Appraisal of evidence

No one should be construed into a crime on the basis of presumption in absence of strong evidence of unimpeachable character and legally admissible one.

Supreme Court while appraising evidence and record, could validly set aside such findings.

Qatl-i-amd; house trespassing in order to commit offence punishable with death; rioting armed with deadly weapon; common object

Appeal against acquittal

Appraisal of evidence

One of the accused was not alleged to have caused any specific injury to the deceased, and nothing had been recovered from his possession and no evidence was available on record to connect him with commission of the offence

Other accused was alleged to have inflicted two firearm injuries on the person of the deceased, one on his right leg and the other on his heel of left foot; but during postmortem examination, no injury on the heel of left foot was observed, and the other injury was although observed to have been caused but the same was on non-vital part of the body of the deceased and hence did not contribute to his death, which had falsified the ocular account furnished by the prosecution to the extent of said accused

Complainant changed her stance as to nature of weapon allegedly used by said accused, who was alleged to have caused the injuries which had resulted in death of the deceased

Neither the rifle nor any empty thereof had been secured by the police from the place of occurrence, which made that improbable that said accused had inflicted said injuries with the rifle

Complainant had alleged electric bulb placed in the courtyard, but no such bulb had been taken into possession from the place of occurrence

Prosecution witnesses had made improvements in their statement before the Trial Court

Prosecution witnesses had alleged that accused made firing on the deceased when they were standing at the roof top of adjacent house; therefore, trajectory of the bullet should have been angular moving downwards and thus the direction of the injuries on the person of the deceased should have been from upward to downwards; however, postmortem report revealed that the deceased had received straight firearm injuries

One of the eye-witnesses had been neither cited as prosecution witness nor had he been arrayed as accused, which cast doubt on veracity of prosecution case

Non-production of said eye-witness also led to the conclusion that the alleged occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution

One of the eye-witnesses had been appearing as prosecution witness in a number of cases in which the accused were facing trial; said witness could be inferred to have been inimical towards the accused and his evidence could not safely be relied upon in the case, which carried capital punishment

High Court, maintained impugned order of acquittal

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appraisal of evidence in case of appeal against conviction was to be done strictly; and in appeal against acquittal, same rigid method of appraisal, was not to be applied, as there was already findings of acquittal given by the Trial Court after proper analysis/appreciation of evidence on record

In acquittal appeal, interference was made by High Court only when it appeared that there had been gross misreading of evidence which amounted to miscarriage of justice

High Court, in appeal against acquittal, would not in principle, ordinarily interfere; and instead would give due weight to the findings of the court acquitting accused

High Court, would not interfere with acquittal, merely because on re-appraisement of evidence, it came to different conclusion than that of court acquitting accused

Ordinarily, scope of appeal against acquittal of accused was considerably narrow and limited

Criterion laid down for appeal against acquittal, was entirely different than the criterion of hearing of appeal against conviction.

Accused were alleged to have entered into the house of the complainant with the help of complainant's housemaid and taken away twelve tolas gold bangles and two mobile phones

Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that his housemaid, the accused, had remained in his employment for eight years and during that period neither she had committed any theft in his house nor any such complaint had been lodged against her in the past

Complainant had also admitted that prior to present FIR, the housemaid had filed harassment petition against him before Court of Session and moved complaint to the Ombudsman of the Province and that the housemaid had held demonstration against him, which had been published in daily newspapers

Evidence on record had established that the complainant had been in dispute with the housemaid

Star prosecution witness had deposed that he had witnessed the accused persons coming out of the house of the complainant and that the complainant had informed him about the stolen articles and that he had not witnessed the incident and attracted on cries of the complainant

Complainant's house was located on the first floor of the building, which was situated in populated area surrounded by hotels and shops and as such availability of public at the time of occurrence could not be ruled out

None from the vicinity had attracted on cries of the complainant, which had negated the allegations levelled in the FIR

Complainant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove that he owned twelve tolas of gold bangles worth Rs.300,000

Slightest iota of evidence was sufficient to acquit the accused irrespective of the sensitivity of offence

