifeless bodies were thereafter referred for post-mortem examination, while the injured were subjected to clinical evaluation, culminating in the issuance of their medico-legal certificates. It bears significance that, on the very same day, one Mst. Gul Meena, among the injured, reported the occurrence to the local police at the hospital,

setting forth the details of the injuries sustained by her and one of the accused Zakir Hussain.

The said information was formally recorded in the shape of DD No. 13. Consequent upon the preparation of injury sheets by the scribe, the injured were examined by the attending medical officer in accordance with established procedure. The investigating officer, upon receipt of the First Information Report, proceeded to the locus in quo and, on the pointation of the complainant, prepared the site plan. The spot inspection yielded incriminating physical evidence: blood-stained cotton was collected from the positions where the deceased and injured were found lying within the room, while from outside the said room, 06 empties of 7.62 bore were recovered. The officer further observed multiple bullet marks on the door as well as on the interior walls, lending physical corroboration to the prosecution narrative. It is of particular pertinence that, in the counter-version of the occurrence, a separate site plan came to be prepared on the pointation of the complainant

of that case. The record, therefore, presents this Court with two divergent site plans, each depicting differing positions of the deceased, the injured, and the accused, thereby introducing a dimension of factual inconsistency requiring cautious judicial scrutiny. Following the arrest of the accused in both versions, the investigation was carried to its logical culmination. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused in the counter-version case, having found them innocent of the charge. Conversely, the accused in the present case, including the appellants herein, were held guilty, convicted, and sentenced them. It is against this judgment of conviction that the instant criminal appeal has been brought before this Court.

7.The learned trial Court, upon an appraisal of the evidence brought on record, returned finding of guilt against the accused and, in consequence thereof, recorded their convictions and sentences. The crucial

question which now falls for determination before this Court is whether such conclusion is sustainable in law, whether the evidence on record was appreciated in its true perspective, and whether the findings so recorded are borne out by the material available on the file. In undertaking this exercise, this Court is obligated to examine, with anxious scrutiny, whether the occurrence in question unfolded in the manner alleged by the prosecution; whether the complainant and the ocular witnesses have faithfully disclosed the sequence of events and the attending circumstances; and whether the learned trial Court was justified in placing reliance upon such account. For a comprehensive and balanced adjudication, this Court considers it imperative to advert not only to the evidence recorded in the present case, but also to the material collected in the counter-version, notwithstanding the acquittal of the accused therein. Such an approach is necessitated to unravel the true genesis of the occurrence, to ascertain the manner in which the incident took place, to evaluate the extent

of participation attributed to the accused, and to determine whether the number of persons implicated has remained within the bounds of probability or has suffered from exaggeration, particularly in light of the injuries sustained.

Equally, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the inter-se relationship of the parties. It becomes essential to examine which of the two versions emerged first in point of time, and which report reached the authorities with promptitude, for such factors bear materially upon the credibility of the respective narratives. The presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence, and the manner in which they claim to have witnessed and narrated the incident, must also be subjected to careful judicial evaluation through a close reading of their statements. It is true that some of the witnesses sustained injuries in the same transaction; however, it is equally well-settled that the mere factum of injury does not, by itself, confer an imprimatur of absolute truthfulness upon a witness. The touchstone remains the intrinsic worth, coherence, and

consistency of the testimony, which alone can inspire confidence and establish the presence of the witness at the relevant time and place.

Likewise, although the parties are closely related and the deceased as well as the ocular witnesses belong to the same fold, such relationship, in and of itself, does not render their testimony suspect. It is now a settled principle that conviction can safely be founded upon the statements of related witnesses, provided their evidence is found to be natural, consistent, and worthy of reliance. The overarching duty of the Court is to sift truth from embellishment so as to avert any miscarriage of justice. In this backdrop, this Court deems it indispensable to undertake a holistic examination of the entire record, the essential facets of the case, and the statements of the witnesses, so as to arrive at a just and legally sound conclusion.

8.The questions which fall for

determination before this Court may now be delineated with precision. It is to be examined, in the first instance, whether the occurrence, in

fact, transpired in the manner alleged and at the time so asserted. Whether the witnesses were genuinely present at the scene at the relevant time, and whether those stated to be injured did, in truth, sustain injuries in the same transaction. This Court must further address the critical issue as to the genesis of the occurrence, whether the accused were the aggressors or, conversely, were themselves subjected to aggression and, in that backdrop, reconstruct the manner in which the incident unfolded. This necessarily leads to the determination of culpability, i.e. which of the accused, if any, can be justifiably held responsible for the commission of the offence.

