Shakir Ullah etc The State etc

Judgment Sheet

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT. BANNU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr. A No.242-B of 2025

Shakir Ullah and 02 others.

Vs.

The State and another.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 04,05,2026,

For appellants: Messrs. Tariq Kakar (before court) and Malik Sami Ullah Khattak(Via Video Link), advocates.

For State: Mr. Muhammad Asghar Khan Ahmadzai, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent: Mr. Muhammad Qasim Khan Khattak, advocate. Wdeo Link).

*(Via

SABIT ALLAH KHAN, J.-

1.Through this consolidated judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.242-B of 2025 instituted by appellants namely Shakir Ullah, Kiramat Ullah and Attique Ullah, as well as connected Criminal Revision No.07-B of 2026 filed by complainant Ali Abbas and injured witness Mst. Shahida Parveen, both arising out of judgment dated 19.12.2025 rendered by the leamed Judicial Magistrate/Senior Civil Judge (Admn), Karak, in case FIR No.789 dated 21.12.2023 registered under Sections 324, 337 -F (l), 337 -F (ii), 452 and 34 P.P.C. at Police Station Karak, District Karak. Vide the impugned judgment, the present appellants were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

I Under Section 324 read with Section 34 P.P.C., each appellant was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for Jhte years with fine of Rs.45,000/- each, and in defoult thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

u Under Sections 337-F(, and 337-F(ii) read with Section 34 P.P.C., each appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on each count and was further directed to pay Daman dmounting to 8.s.50,000/- for each offence to the injured complainant Ali Abbas.

u,. Under Section 337-F(i) read with Section 34 P.P.C. pertdining to injuries sustained by Mst. Shahida Parveen, each appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with Daman of Rs.50,000/- payable to the injured witness.

tv Under Section 452 read vrith Section 34 P.P.C., each appellant wss sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

v All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, while the Daman atlarded under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. was directed to be paid to the injured persons, failihg which the convicts were required to further undergo simple inprisonment for lwo months each.

2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 21.12.2023, complainant Ali Abbas reported to police at DHQ Hospital, Karak, alleging that at about 15:40 hours, while he along with his mother Mst. Shahida Parveen and other family members was present at his house situated in village Darab Kalla, the accused persons namely Hikmat Ullah, Attique Ullah, Shakir Ullah and Kiramat Ullah, duly armed with pistols, forcibly trespassed into the house and resorted to indiscriminate firing with intention to commit Qatl-i-amd.It was alleged that as a consequence

-J-

of firing made by accused Hikmat Ullah, the complainant sustained firearm injuries, whereas firing athibuted to accused Attique Ullah caused injuries to Mst. Shahida Parveen. It was further alleged that after commission of the occuffence, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and that the motive behind the incident was a dispute over money and snatching of a motorcycle.

3.Upon completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the leamed trial Court. The accused persons were formally charged under Sections 324,337-F(1),337- F(i|, 452 and 34 P.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to note that accused Hikmat Ullah remained absconding and was declared proclaimed offender by the leamed hial Court.

4.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined the complainant, injured wihresses, medical offrcers, Investigating Officer and produced documentary evidence including medico-legal reports, recovery memos and forensic material. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Section 342 CI.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied tle allegations in toto, professed innocence and pleaded false implication on account of prior enmity. However, they neither opted to appeax as witnesses trnder Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner already noted hereinabove.

5.Leamed counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that the statements of prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions, omissions and subsequent improvements touching the very genesis of occurrence, manner of assault and role athibuted to each accused. Leamed counsel further submitted that the medical evidence does not fully corroborate the ocular account and rather creates serious doubt regarding the nature and manner of injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant pafty.

It was also contended that the recovery proceedings and safe transmission of the alleged case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory were not established in accordance with law, thereby rendering the forensic evidence wholly unreliable. Lastly, it was argued that the alleged motive remained unsubstantiated and that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to previous hostility between the pa(ies.

6.Conversely, leamed Additional Advocate General assisted by leamed counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the appeal (- and supported the impugred judgment. It was contended that the prosecution successfully established its case through confidence- inspiring testimony of injured witnesses which stood fully corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. According to learned law officers, minor discrepancies occurring in statements of witnesses are natural and inconsequential and do not adversely affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court was based upon

proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, warranted no interference by this Court. Simultaneously, leamed counsel for the complainant argued that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court was inadequate in the circumstances of the case and sought enhancement thereof through connected criminal revision petition.

7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also meticulously examined the entire record with their able assistance. It is by now a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is duty-bound to establish its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and any reasonable doubt emerging from the record must necessarily be resolved in favour of the accused. While evaluating evidence, the Court is required to examine not merely the inhinsic worth of testimony but also its consistency with surrounding circumstances and attending evidence.

E. In the instant case, the prosecution mainly hinges upon the testimony of injured witnesses namely Ali Abbas (PW-10) and Mst.