Difference of opinion regarding appreciation of evidence was not valid ground for interference in the verdict of acquittal

High Court maintained order of acquittal

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Chief Court had passed the order whereby the Trial Court was directed to return the challan, if the same was presented by the local Police and Anti-Narcotic Force was directed to re-open the investigation

Advocate-General contended that Ss. 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered the Police to take cognizance of the said offence and to investigate the same; that investigation conducted by the Police could not be questioned; that Chief court fell in error by directing the Anti-Narcotic Force for re-opening the investigation of the case and that the investigation of the said case had already been conducted by the local Police and nothing remained for re-investigation in that case

Validity

Police Officer, in pursuance of S.R.O. No.656(I)/2004, dated 20-08-2004, had powers to take cognizance and investigate the offence falling under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Order passed by the Chief Court was set aside by the Supreme Appellate Court and case was remitted to the Special Judge for trial of the accused

Trial Court was directed to hear and decide the case expeditiously within a period of six months.

Application filed under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., for registration of FIR against the complainant and others filed by co-accused, and defence taken by accused before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., was contrary in nature

Fact disclosed before the Trial Court under S.342, Cr.P.C., had not been mentioned in the said application

Said co-accused after dismissal of his application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., due to non-prosecution, had neither moved application for its restoration nor filed any private complaint against the complainant party for the occurrence as narrated by accused in his statement recorded in the Trial Court under S.342, Cr.P.C.

All said efforts of co-accused seemed to be an afterthought, which were disbelieved by the Trial Court

Prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt in bringing home the guilt for committing murder of the deceased by accused and co-accused through a credible and corroborative evidence on record

Failure in conducting post-mortem of the deceased at the request of his legal heirs as per their custom, would not cause any adverse effect to the prosecution case

Judgment passed by the Trial Court was well reasoned and well founded being passed in line with the facts of the case while appreciating the evidence on record and same was upheld

Judgment passed by the Chief Court was set aside

Convictions and sentences awarded to accused by the Trial Court were maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court

Death sentence, awarded to accused, was converted into life imprisonment with benefits of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the complainant had submitted that; it was a day light occurrence and FIR had been registered promptly; that accused persons had been attributed a specific and direct role in commission of brutal murder and injuring a lady; that witnesses, had directly charged accused persons attributing them the specific roles; and that prosecution had proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt by producing eye-witnesses, recovery of blood-stained earth from the scene of occurrence, inquest report, Chemical Examiner's Report, Fire Arm Expert's Report, report of Radiologist and the recovery of weapon of crime on the pointation of accused persons

Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused persons and appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed

No illegality, infirmity or mis-appreciation of evidence was pointed out in the concurrent findings of the courts below which were maintained, in circumstances.

Standards of assessing evidence in appeal against acquittal are quite different from those laid down for appeal against conviction

Appraisal of evidence in case of an appeal against conviction is done strictly; in appeal against acquittal, such rigid method of appraisal is not to be applied, as there is already finding of acquittal given by trial court after proper analysis of evidence on record.

Case was of two versions, one taken by the prosecution in the FIR; and second put forth by accused during investigation and statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

No direct evidence of the occurrence was available and case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence

Testimony of prosecution witnesses, who were nearest relatives of the deceased, was based on presumption, as they were not eye-witnesses of the occurrence

Medical evidence, had negated the story of prosecution

No sign of injury or violation was found all over the body of the deceased

Many circumstances in the case were available, which created doubt in the prosecution story

Evidence in a case of conviction on a capital charge, must come from unimpeachable source, which was lacking in the present case

Drawing presumption, regarding the guilt of accused, without any legal proof could not be recognized by the court

For conviction and sentence of accused to death or life imprisonment there must be strong and legally acceptable evidence, leading the court to a definite conclusion about his guilt; otherwise a single doubt, if found reasonable, was sufficient for acquittal of accused

Accused, was presumed to be innocent in law, and if after regular trial, he was acquitted, he would earn a double presumption of innocence

Heavy onus lay on the prosecution to rebut such presumption

Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused on valid and cogent reason by correctly appreciating the evidence on record; and their acquittal, did not call for any interference by High Court.