It is equally incumbent upon this Court to assess whether the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution lends assurance to, or detracts from, the ocular account. Another facet of considerable importance is whether both sides have approached the Court with candour, placing before it the whole truth, or whether there has been suppression, embellishment, or distortion of material facts,

either during the course of investigation or before the learned trial Court. Lastly, this Court is called upon to examine the legal effect of the acquittal recorded in the counter-version case whether, notwithstanding such acquittal, the circumstances emerging from that case may still be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of appreciating the occurrence in its true perspective and assessing the involvement of the accused in the present matter.

9.In order to appreciate the peculiar and nuanced circumstances attending the present case, this Court considers it imperative to undertake a comprehensive examination of the inter-se relationship of the parties, the situs of the occurrence, the manner and circumstances in which the accused are alleged to have arrived at the place of incident, the motive set forth by the prosecution, as well as the statements of the witnesses with regard to the occurrence in question. Equally significant are the respective reports lodged by both sides concerning the same episode and the

antecedent cause which ultimately culminated in the tragic occurrence. For a proper determination of the extent of involvement of the accused and the manner in which the unfortunate incident unfolded, this Court deems it essential to evaluate, in a cohesive manner, the competing versions presented by the parties, the precise places of occurrence, the site plans prepared by the investigating officer on the pointation of the witnesses, the recoveries effected from the spot, and the relational dynamics not only between the accused and the complainant party, but also inter-se amongst the accused themselves. It is only through such a holistic and juxtaposed appraisal that the essential fabric of the case can be discerned and the respective roles attributed to the accused can be tested on the touchstone of probability and truth. There is, indeed, no cavil with the proposition that the unfortunate occurrence took place within the precincts of the house of the complainant, where firing is alleged to have been resorted to upon the persons present inside the room,

purportedly through a window, while the investigating officer also noticed bullet marks on the door of the room. The question, however, remains whether the prosecution witnesses have been able to convincingly establish that the occurrence transpired in the manner so alleged, and whether the surrounding circumstances lend assurance to the assertion that the deceased were fired upon by as many as five accused, thereby establishing their participation beyond reasonable doubt. In order to unravel the true genesis of the occurrence and to ascertain the cause which precipitated the fatal episode, this Court finds it equally necessary to advert to the report lodged by one Mst. Gul Meena, reduced into writing in the shape of DD No. 13, on the very same day when the complainant Mst. Gul Meena, reported the matter to the local police regarding the injuries sustained by her and others and nominated the accused. The simultaneous existence of these rival versions casts a duty upon this Court to place them in juxtaposition, to reappraise the statements of

the witnesses in the light thereof, and to re- examine the entire evidence on record with utmost circumspection, so that the truth may emerge ensuring that the guilty do not escape the rigours of law, while the innocent are not ensnared in its net. It is of considerable significance to note that the injured Imran stands in the relationship of a son-in-law to the complainant, and that he had arrived at the house in question accompanied by his sister. In the unfortunate occurrence that ensued, not only he sustains firearm injuries, but one of his sisters also suffered injuries, another succumbed to the assault, and, in addition thereto, his fiancée met a tragic and untimely end. These admitted features of the case compel this Court to examine, with care and precision, the circumstances under which the deceased and the injured witnesses came to be present at the place of occurrence, and whether their presence at the relevant time stands established on the record. In this regard, the fact that Imran received firearm injuries inside the room, coupled with the loss of life of his

sister and fiancée at the very same place, leaves little room for doubt that both the deceased and the injured witnesses were indeed present within the house at the stated time. The inquiry, however, does not conclude at this juncture. This Court must further probe the manner in which they came to be inside the house, the sequence in which events unfolded, the identity of the assailants who opened fire, and the immediate cause of provocation which could have impelled as many as five accused to converge upon the house and resort to such lethal force against persons confined within a room. It further calls for examination as to how, in the course of the same transaction, the occupants managed to secure the door from within, and whether, thereafter, firing continued upon the closed door, a circumstance which finds some support from the observation of bullet marks noted by the investigating officer. The fact that the window of the room remained open appears to have provided the assailants an opportunity to target the occupants, who, being confined within, were

