Qatl-e-amd

In the instant case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence and there was not a single piece of evidence which had not been duly considered

Vital question argued by both the parties related to quantum of sentence

Trial Court awarded death sentence (two times) to the convict-respondent for the murder of two ladies and life imprisonment for the murder of his wife

High Court while accepting the appeal filed by the convict, awarded him 25 years' rigorous imprisonment (three times) for the commission of murder of all the three deceased ladies, whereas, it kept intact the rest of the sentences awarded by the Trial Court

Convict-respondent had not challenged the crime without being unnecessarily harsh

In the instant case, the motive alleged by the complainant party was that the complainant and the two deceased ladies went to the home of the convict-respondent for negotiating compromise between him and his wife, whereas, it was evident from the record that convict- respondent had divorced his wife, on 05.05.2010, much before the incident

Divorce deed had also been brought on the record, hence, the question of compromise or resettlement did not arise, meaning thereby, that the motive alleged by the prosecution remained obscure and could not be proved as alleged

Motive though was not sine qua non for bringing the offence of murder at home but it had importance regarding the quantum of sentence

Where the motive, as alleged, was not positively proved, extreme penalty of death was not warranted under law

Moreover, it was revealed from the record that as per prosecution version some other persons also saw the convict-respondent fleeing from the place of occurrence but the said independent persons were not cited in the challan as witnesses and only related and interested witnesses had been produced by the prosecution

Although, it was not mandatory for the prosecution to produce all the witnesses cited by it in the calendar of witnesses but the situation was quite different in the instant case

Police had notcited independent persons as witnesses in the challan

If independent persons were not cited in the challan or withheld by the prosecution then the presumption could be inferred against the prosecution that such witnesses, if cited or produced, would have not supported the case of the prosecution

Thus, in the circumstances of this case, it was of the opinion of the Court that for the safer dispensation of justice, it would be appropriate not to impose the extreme penalty of death sentence rather the sentence awarded by the High Court would meet the ends of justice

Consequently, appeal, having no substance, was dismissed.

During cross-examination, Medical Officer stated that he had asked the deceased (then injured) some questions before examining him, which he responded to clearly, which suggested that he was in a fit condition to give a statement

In cross-examination, nothing contrary had been elicited to discredit the Medical Officer's evidence

Comparison of the dying declaration and the statement of brother of deceased/eye-witness, recorded before the Trial Court, showed that they tallied on material points

There was no conflict or inconsistency between those two statements

In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution clearly established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the deceased was conscious when he was moved to the hospital

Prosecution's evidence showed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make statement on the date and time of report

Complainant then injured expired on the same day, i.e., 07.09.2007 at 15.45 hours at hospital

Autopsy of deceased was conducted by Medical Officer on 07.09.2007 at 04.30 pm

No justifiable reason was pointed out to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witnesses and dying declaration made by the deceased

Prosecution's evidence did not suffer from any legal infirmity, which would render the dying declaration as doubtful or unworthy of evidence

In such a situation, the lapse on the part of the recorder of the dying declaration, i.e., failure to get the statement attested by the Medical Officer, should not be taken in favour of the accused; it might be that such lapse was committed by design or because of negligence, particularly when, prior to recording of statement of the then injured (now deceased), the Medical Officer examined him and opined that he was conscious and was in a position to make a statement

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

It was an admitted fact that the occurrence took place on 07.09.2007, while the accused-petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2015

Soon after the occurrence, accused-petitioner went into hiding and remained fugitive from the law for about eight years, for which he could not offer a plausible explanation

Proceedings under Sections 204 and 87, Cr.P.C., were initiated and completed against him

Unexplained disappearance of the accused-petitioner immediately after the occurrence from his place of residence, knowing that the deceased was his co-villager, strongly indicated towards his guilt

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

Evidently, the incident was reported by the deceased himself on 07.09.2007 at 08.50 am to Head Constable at casualty of hospital, which was recorded in the shape of Murasila at 09.25 am

Matter was reported within thirty-five minutes of the occurrence

Report was endorsed by the eye-witness, brother of the deceased

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined.

Recovery of blood-stained earth and one crime empty of .30 bore pistol confirmed the scene of crime as the railway track

So far as non-recovery of rest of the crime empties were concerned, it was observed that the crime was committed at a railway track near a mosque, therefore, there was strong possibility that the people of the vicinity would have been attracted to the crime scene after the occurrence and the remaining empties would have been misplaced due to rush of people

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

Record showed that neither husband of deceased, nor any child out of the four children of the deceased had appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution case

As per contents of the FIR, deceased had been married with "ZH" for the last 16/17 years and she had four children from the said wedlock

Husband of deceased and children of the deceased were the natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence being inmates of the area, where the occurrence took place but none from them appeared in the witness box

Said fact had also created another dent in the prosecution story because the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would have not supported the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Delay of 15 hours and 20 minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased due to delay in receiving police papers