Two kinds of empties had been recovered from the spot, i.e. 7.62 bore and .12 bore shot gun, which had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis

Stance of the complainant was contradicted by the Laboratory's report, according to which the .12 bore empties had been fired from different weapons

Such aspect of the case had created serious doubt about the veracity and credibility of the victim complainant

Previous empty had been alleged by the complainant with accused

At the time and place of incident, presence of father of the complainant had also been shown, but he had not been made target by accused

In hurt cases, statement of injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient for recording conviction, provided same rang true and was trustworthy, in view of its intrinsic worth

Mere stamp of injuries on the person of a witness would not be a proof of the fact that whatever he deposed, would be the truthful account of the events

His veracity was to be tested from the circumstances of the case, and his own statement whether it fitted in the circumstances of the case or otherwise

Ocular account furnished by injured complainant, was inconsistent and incompatible with other circumstances of the occurrence

Material evidence of prosecution, was shaking, scanty, full of material contradictions and discrepancies

Trial Court, in circumstances, was justified to acquit accused by invoking the provisions of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., to which no exception could be taken

In absence of any glaring mistake or misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Trial Court, impugned order of Trial Court, did not warrant interference by High Court

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Substitution of single accused in a murder charge was a rare phenomenon and to put the rope around the neck of accused charged singly, there must be ocular account of unimpeachable character, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, corroborated by other material circumstantial evidence

Testimony of alleged eye-witnesses was untrustworthy and incredible, creating serious doubts in the prosecution case, which could not be believed and relied upon

Contradiction with regard to crime venue in report of complainant and his statement in the court amounted to dishonest improvement, just to bring in line the place of occurrence with prosecution evidence

Eye-witnesses, were not unanimous about the kind of vehicle in which the deceased, then injured was shifted to the hospital

Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had proved the non-presence of alleged eye-witnesses with the deceased at the time of incident

Testimony of seizing officer, totally negated his testimony, furnished by him in the case, which created serious doubts in the prosecution case

Report of Fire Arms Expert with regard to recovered pistol and crime empty, was in negative

Such piece of evidence, would not advance the case of the prosecution, rather would create doubts in the prosecution case

Motive, alleged by the complainant remained unproved, as no evidence had been brought on record to that effect

Story of arrest of accused along with pistol, had not been proved through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Accused had been acquitted in case under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, against which no appeal had been filed

Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution

Prosecution case stuffed with many doubts was going to the root of the case

Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly acquitted accused by extending him benefit of doubt, to which no exception could be taken.

Complainant had not disclosed his source of information nor he disclosed name of the witnesses who informed him with regard to the names of the accused

Prosecution witnesses being chance witnesses had not been able to explain their presence at the spot

Persons who committed the murder after taking all precautions to keep secrecy were not likely to confess their guilt after committing the offence

No direct evidence was available against the accused except the statement of the witnesses of extra judicial confession in whose presence accused had confessed their guilt

Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession would depend upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it was made

Court was to decide with regard to credibility and acceptability of such evidence

Report of Chemical Examiner was doubtful

Charge against the accused had not been proved

Prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant had not deposed in his examination-in-chief as to with what weapon the accused were armed and what role was played by them at the time of the incident

Evidence of the complainant, therefore, had not connected the accused with commission of the offence

Injured prosecution witness had not disclosed the names of the accused persons in his evidence

Injured witness had identified the accused in the court, but he had not assigned any role played by him at time of the incident and the weapon used by him, whereas the witness had not disclosed name of the other accused; thus his evidence had not directly implicated the both accused in the case

Complainant and the prosecution witnesses had disclosed that there were in all fifteen accused persons, but they had identified only three of them by name and two others whose names they had forgotten

Evidence of the Investigation Officer and Mashir, who were all police official, was formal and corroborative in nature, and the same did not directly connect the accused persons with commission of the offence

No direct or circumstantial evidence existed on record to connect the accused with the offence

High Court, therefore, maintained the findings of acquittal

Appeal was dismissed accord-ingly.