left with no viable means of escape. The presence of bullet marks on the interior walls further reinforces the assertion of the prosecution that firing was directed into the room. It is equally pertinent that, on the very same day and in close temporal proximity, another episode was reported to the local police by one Mst. Gul Meena, in respect of injuries caused to her and others. This information was reduced into writing in the daily diary, injury sheets were prepared, and the injured were medically examined. Notably, in that version, certain members of the present complainant party were also nominated as responsible for causing injuries. When the proximity of the two places of occurrence is considered, one being the house where the deceased were done to death, and the other where injuries were allegedly inflicted upon one Zakir Hussain and two women, it becomes apparent, as reflected in the respective site plans, that the locations are closely situated. A wall, stated to be under construction, emerges as a focal point of discord, the complainant

party asserting that it was being erected to obstruct a passage leading to their house. It appears that this very issue constituted the genesis of the hostility between the parties and brought them into direct confrontation. A crucial aspect, however, lies in the nature of injuries sustained in the daily diary case. The medical evidence reveals, without ambiguity, that no firearm injuries were inflicted upon the injured persons in that occurrence; rather, the injuries appear to have been caused by blunt or sharp-edged weapons. This feature of the case assumes decisive importance and lends support to the inference that the sequence of events did not constitute a simultaneous free fight between the parties. On a cumulative assessment of these circumstances, it emerges with reasonable clarity that the initial altercation resulted in injuries to the women and to Zakir Hussain, and that, thereafter, in apparent retaliation, the accused proceeded to the house of the complainant, armed with firearms, and opened fire upon the occupants confined within the room. It was in

consequence of such firing that the deceased lost their lives at the spot, while the injured witnesses sustained firearm injuries. In the backdrop of these essential features, this Court is now called upon to determine, with due circumspection, whether all the accused shared a common design and resorted to

indiscriminate firing, or whether specific roles can be attributed to particular individuals, so as to fix responsibility for the commission of the offence in accordance with law. The episode, became incensed and proceeded to the house of the complainant, armed with firearms. Notably, Imran, though related to the complainant as a son-in-law, was not directly connected with the underlying dispute, yet he became a victim of the subsequent assault. From the tenor of the statements of the complainant and the eyewitnesses, it also transpires that Imran himself had participated, to some extent, in the earlier episode alongside certain persons nominated in the daily diary case. This aspect, though not fully disclosed, lends further support to the inference that the events were

interlinked and that the later occurrence was not an isolated act, but rather a continuation of the prior hostility. When the overall probabilities are examined, it appears that the accused, upon learning of the earlier incident involving their relations, converged upon the house of the complainant and resorted to firing.

The victims, being confined within a room, were rendered vulnerable; the assailants, finding the door closed, appear to have fired both at the door and through the window, thereby causing the fatal and non-fatal injuries.

Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that both sides bear some degree of responsibility for the escalation of the conflict, the decisive question remains whether such circumstance can dilute the liability of the accused who ultimately resorted to the use of firearms. The material on record suggests that as many as five accused were attributed the role of firing; however, it also emerges that, among them, a closer and more immediate connection existed, particularly in the case of the accused Jamroz with those who had

sustained injuries in the earlier episode. This raises a plausible inference that the retaliatory act may have been spearheaded by specific individuals, with others possibly implicated by way of exaggeration. In view of these intertwined considerations, this Court is now called upon to determine, with utmost care, whether the number of accused attributed with active participation is commensurate with the nature and number of injuries caused, and whether the evidence on record permits a clear and reliable attribution of individual roles so as to sustain the conviction in accordance with law. In order to determine whether the number of accused has been overstated, this Court considers it essential to advert to the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of the doctors who examined the injured and conducted the post-mortem examinations of the deceased. When the nature, extent, and distribution of injuries are examined in juxtaposition with the number of persons alleged to have participated in the occurrence, it does appear, at first blush, that the injuries

may be broadly commensurate with the number of accused attributed. However, such a superficial correlation cannot be accepted as conclusive. A deeper scrutiny reveals that, had all the accused, allegedly armed with sophisticated firearms, indiscriminately opened fire upon the occupants of a confined space, the consequences would, in the ordinary course of human conduct, have been far more devastating. In such a scenario, the survival of injured witnesses, and, more significantly, the escape of some persons altogether unhurt, would appear highly improbable. This inherent improbability necessitates a more cautious and discerning evaluation of the roles ascribed to each of the accused. In this context, the spatial positioning of the accused, as reflected in the site plan, assumes considerable importance. It has come on record that some of the accused were positioned in the verandah, in front of the window, while others are alleged to have been stationed near the door, which, upon their arrival, was secured from inside, an aspect corroborated by the presence of bullet marks

on the door. This distribution, when viewed alongside the pattern of injuries, suggests that the firing may not have been as widespread or as collective as portrayed by the prosecution.