Shahida Parveen (PW-l1), allegedly corroborated by PW-12 Farid Iqbal. Undoubtedly, testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries great evidentiary value; however, such testimony is not immune from judicial scrutiny and must inspire confidence. A careful appraisal of statements of the said witnesses reveals material contradictions and noticeable improvements regarding the sequence of occurrence, positioning of the parties and exact role assigned to the accused persons. The complainant admitted during cross- examination that he had not counted the number of fire shots allegedly made by the accused persons and also made inconsistent

statements regarding presence of family members and role played by each accused. Likewise, Mst. Shahida Parveen fumished varying accounts regarding her position at the time of occurrence and even expressed lack of knowledge regarding material particulars including direction of firing and sequence of events. Such discrepancies are not superficial in nature but strike at the root of the prosecution story and substantially impair reliability of the ocular account.

9.Apad from the above, the statements of PW-10, PW-ll and PW-12 are not in harmony with regard to exact place of occurrence, intemal arrangement of the house and relative position of witnesses and accused at the relevant time. The witnesses also introduced signiflrcant improvements during trial particularly concerning attribution of specific roles to the accused persons, which were conspicuously absent in the earlier version fumished before police. It is a settled proposition of law that improvements made during trial which travel beyond the earlier version materially diminish the evidentiary value of such testimony.

10.The medical evidence, though confirming the factum of injuries, does not materially advance the prosecution case. A perusal of medico-legal reports Ex.PW-5/l and Ex.PW-3/1 reveals that the injuries sustained by the complainant and injured wibress were opined to be simple in nature. This circumstance assumes significance in view of the prosecution allegation that the accused persons, armed with pistols, had forcibly entered the house and resorted to indiscriminate firing with intention to commlt Qatl-i- amd. The nature of injuries does not convincingly correspond with

the intensity and manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution.

Moreover, deficiencies admitted by the medical officers in preparation of medico-legal reports flrther reduce their corroborative worth.

11.Likewise, the forensic evidence also fails to provide meaningful corroboration to the prosecution version. The FSL report merely indicates that four crime empties marked Cl to C4 were fired from one and the same weapon. Instead of strengthening the prosecution case, this circumstance creates a serious dent therein because the prosecution alleged participation of multiple accused persons each armed with separate firearms. Furthermore, while injuries were specifically attributed to firing by accused Hikmat Ullah and Attique Ullah, the forensic result suggesting use of a single weapon materially conflicts with the ocular account. It is trite law that expert opinion is merely corroborative in nature and cannot independently sustain conviction in absence of trustworthy substantive evidence. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the dictum laid down in Faisal v. The State (2026 YLR 428), wherein it was held that even a positive forensic report loses significance where the prosecution version suffers from inherent inconsistencies.

12.It is an entrenched principle of criminal law that conviction must rest upon unimpeachable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence. The burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and every reasonable doubt must necessarily accrue to the benefit of the accused. It is equally settled that such benefit is to be extended as a matter of right and not grace.

In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the celebrated case of Maqsood Alam and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 156), wherein the august Supreme Court reiterated that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal.

13.Another significant weakness in the prosecution case is complete failure to establish motive. Although a dispute regarding money and alleged snatching of motorcycle was projected as motive behind the occurrence, no independent or convincing evidence was produced in support thereof. Conversely, the defence plea alleging false implication on account of previous enmity cannot altogether be brushed aside in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

14.From the cumulative effect of the infirmities discussed above namely inconsistent and unreliable ocular account, doubtful presence of witnesses, inconclusive medical evidence, defective forensic linkage and failure to establish motive, it becomes abundantly clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that even a solitary circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution case is sufficient to extend benefit thereof to the ( accused. Reliance may also be placed upon the dicta laid down in Laiq Shah v. The State (2026 SCMR 257), Imran v. The State (2026 SCMR 47) and Azhar Iqbal and. othe$ v. The State (2026 SCMR 182), wherein it has consistently been held that where prosecution witnesses make material improvements, their statements are inconsistent with medical evidence and corroborative evidence

Date of hearing

For petitione r: Mr. Farooq Nawaz, Khattak, V advocate.

lacks reliability, the accused are entitled to acquittal by extending For respondents: Nemo (in motion)' benefit ofdoubt.

15.For 't'****rt:t the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.242-B of 2025 is allowed.Vide Consequently, detailed impugred judgment dated thecommon

19.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the judgment of today placed on B.A. No, 99-8/2025 Kiramat Ullah and Attique LIllah appellants namely Shakir Ullah,

are acquitted of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt. They (Muhammad Sher Vs The State etc), the tnstarfi are on bail; therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled and the bail cancellation application, 1,€, No.10- sureties are discharged from their liabilities.

16.As a necessary corollary, connected Criminal Revision 8,12025 is hereby dismissed nlbninie.

No.07-B of 2026 seeking enhancement of sentence, having lost its substratum in view of acquittal of the appellants, is dismissed as 07.01.202s.

'Inrdnulldh PS' having become infructuous.

Announced Hon'ble Mi lastlcc Abdal Fayaz

(S,B)04.05.2026.

'Imranullah PS+

At

JUDGE

-Sd- Judge

q o

6 o)

? lt'

(s.Bt Hon'ble Mt, rustke sobit Uttoh Khqn