Appraisal of evidence at appellate stage for acquittal should be totally different than in the cases where the accused was convicted by the Trial Court

Appraisal of evidence in appeal against conviction was to be done strictly and in appeal against acquittal, the same rigid method of appraisement was not to be applied since there was a finding of the Trial Court, after proper analysis of evidence on record

Interference in appeal against acquittal would only be made if there was a gross misreading of evidence which would amount to miscarriage of justice

Appellate Court would not interfere merely because of re-appraisement of evidence it came to a conclusion which was different than the decision of the Trial Court

Scope against appeal against acquittal was considerably narrow and limited.

Deep appraisal and detailed discussion of evidence is not permissible and Court should not cross barrier of permissible limits of law while making tentative assessment of evidence at bail stage

Exercise of such power should be confined to cases in which a good prima facie ground is made out for grant of bail in respect of offence alleged.

Appraisal of evidence in appeal against acquittal, could not be made rigidly, and in the manner of appreciation of evidence in appeal against conviction, as in case of acquittal, court had already appraised the evidence after proper analysis of record

In case of acquittal, the scope was considerably narrow.

Principles for appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal were altogether different from the appeal against conviction

Once an accused was acquitted by a competent court of law after facing the agonies of trial, then he would earn the presumption of double innocence, which could not be set at naught by the Appellate Court slightly, unless it was established on the basis of available evidence that the impugned judgment of acquittal was perverse, fanciful, or had resulted into grave miscarriage of justice.

Delay of six days in the registration of the case, being genuine had plausibly been explained, no adverse inference therefore, could be drawn regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story, merely, due to said delay

Minor contradictions between the statements of the victim and prosecution witness, neither were material, nor sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story, as such statements were recorded by the Trial Court after more than seven years of occurrence

Such contradictions were not proved in accordance with Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Despite minor contradictions in the statement of prosecution witness, his evidence could not be discarded

Mere absence of marks of injury or violence on the victim's body, would not imply non-commission of rape

Existence of marks of struggle, pre-supposed struggle which depended on capability of victim to offer resistance

In the present case, victim was a married lady of 38 years, having suddenly been overpowered by a young man of about 22 years, victim could not have resisted the assault with her physical force

Non-recovery of the knife, allegedly being carried out by accused at the time of occurrence, was not fatal to the prosecution story, as the complainant could not be held liable for any lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer

No previous enmity existed between the complainant and accused which could have resulted in the false implication of accused

Solitary statement of the victim, if found to be confidence-inspiring, was sufficient to record conviction of accused without any corroboration

Shalwar as well as the swabs taken from the vagina of the victim, were found to be stained with semen by Chemical Examiner

Lady doctor had stated that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse

Statement of the victim was fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence

Trial Court had no justification to acquit accused of the charge, in circumstances

Misreading of evidence by the Trial Court, had resulted in miscarriage of justice

Impugned judgment, whereby accused was acquitted by the Trial Court, was set aside

Period of more than 20 years having elapsed, since the occurrence, till the decision of the present appeal, same was a mitigating factor for awarding a lesser punishment to accused

Ends of justice, would adequately be fulfilled, if a lesser punishment was awarded to accused

Maintaining conviction of accused, accused was sentenced to four years' R.I., with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

No man of ordinary prudence would try to commit "zina-bil-jabr" with a woman without locking/bolting the door of the room/house which was situated in a narrow thickly populated street

Version/story of the complainant seemed to be improbable

Inhabitants of street had gathered on the spot immediately after the occurrence on hearing the hue and cry of the complainant and the victim; but, none of them had appeared in the Trial Court in order to support the allegations of the complainant

Corroboration, was not a rule of law but that of prudence

Acid test of veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix, no doubt was the inherent merit of her statement, but solitary statement of the victim was neither trustworthy, or confidence inspiring, nor supported by medical evidence

Victim alone could not be relied upon for recording conviction of accused, in circumstances