Once these features are cumulatively considered, it becomes apparent that both sides have, to some extent, withheld material particulars, each attempting to present a version favourable to its own stance while undermining that of the other. The Court is thus confronted with a narrative not wholly free from embellishment.

10.Turning to the motive, it has been alleged that the occurrence was triggered by the injuries inflicted upon the womenfolk of the house of the appellant Jamroz. In this regard, the relational dynamics acquire significance: one of the injured women is stated to be the mother of the appellant Jamroz, while another is the wife of an absconding co- accused, in addition to the injured Zakir Hussain. This close familial nexus lends plausibility to the inference that the earlier episode may have provoked an immediate and

personal reaction on the part of the appellant Jamroz. In the totality of circumstances, there emerges a reasonable possibility that, soon after the first incident, the appellant Jamroz, impelled by a sense of retaliation, proceeded towards the house of the complainant and resorted to firing upon the occupants. The immediacy of the provocation, coupled with his close relationship to the injured persons in the earlier occurrence, provides a cogent explanation for such conduct. The evidence, however, does not inspire equal confidence with regard to the active participation of all the remaining accused in the manner alleged.

While the motive finds some support from the site plan and surrounding circumstances, it is equally noteworthy that the investigation has not yielded substantial independent corroboration so as to firmly establish the collective involvement of all five accused. This raises a legitimate inference that the net may have been cast wider than warranted, resulting in the implication of additional persons. In these circumstances, this Court is persuaded to

hold that the occurrence cannot safely be attributed to the concerted action of all the accused as alleged; rather, the evidence points more convincingly towards the active and principal role of the appellant Jamroz, with the involvement of others remaining doubtful. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to sift the grain from the chaff. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not find rigid application in our jurisprudence; instead, the Court is duty-bound to separate truth from embellishment and to accept that part of the prosecution case which is found to be credible and trustworthy, while discarding the rest. In doing so, the Court remains guided by the overarching objective of ensuring that culpability is affixed only where it is established beyond reasonable doubt, and that no innocent person is visited with the consequences of over-implication. This exercise becomes possible only after carefully sifting the chaff from the grain; therefore, we are afraid that the rigid application of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not warranted. In

appropriate cases, the Court can, and indeed must, separate the grain from the chaff. The circumstances came before the India Supreme Court in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as (2003) 7 SCC 643 wherein, it has been held that: It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused

notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused persons... Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end.”

Similarly, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court further held that: An attempt has to be made to separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up... the only available course is to discard the evidence in toto. The like circumstances came before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan where the court was pleased to dilate upon this

particular issue by holding that the rule i.e.

sifting the chaff from the grain is rooted in the safe administration of criminal justice, ensuring that innocent persons are not implicated due to exaggeration and guilty persons do not escape merely because the prosecution witnesses have introduced embellishments. Consequently, conviction can safely be based upon the reliable and corroborated portion of the prosecution evidence, even if the entire version is not accepted in toto, provided the remaining evidence proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled “Iftikhar Hussain and Others Vs The State” (2004 SCMR 1185) wherein, it has been held as under:

“It is true that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is no more applicable as on following this principle, the evidence of a witness is to be accepted or discarded as a whole for the purpose of convicting or acquitting an accused person,

therefore, keeping in view prevailing circumstances, the Courts for safe administration of justice follow the principle of appraisal of evidence i.e. sifting of grain out of chaff i.e. if an ocular testimony of a witness is to be disbelieved against a particular set of accused and is to be believed against another set of the accused facing the same trial, then the Court must search for independent corroboration on material particulars as has been held in number of cases decided by the superior Courts.

11.Though the learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously endeavoured to persuade this Court that the prosecution case suffers from suppression of material facts and from an exaggerated implication of as many as five accused, this Court does not find itself persuaded to accept such submission in its entirety. The matter, in the considered view of this Court, is not to be resolved merely on the touchstone of exaggeration or omission; rather, the true inquiry lies in ascertaining the number of incidents that in fact occurred, identifying

the person or persons responsible therefor, and determining, with precision, the extent of participation of each of the accused. If it were to be accepted that all five accused, armed with firearms, had simultaneously resorted to firing, the natural and probable consequences would have been markedly different. The investigating officer, in such an eventuality, would have recovered a substantially larger number of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence, and the degree of devastation would have been far greater, leaving little, if any, likelihood for the injured Imran to survive, particularly when he appears to have been the primary target. The limited recoveries from the spot and the survival of key witnesses thus militate against the theory of indiscriminate firing by all the accused. This circumstance lends credence to the possibility that the occurrence may have been the act of one or two principal assailants, while the involvement of the remaining accused requires cautious and independent scrutiny. This Court must also examine whether, on one hand, the

