| Case ID |
0b167fb4-6a9e-48e2-81e8-b8fe91885f71 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 160-B of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 02, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 02, 2022 |
| Decision |
The appellate court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant ZALWANOOR under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860). The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven ZALWANOOR's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on substantial evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic reports. Consequently, the appeal against ZALWANOOR's conviction was dismissed, and the original sentencing was maintained. However, in the case of the co-accused Mubashir Parvez, the court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his involvement in the offense beyond any shadow of doubt. As a result, Mubashir Parvez's conviction and corresponding sentence were set aside, leading to his acquittal of the charges against him. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that convictions are supported by incontrovertible evidence while also recognizing the necessity of acquitting individuals when the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Criminal Appeal No. 160-B of 2021, heard at the esteemed Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, the appellant ZALWANOOR faced serious charges under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860). The case, cited as 2024 SLD 2554 and 2024 YLR 383, revolved around the tragic incident that occurred on July 21, 2019, where Naqeebullah and his brother Asadullah were fatally shot, leading to ZALWANOOR's conviction for murder and attempted murder.
The hearing, presided over by Judges Sahibzada Asadullah and Shahid Khan, took place on November 2, 2022. The prosecution, represented by Anwar-ul-Haq and Saif-ur-Rehman Khattak, presented compelling evidence, including witness testimonies that placed ZALWANOOR at the scene with a matched .30 bore pistol. The forensic analysis further corroborated the prosecution's claims, reinforcing the link between the accused and the crime.
ZALWANOOR's defense, led by Muhammad Rashid Khan Dirma Khel, attempted to challenge the evidence, questioning the reliability of witness statements and the timeliness of the postmortem reports. Despite these efforts, the court found the prosecution's case to be robust and beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against his conviction.
However, the case also involved co-accused Mubashir Parvez, who faced charges of ineffective firing. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the prosecution had not sufficiently established Mubashir's direct involvement in the offense. Consequently, Mubashir Parvez's conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted, highlighting the court's diligent commitment to justice and the precise application of legal standards.
Throughout the proceedings, the court meticulously examined various aspects, including the motive behind the crime, which was identified as a dispute over property. The defense's arguments regarding potential procedural lapses and the credibility of witnesses were thoroughly addressed, reaffirming the integrity of the judicial process.
This case also referenced pivotal precedents such as Arshad Beg v. The State (2017 SCMR 1727) and Khalid v. The State and another (2017 YLR Note 272), which reinforced the legal principles applied in determining the guilt of the accused. These references underscored the importance of consistent evidence evaluation and the judiciary's role in safeguarding against miscarriages of justice.
In the final judgment, the court emphasized the necessity of basing convictions on incontrovertible evidence while ensuring that defendants are acquitted when the prosecution's case is insufficient. This balanced approach not only upholds the rule of law but also reinforces public confidence in the legal system's fairness and efficacy.
The implications of this case are profound, setting a significant precedent for future criminal appeals in the region. It underscores the judicial system's unwavering dedication to upholding justice, meticulously evaluating evidence, and ensuring that only those proven guilty receive convictions and appropriate sentencing. Moreover, the acquittal of Mubashir Parvez serves as a testament to the court's impartiality and its commitment to individual rights within the criminal justice framework.
For legal professionals and stakeholders, this case exemplifies the critical importance of thorough evidence collection, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the rigorous standards courts must adhere to in order to deliver just outcomes. It also highlights the dynamic interplay between prosecution and defense strategies in shaping the trajectory and outcome of high-stakes criminal cases.
In conclusion, Criminal Appeal No. 160-B of 2021 stands as a landmark judgment that reinforces the pillars of justice, evidentiary integrity, and judicial impartiality. By maintaining ZALWANOOR's conviction while acquitting Mubashir Parvez, the court has affirmed its role as a guardian of justice, ensuring that legal principles are applied consistently and fairly across all facets of the judicial process. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench
|
| Entities Involved |
The STATE,
Naqeebullah,
Zahidullah,
ZALWANOOR,
Mubashir Parvez,
Muhammad Rashid Khan Dirma Khel,
Asadullah,
Anwar-ul-Haq,
Saif-ur-Rehman Khattak
|
| Judges |
Sahibzada Asadullah,
Shahid Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Anwar-ul-Haq,
Saif-ur-Rehman Khattak, Addl. A.G.,
Muhammad Rashid Khan Dirma Khel
|
| Petitioners |
ZALWANOOR
|
| Respondents |
The STATE,
another
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 2554,
2024 YLR 383
|
| Other Citations |
Arshad Beg v. The State 2017 SCMR 1727 rel.,
Khalid Naseer and another v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 1966),
Arshad Beg v. The State (2017 SCMR 1727),
Khalid v. The State and another (2017 YLR Note 272)
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
302(b),
324
|