Medical evidence also did not prove the commission of 'zina-bil-jabr' by accused with the victim beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Neither any Police Official accompanied the victim to the Lady Doctor who conducted her medico-legal examination, nor any independent person identified her during said examination

As to whose medical examination was conducted by the Lady Doctor was shrouded in mystery

Lady Doctor was not able to give any opinion regarding the commission of zina prior to receipt of report of Chemical Examiner

Sample of semen of accused was not taken by the Doctor, nor sent to the Serologist for grouping

No DNA test of accused was conducted

Trial Court did not properly appreciate the statement of accused made on oath in disposal of the allegations/charges made against him

Statement of accused which was supported by a number of documents was more convincing as compared to the evidence of the complainant, which was not only contradictory, but also not worthy of any credence

Trial Court had de-exhibited all the documents which were produced by accused while making his statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.

Inquiry Officer in his report had clearly mentioned that real dispute between the parties was regarding vacation of the house in possession of the complainant as a tenant

Accused had also proved his enmity with a relative complainant

Chances of false implication of accused by the complainant could not be ruled out, in circumstances

Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the complainant to the extent of presence and participation of two co-accused, but had convicted accused on the same evidence

Whole occurrence as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. was not believed, which fact alone had created a serious dent in the veracity of the prosecution story, benefit thereof must accrue in favour of accused as a matter of right and not of grace

Prosecution having failed to prove the charges against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, Trial Court was not justified in recording convictions and sentence against accused

Impugned judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by Federal Shariat Court and accused was acquitted of the charges and was released.

Evidence in cases of acquittal and conviction is appraised in different perspectives; in appeal against acquittal liberty of person is involved and when anything to the contrary has not been brought on record, then acquittal order cannot be interfered with by the court.

Said prosecution witness in his cross-examination had stated that he was not in the knowledge of what had transpired between the deceased and accused prior to the occurrence as he was not present

Another prosecution witness did not mention the presence of the complainant or any other witness at the time of occurrence

F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of more than 24 hours and explanation offered by the complainant for such delay, was neither reasonable nor plausible which showed that time was consumed in deliberation and consultations

Occurrence was unseen and the witnesses were set up; they were closely related inter se with the deceased and inimical towards accused and were contradicted by the medical evidence

Empty shells allegedly taken from the spot by the complainant were not found wedded with the Kalashnikov allegedly recovered

Double presumption of innocence was attached to the order of acquittal passed by the court of competent jurisdiction

Finding of acquittal could not be reversed, upset and disturbed, except when the judgment of acquittal was found to be perverse, arbitrary, shocking, artificial and suffering from error of jurisdiction, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Even if on appreciation of evidence another view was possible, view favourable to accused was to be preferred

Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, being unexceptionable, needed no interference

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution witnesses had reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and their statements were corroborated by the Investigating Officer

Pistol used in the commission of the offence and other incriminating articles belonging to the deceased had been recovered from the accused

Sending the five crime empties collected from the spot immediately after the occurrence along with the pistol recovered from the accused on the following day to the Forensic Science Laboratory, did not suffer from any delay or irregularity

Medical evidence had fully supported the prosecution case

No exception could be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the courts below, even in the matter of death sentence awarded to accused

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused, however, had claimed to have killed the deceased while acting in his defence, when the deceased trespassed into his house having designs on him

Defence plea was a mere assertion and the same could not justify the murder of the deceased at the hands of the accused

Since the circumstances leading to the killing of the deceased were not discernible and since the prosecution had not taken the court into confidence, allowing the accused to be hanged to death was not safe

Conviction of accused was maintained, but his death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Accused had made effective firing at the deceased while removing thorny hedge from a disputed place, which was not allowed by the complainant party

Accused party had also received certain injuries as a result of the fight between the parties

Deceased was done to death by accused by firing at him with a lethal weapon on a vital part of his body

Accused had come to the spot being armed with a fire-arm,' while the complainant party was not having any such weapon with them in order to avoid any apprehended act

According to the complainant himself, injuries had been caused to the accused party after the accused had fired at the deceased, which fact had not been dislodged

No case was made out to fall within the ambit of S. 302(c), P. P. C. for reduction in the sentence of accused from imprisonment for life to any other lesser term of imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Conviction of accused was consequently maintained-However, accused was more than 80 years old and he had remained in jail for about 4/5 years

Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused was reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him with reduction in fine in circumstances.

