Dying Declaration Did Not Prove Both Brothers’ Roles: Supreme Court Acquits Shehryar

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has acquitted Shehryar after finding that the prosecution evidence did not establish his individual role in a fatal shooting beyond reasonable doubt. His brother Asfandyar obtained no such relief: the Court dismissed his petition and left his convictions in place. Judgment, paragraphs 5–7.

The decision in Shehryar and another v. The State and another, Criminal Petition No. 224-P/2025, is dated 21 October 2026. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim wrote for a bench also comprising Justices Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Salahuddin Panhwar. The distinction between the two brothers is central to the result. Judgment, case heading and final order.

The deceased’s dying declaration was part of the prosecution case. The Court did not reject it on the ground that he was unconscious or medically incapable of speaking. It instead examined whether the general attribution of firing to both brothers was supported by the remaining evidence against each man. Judgment, paragraphs 3–4.

The shooting allegation and the convictions below

The case arose from FIR No. 134, registered on 18 February 2019 at Police Station Nowshera Kalan under Sections 302, 324 and 34 PPC. Kifayat Ullah was alleged to have been shot near Masjid Khesghi on Main Mandani Road. His hospital statement named both brothers; he died the following day after being moved between hospitals. Judgment, paragraphs 1 and 3.

The trial court convicted both petitioners on 19 March 2025. Each received life imprisonment under Section 302(b), compensation of Rs500,000 under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324. The Peshawar High Court maintained the convictions on 17 July 2025, leading to the Supreme Court petition. Judgment, paragraph 2.

Those concurrent findings did not remove the need to test the evidence identifying each accused’s role. The Supreme Court’s analysis compared the declaration, eyewitness account, injuries, recoveries and site evidence before reaching different conclusions for the two petitioners. Judgment, paragraphs 3–7.

Fitness to make the statement was established

The declaration was recorded in the murasila by the investigating police officer. The officer who recorded it and the doctor who examined the injured man supported his consciousness and fitness to make the statement. The Court accepted that part of the record. Judgment, paragraph 3.

That finding answered an issue about the making of the statement. It did not settle the separate question whether every part of the accusation established the role of each brother. Treating the declaration as available evidence did not prevent the Court from comparing its account with the medical and physical evidence. Judgment, paragraphs 3–4.

The account did not identify whose shots struck the deceased

Both the declaration and the account of Ijaz Khan, PW-4, attributed firing to the brothers without specifying which accused caused the injuries or identifying their respective firearm calibres. The medical record described two firearm entry wounds, on the chest and thigh. The Court considered that lack of specific attribution material when assessing the different recovered weapons. Judgment, paragraph 4.

A repeater gun was recovered on Shehryar’s pointation, while a .30-bore pistol was recovered from Asfandyar. On the evidence before it, the Court found the injury characteristics consistent with the pistol account and inconsistent with the repeater attributed to Shehryar. No crime empties were recovered from the firing positions attributed to the accused. Judgment, paragraph 4.

The significance lay in the combined record: the general firing allegation, the failure to distinguish who caused the injuries, the contrast between the weapons and the absence of supporting site evidence. This should not be converted into a universal forensic proposition that the diameter of an entry wound alone conclusively identifies the firearm used. Judgment, paragraphs 4–5.

Evidence against co-accused must be assessed separately

The judgment discusses falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus and declines to apply it mechanically to discard the entire prosecution account. It considers whether the reliable part of the evidence can be separated from the doubtful part and assessed against the particular accused. Its discussion includes Tawaib Khan v. The State, PLD 1970 SC 13, as an authority reproduced in the judgment. Judgment, paragraph 4.

The result demonstrates that approach. The uncertainty concerning Shehryar did not automatically exonerate Asfandyar. Conversely, evidence sufficient against Asfandyar could not fill the specific gaps in the case against Shehryar. The Court maintained the distinction when making its final order. Judgment, paragraphs 5–7.

The judgment also mentions that Shehryar held an MSc qualification. It expressly states that education alone has no bearing on guilt or innocence. Reporting the acquittal as a benefit granted because he was educated would misstate the Court’s reasoning. Judgment, paragraph 4.

What the Supreme Court actually ordered

The petition was converted into an appeal and partly allowed. Shehryar’s convictions and sentences were set aside, he was acquitted on the benefit of doubt and release was directed if he was not required in another case. Asfandyar’s petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7.

For trial and appellate lawyers, the practical point is to organise the evidence accused by accused. In a joint firing allegation, the account of participation, medical findings, recovered weapons and site material require comparison. This is an application of the judgment’s reasoning; it does not mean that every case requires identification of a particular fatal bullet irrespective of the applicable charge and other proved facts. Judgment, paragraphs 4–7.

Frequently asked questions

Were both Shehryar and Asfandyar acquitted?

No. Shehryar’s convictions and sentences were set aside and he was acquitted. Asfandyar’s petition was dismissed, leave was refused and his convictions remained in place. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7.

Did the Supreme Court reject the dying declaration as unconscious or unfit?

No. The Court accepted the evidence that the deceased was conscious and fit to make the statement. Its concern was whether the account, read with the medical and recovery evidence, proved Shehryar’s individual participation beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment, paragraphs 3–5.

Why did the different recovered weapons matter?

The Court compared the repeater attributed to Shehryar with the .30-bore pistol recovered from Asfandyar and the particular injuries described in the medical evidence. It found a material uncertainty about Shehryar’s role. This was an assessment of this record, not a universal test for identifying a firearm from wound size alone. Judgment, paragraphs 4–5.

Did one doubtful allegation require rejection of all the evidence?

The Court assessed the evidence separately against each brother. It declined to apply falsus in uno mechanically and distinguished the evidence supporting Asfandyar’s conviction from the uncertainty affecting Shehryar. Judgment, paragraphs 4–7.

Was Shehryar acquitted because he held an MSc degree?

No. Although the judgment mentions his education, it expressly says educational qualification alone has no bearing on guilt or innocence. The acquittal rested on the cumulative evidentiary deficiencies concerning his alleged role. Judgment, paragraphs 4–5.

What release direction did the Supreme Court make?

It directed Shehryar’s immediate release if he was not required in another case. That direction does not establish the time of physical release or confer any relief on Asfandyar. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7.

Sources and complete judgment

This analysis is based on the complete 6-page supplied judgment in Shehryar and another v. The State and another, Criminal Petition No. 224-P/2025, decided 21 October 2026. The downloadable PDF is a labelled, searchable reference copy prepared from that text, preserving the source page order. It is not a certified copy or an official court-issued PDF. An independently accessible official copy was not located during this review.

• Read the complete judgment reference copy.
• Download the complete judgment reference copy.
• Case particulars, legal questions and judgment summary.

Paragraph 3 addresses the declaration’s making; paragraphs 4–5 compare the evidence against each brother; paragraphs 6–7 contain the different final outcomes.