witnesses have attempted to shield certain individuals, while on the other, whether there has been an over-implication driven by ulterior considerations. When these aspects are evaluated cumulatively, the conclusion that emerges is that the occurrence cannot safely be attributed to the collective act of all five accused rather, the material on record points towards the involvement of the appellant Jamroz, alongwith a limited number of associates, whose precise roles must be carefully delineated. The inclination of this Court to bifurcate the roles, however, is not founded merely upon a numerical comparison of injuries with the number of accused, but is rooted in the broader factual matrix. It is evident that all the accused were not residing under one roof, nor were they shown to have been present together at the inception of the dispute. The appellant Jamroz, having witnessed or at least having been immediately affected by the earlier incident in which the womenfolk of his house sustained injuries, had both the occasion and the motive to proceed

towards the house of the complainant and to retaliate. On one hand, the prosecution has not been able to fully and convincingly establish the precise genesis and motive of the occurrence in its entirety; yet, on the other, the evidence on record does not support the sweeping attribution of liability to all five accused. The role of the appellant Jamroz stands on a different footing, being reinforced by motive and attendant circumstances, whereas the participation of the remaining accused does not inspire the same degree of confidence required for sustaining their conviction. The motive, as well as the genesis of the occurrence, stands amply established on the record. Not only the prosecution witnesses have furnished a coherent account in this regard, but the investigating officer has also adverted to the same while preparing the site plan, thereby lending support to the prosecution narrative. The existence of an earlier incident, duly reported in the daily diary, further fortifies the substratum of motive and provides a credible backdrop against

which the subsequent occurrence can be understood. If the motive is taken as the immediate and impelling cause of the fatal episode, and the prior incident is accepted as having indeed taken place in the manner reported, then the chain of events appears neither accidental nor isolated, but rather a continuation of escalating hostility between the parties. The earlier occurrence, having been formally brought on record, assumes pivotal significance in explaining the state of mind of the parties and the circumstances that ultimately culminated in the tragic loss of life however, the mere establishment of motive, howsoever strong, cannot by itself be treated as determinative of guilt. It serves as a guiding circumstance, one that explains the why of the occurrence, but the who and the how must still be established through reliable, cogent, and confidence-inspiring evidence. Thus, while the motive and its origin stand sufficiently proved, this Court must yet proceed to examine whether the same, when read in conjunction with the ocular and medical evidence,

unerringly points towards the culpability of the accused sought to be held responsible. Thus this very motive which, on the face of the record, connects the appellant Jamroz more directly and immediately with the occurrence, particularly in view of his close relationship with the injured ladies in the earlier episode.

This distinguishing feature, in the considered view of this Court, renders the case of the appellant Jamroz materially different from that of the remaining co-accused, whose nexus with the immediate cause of occurrence is neither equally proximate nor satisfactorily established. At this juncture, this Court is under a legal obligation to independently assess the individual role attributed to each accused, the existence of any common object, and the surrounding circumstances which may indicate whether the remaining accused had the opportunity, in the ordinary course of events, to arrive at the scene, join hands with the appellant Jamroz, and participate in the commission of the offence. Upon careful scrutiny of the record, such opportunity has

neither been convincingly explained by the prosecution nor borne out from any independent circumstance on file. The material available rather indicates that Jamroz and his close family members were residing in the same house, whereas the remaining accused are shown to be residing separately. This aspect assumes considerable significance, for if the occurrence is indeed a sequel to the earlier incident, then the natural and immediate reaction would ordinarily be expected from those who were directly affected and were in close temporal and spatial proximity to the earlier episode. In that context, the appellant Jamroz appears to have had the most proximate occasion, presence, and motive to react in the manner alleged. Thus, the element of motive, when read in conjunction with the established relationship and attendant circumstances, assumes a decisive role in pointing towards the culpability of the appellant Jamroz.

Conversely, the evidence falls short of establishing, with the required degree of certainty, the active participation of the

remaining accused in the commission of the offence. In this view of the matter, this Court finds itself persuaded to adopt a cautious and segregated approach in appreciation of evidence, ensuring that liability is fastened only upon those against whom the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the responsibility, on the basis of the material available, stands established against the appellant Jamroz, whereas the case of the remaining appellants does not inspire the same level of judicial confidence so as to sustain their conviction on the record as it exists.