Occurrence had gone unwitnessed, but the confession made by accused under S. 164, Cr.P.C. rang true and sounded believable and had been rightly trusted by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court

Conviction of accused was consequently maintained

Judicial confession had transpired that the deceased prior to the occurrence while armed with a kalashnikov, had surreptitiously entered the house of accused at mid night, but had then run away when the inmates of the house had woken up and the accused at that time did not interfere because of being empty handed

Accused on account of said grouse had ultimately caused the murder of the deceased

Immoral or improper act of the deceased himself had led or at least contributed to ,his ultimate murder

Imposition of normal penalty of death on the accused, in the circumstances, was not warranted

Sentence of death awarded to accused was set aside and instead he was sentenced to imprisonment for life accordingly.

Huge quantity of narcotics had been recovered from secret cavities of the truck loaded with bricks being driven by the accused

Concurrent finding of the two courts below holding the accused guilty was affirmed

However, the fact that the illicit substance was concealed in the secret cavities of the vehicle had suggested that the accused might not be aware in this regard, which could be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favour

Conviction of accused was consequently maintained, but his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life, without the benefit of S.382-B, Cr. P. C.

Accused could not be believed to have buried the pieces of the dead body of the deceased into a room of her house after having killed him somewhere else, where even the complainant and 10/12 other persons were also living

No conceivable explanation in this regard was forthcoming

No memorandum had been prepared with respect to the recovery of the said pieces of the dead body from the said room at the pointation of accused

Recovery of the letters allegedly written to the accused by her male co-accused after digging the floor of a room of her house was not a reliable piece of evidence ,.as she had no reason to preserve those letters under the soil and the same could not have been found in a legible form

Even the said letters were not proved at the trial according to law

Although complainant claimed during trial that he knew of the illicit relations between the accused and her co-accused, yet he never mentioned such relationship in his applications submitted to the police for registration of the case

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Eye-witnesses had not been able to establish their presence at the scene of occurrence and the crime had remained un-witnessed

Prosecution was bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt throughout and this burden would never shift to the accused

Strangulation to death of the wife of accused in his house might be a circumstance to be taken into account along with other prosecution evidence, but this by itself was not sufficient to establish his guilt connecting him to the crime

Presence of accused in the house at the time of murder of his wife was also not established by the prosecution

No positive evidence being available against the accused, he could not be convicted on the presumption that since the murder of his wife had taken place in his house it could only be him and no other who had murdered the deceased

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Accused had been apprehended immediately after the occurrence by the prosecution witnesses, who had absolutely no motive to implicate him in the case

Defence plea taken by accused besides being an afterthought was unfounded

Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were not open to any exception to be taken by Supreme Court

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Identification parade held 26 days after the arrest of accused was of no value, particularly in presence of an objection by the accused to have been shown to the prosecution witnesses in the police station

Even otherwise, identification parade had only been held with regard to the last seen evidence and not regarding the main criminal transaction of murder

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Complainant was fully supported by the injured witness, whose presence on the spot could not be doubted because of injuries on his person

None of the said two witnesses had any enmity with the accused to falsely charge him in the case, where five persons had been killed

Accused was named in the F.I.R. to be armed with a hatchet and he had caused a hatchet blow to the deceased on the left side of his shoulder

Medical evidence had corroborated the ocular testimony

Abscondence of accused for more than one year had further corroborated the eye-witness account

Prosecution had brought home the charges against the accused, whose sentence of death had already been converted into imprisonment for life by the High Court

Appeal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Occurrence in view of medical evidence appeared to have taken place in the dark of night than in broad-daylight as alleged by the prosecution

Basing the conviction and capital punishment of accused on the evidence of eye-witnesses found to be untruthful by the courts below, was contrary to the settled principles and constituted miscarriage of justice

Falsity of the ocular witnesses had led to the conclusion that the occurrence was un-witnessed

Two most credible witnesses of the crime, who could have testified as to the time and circumstances of the occurrence, were neither associated with the investigation nor examined in the court, reason for which could not be explained

No crime empties, blood, brain matter or pellets were gathered from the site

Guns recovered from the accused and his acquitted brother co-accused, were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and testing

Close relationship of the eye-witnesses with the deceased, although was not by itself sufficient to discard their testimony, yet had strongly suggested the same to be tainted one

Circumstances had negated the probative value of the ocular evidence

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight on 'a thoroughfare when the deceased was on his way back to his house after purchasing ice

Story of substitution propounded on behalf of accused, therefore, could not be accepted

Courts in the absence of any corroboration were expected to follow the rule of abundant care and caution in the matter of sentence

No resident of the lane of occurrence had appeared and supported the prosecution version

Prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the offence

Accused had fired only one shot and decamped from the place of incident

Ocular witnesses were at a considerable distance from the place of murder

Conviction of accused was upheld, but his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life in circumstances.

F.I.R. had been lodged within two hours of the occurrence naming specifically all the accused with a definite role assigned to each one of them-Blood relations of eye-witnesses with the deceased would not erode their credibility, because they were residents of the house of occurrence, had received injuries, had no reason for false implication of accused and were consistent on the role attributed to each accused

Medical evidence had corroborated the ocular testimony not only with regard to the presence of eye-witnesses, but also with regard to the injuries sustained by both the deceased

Convictions of accused were, therefore, maintained

Eight accused, as per prosecution story, armed with sharp edged weapons had attacked the complainant party causing injuries to the deceased and in such a moment of commotion and shock it was difficult to say with exactitude as to who had caused the fatal injury

Ocular evidence had been disbelieved qua three accused, who had been acquitted by Trial Court

Sentence of imprisonment for life of one accused was upheld, but sentence of death of other accused was converted into imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Complainant was brother of the accused and father of both the victims and he could not be expected to have substituted the accused for the real culprit

Dispute over partition of land was going on between the parties

Record did not suggest that the firearm injury suffered by the injured witness at the hands of accused was self-suffered

Promptly lodged F.I.R. had given the complete picture of the incident, which was fully supported by medical evidence

Presence of accused at the place of occurrence with a loaded pistol with which he had fired three successive shots at his nephews on a day of religious festivities, had shown his determination and callousness

No reason was available to allow benefit of lesser penalty of life imprisonment to accused on the ground of his old age

Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.

Where identity of accused is proved by other convincing direct or circumstantial evidence, the absence of identification test proceedings will be inmaterial.

Prosecution witness can even identify the accused in court and it is not the legal requirement that identification parade must be held in all the cases.

Identification of accused in identification parade being merely a corroborative piece of evidence, would be immaterial in the presence of other convincing evidence of identification

Complainant had not only identified the accused in identification parade but also during the trial, who had remained in the house of the complainant for a reasonable time

No question of any doubt qua identification of accused by the complainant would, therefore, arise

No enmity whatsoever of the complainant with the accused had been alleged

Forthright, confidence-inspiring and trustworthy ocular testimony furnished by three eye-witnesses including the complainant, was duly corroborated by medical evidence and incriminating recovery

Guilt of accused, thus, had been established to the hilt

Death sentence of one accused had been converted into imprisonment for life by High Court on cogent reasons, as admittedly fatal injury on the person of the deceased was never attributed to him

Besides, sufficient incriminating material was lacking to prove the factum of common object and common intention

Prosecution evidence had not shown any preconcert and pre-arrangement for the commission of the murder

No uncalled for leniency was given to the said accused by High Court in reducing his death sentence in circumstances

Co-accused had caused fatal injury to the deceased and his case, therefore, was distinguishable from that of the said accused

Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Recovery of crime weapon in a criminal case is not at all material, as it can only serve as a piece of supporting evidence

If case is proved by other evidence independently, recovery is not essential at all.