12.The cumulative effect of the

attending circumstances leaves this Court with little room for hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellant Jamroz. The motive, which stands firmly established on the record, directly connects him with the occurrence, particularly when viewed in the backdrop of the earlier incident that took place at his house, wherein the womenfolk of his family sustained

injuries. His proximity to that episode, both in terms of relationship and circumstance, furnishes a compelling explanation for his subsequent conduct therefore, it cannot be overlooked that the appellant Jamroz had a direct and immediate stake in the events that unfolded. His reaction in proceeding towards the house of the complainant and resorting to firing, though explicable in the chain of events, was clearly disproportionate and excessive, resulting in the loss of two innocent lives and injuries two others. Such use of force travels far beyond any conceivable justification and squarely attracts criminal liability.

Accordingly, this Court is persuaded to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Jamroz.

However, the position with regard to the remaining accused Zakir Hussain and Siraj-ul- Islam stands on an altogether different footing.

It has come on record that they were not residing in the same house as the appellant Jamroz, nor has it been convincingly established that they were present at the time

of the earlier incident or had the occasion to immediately participate in the retaliatory act.

In the absence of cogent and confidence- inspiring evidence connecting them with the commission of the offence, the possibility of their false implication, being able-bodied members of the family, cannot be safely excluded. It is correct that the learned trial Court, while pronouncing the impugned judgment, did not expressly indicate whether the appellants stood convicted and sentenced on two distinct counts or on a single count.

That omission, however, must be viewed in its proper perspective. The evidentiary record is unequivocal, and the admitted circumstance that two deceased namely Mst. Kashmala and Mst. Wajeeha and two injured namely Imran and Mst. Shumaila are involved leaves no room for ambiguity as to the multiplicity of the offences proved. In that backdrop, the mere absence of a formal articulation in the operative part of the judgment cannot, by any stretch, be elevated into a fatal infirmity so as to unravel the entire trial or vitiate the

proceedings conducted before the court of first instance. More fundamentally, this Court is unable to discern any prejudice occasioned to the appellant by reason of such omission. The substratum of the prosecution case, the incriminating material relied upon, and the attendant circumstances were all duly put to the accused, and were met in accordance with law. Indeed, when learned counsel for the complainant sought to capitalize upon this aspect, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that no prejudice having been caused, the matter need not be disturbed on this score. The learned counsel for the complainant, when queried, adopted a similar stance and expressed no serious objection to such clarification being made. In these circumstances, where the record speaks with clarity and the rights of the appellant remain demonstrably unaffected, the Court is not persuaded that the omission warrants any interference with the conviction. On the contrary, in order to remove any lingering doubt and to render the operative conclusions

of the trial Court explicit and beyond forensic dispute, it is appropriate to set the record straight. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Jamroz, this Court clarifies and holds that the appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 302 PPC on two distinct counts for the murders of Mst. Kashmala and Mst. Wajeeha, and under Section 324 PPC for causing injuries to Imran and Shumaila whereas, the remaining portion of the judgment, including the direction for concurrent running of sentences and the extension of benefit under Section 382-B, CrPC, shall remain intact. This Court finds it just and proper to extend the benefit of doubt to the remaining appellants, namely Zakir Hussian and Siraj-ul-Islam, who are accordingly acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They shall be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case.

13.Now diverting to Cr. R No. 249- P/2025 titled “Mst. Tahira vs Zakir Hussain & others” whereby, the petitioner/complainant

seeks enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellants. Since the respondents/accused Zakir Hussain and Siraj-ul-Islam have been acquitted of the charge by this court, the instant criminal revision, to that extent, has lost its substratum and has become infructuous; the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

14.So far as the question of

enhancement of sentence awarded to respondent/accused Jamroz is concerned, the record reveals that, prior to the occurrence in the present case, his mother and sister had sustained firearm injuries in an earlier episode, and the instant occurrence appears to have been precipitated by retaliatory animosity arising from that antecedent background. The learned trial Court, after conducting a full- fledged trial and undertaking a comprehensive appraisal of the entire ocular and medical evidence, as well as the surrounding circumstances, awarded the sentence. In the present case, no such illegality, misreading of evidence, or perversity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment that would justify

interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court appears to be just, lawful, and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Consequently, the revision petition, insofar as it relates to respondent/accused Jamroz, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

*Muhammad Fiaz* *D.B* Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, J Hon’ble Ms. Justice Farah Jamshed, J