Police station being 13 km away from the place of occurrence and the deceased being a Head Constable, delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. was strange and the explanation therefor might not be tenable

No crime empty was recovered from the spot

Despite the deceased had remained alive in the hospital for more than 33 days, Investigating Officer had only made one attempt to record his statement in the beginning and not thereafter

Conviction of accused was maintained, but his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Benefit of any reasonable doubt created in prosecution case is to be extended to the accused.

Despite the incident having occurred in a busy public place of a town where many private persons were available, Investigating Officer did not try to arrange any witness of the locality, who might have seen the accused in any manner linked with the said ten sacks of narcotics lying near the road in open space

None of the two prosecution witnesses of the recovery had stated that he had seen the accused either bringing the said sacks or carrying the same with him

Active possession of the sacks of the accused could not be proved merely by his standing near them

Accused had specifically deposed on oath in his statement recorded under S. 340(2), Cr. P. C. before Trial Court that the sacks of narcotics belonged to some other person who has slipped away on seeing the police raiding party and his statement might be true

Even the informer or any other person had not seen the accused loading or unloading the sacks containing narcotic substances from any vehicle or any other source

Knowledge of accused about the contents of these sacks and his ownership about the same was not even established on record

Delay of more than seven days in sending the samples of narcotics to Chemical Examiner for anlaysis was also not explained by the prosecution

Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances.

Eye-witness was the son-in-law of the deceased and used to cultivate his land and he had explained his visit to the house of his father-in-law and his stay there, being a close relation and member of the family

Presence of the eye-witness in the said house was natural and usual, which was also supported by the dying declaration of another deceased

Eye-witness had seen the occurrence who knew the accused being co-villagers and had the opportunity of recognizing them

Report with the police was not lodged by the said eye-witness, as the son of the deceased had lodged the same

Deceased had made his dying declaration in the Hospital, which was certified by the Doctor that he was. conscious and capable of making the statement

Deposition of eye-witness and dying declaration of the deceased were consistent as to naming and involving the accused in the incident

Statement of the sole eye-witness inspired confidence

Even in a murder case conviction could be based on the testimony of a single witness if the court was satisfied that he was reliable

Accused had attacked the family in the middle hours of the night in police uniform and killed twelve persons and he did not deserve any leniency

On no recognized principle of law accused could be shown clemeney, who had eliminated the entire family from the earth

Conviction and sentence of death of accused were upheld in circumstances

So far as the acquittal of other accused was concerned, the only eye-witness of the occurrence had not named him in this deposition and he had been rightly acquitted by High Court

Both the appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Conviction even in a murder case, can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if court is satisfied that he is reliable; it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters.

Discovery and recovery of dead body of the deceased on the pointation of accused was frilly supported by prosecution witnesses

Revolver recovered at the behest of accused had matched with the crime bullet according to the report of Expert

Statement of prosecution witnesses, confessional statements of accused, medical evidence and incriminating recoveries had all corroborated each other leading to the only conclusion that the deceased had been abducted for ransom and thereafter killed by the accused

Any lapse on the part of Investigating Officer was not by itself sufficient to demolish the evidence of unimpeachable varacity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused had nourished ill will and grudge towards the complainant as he considered the complainant responsible for separation of his wife and daughters and thus thought of teaching a lesson to him

Medical evidence had supported the last seen and other circumstantial evidence

Multiple circumstances had corroborated the involvement of accused in killing the boy, who had taken him along on a bicycle, killed him thereafter and thrown into the river

In view of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the lead provided by the accused and pointation of the place where the minor was killed and recovery of dead body, were all relevant informations about which only the accused had the information

Accused had taken life of an innocent child in a merciless and cruel manner and he deserved no leniency

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused was found innocent by different police agencies and got discharged from the court of Magistrate, which order was not challenged by the complainant

No weapon of offence had been recovered from the possession of accused

Participation of accused in the commission of crime was highly doubtful

Ocular evidence was not credible and trustworthy

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Rule of benefit of doubt described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence, which cannot be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law.