Consequential

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of wife of his brother/daughter of complainant by firing

Occurrence in the case took place on 30.07.2012, at 06.30 pm, whereas the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 31.07.2012, at 09.50 am and as such there was delay of fifteen (15) hours and twenty (20) minutes in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased

Medical Officer stated during her cross-examination that on 30.07.2012, she was on call for the postmortem examination, up till the postmortem examination was conducted

Medical Officer further stated that the dead-body was received in the mortuary on 30.07.2012, however, the complete police documents were received on 31.07.2012, at 9.45 am and thereafter, she conducted autopsy at 9.50 am

Said witness further stated that on account of the said reason (non-availability of complete police documents), the delay in conducting autopsy had taken place

Medical Officer further stated that she was bound to conduct postmortem examination immediately after receiving the dead-body, however, she volunteered that the postmortem examination could only be conducted after receiving the police papers

It was evident that the delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased was result of the delay in handing over the police documents to the Medical Officer

Said delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead- body of the deceased was also suggestive of the fact that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot, at the time of occurrence and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses of the occurrence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

House of deceased and her husband had not been shown in the site plan though the house of one "GM" and one "SM" had been shown therein

Both the eye-witnesses stated that they were present inside the house of deceased, when they heard the noise coming from outside the said house and they came out of the said house and witnessed the occurrence but no such house had been shown in the site plan

It was evident from the perusal of the site plan that it was a sheer chance that the accused, the deceased and the witnesses all simultaneously reached at the said passage situated in-front of an open plot, where the occurrence took place and where the prosecution's eye-witnesses had no house or place of business

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was brother-in-law (husband's brother) of deceased emerged at the spot and started abusing the deceased

On hearing the noise, the complainant came to the spot and witnessed that the petitioner, who was holding a 30-bore pistol in his hand, made a fire shot, which landed on the chest of deceased, which went through and through

Both the eye-witnesses were residents of a village, whereas the occurrence of this case took place in another town

Daughter/sister of the said witnesses/deceased was married 16/17 years prior to the occurrence in the village

Both the eye-witnesses had not stated any reason for their visit to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence

As the eye-witnesses were not residents of the area, where the occurrence took place and they had not given any reason for their presence at the spot at the relevant time, therefore, they were chance witnesses and it was not safe to rely upon their evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Another purported eye-witness, in his examination-in-chief, supported, in material terms, the version put forth by the complainant

However, during cross-examination eye-witness conceded that he was a resident of a village "G" and that his CNIC reflected the same address

In these circumstances, eye-witness clearly was a chance witness

Testimony of a chance witness was to be relied upon after great care and caution and before reliance could be placed upon it, such a witness must convincingly prove his presence at the scene of occurrence through strong, natural, and independent circumstances

Eye-witness admitted that there existed a jungle on both sides of his house

Complainant had also admitted the said fact by stating that eye-witness ordinarily grazed his cattle in the jungle near his house, which was situated at a distance of approximately 20-25 minutes' walk from the place of occurrence

Therefore, it was highly improbable that eye-witness would have been present at the spot at the relevant time for grazing his cattle, particularly at that late hour of the evening

No plausible explanation had been offered by eye-witness as to why, when suitable grazing land existed near his own house, he chose to take his cattle to a distant location at sunset time

Eye-witness, thus, remained unsuccessful to prove his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence through some strong and convincing evidence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

As per the FIR, the occurrence took place on 14.09.2015 at 6:00 p.m., but the matter was reported to the police at 11:20 p.m., after an unexplained delay of more than five hours, despite the fact that the police station was merely 17 kilometers from the place of occurrence

Such delay, without any satisfactory explanation, not only eroded the credibility of the prosecution's case but also rendered the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence highly doubtful

Complainant in his report and statement had not furnished any explanation for the said delay

Unexplained delay in reporting the occurrence created doubt in the prosecution's case and its benefit had to be extended and construed in favour of the accused

In absence of any plausible explanation, the delay in lodging of FIR was always considered to be fatal, as it casted suspicion on the prosecution story

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Record showed that Kalashnikov was recovered on the pointation of accused and crime empties from the spot and there was a positive Forensic Science Agency Report in respect thereof

However, the said recoveries would not advance the prosecution's case because such piece of circumstantial evidence, when the direct evidence of the prosecution had already been disbelieved, could not form the basis for conviction, particularly in a capital charge

Circumstantial evidence derived its weight and efficacy only when considered in conjunction with reliable direct evidence, and not in isolation

In the present case, since the ocular evidence of the prosecution had been disbelieved, therefore, the alleged recovery, by itself, could not sustain a conviction of the petitioner-convict

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

One daughter of accused married to the deceased was living with complainant along with their three children in an atmosphere described as cordial and harmonious

Other daughter of the petitioner-convict was living in her parental home due to strained relations with her husband "H"

If this was the prevailing domestic situation, the alleged murder of the deceased, against whom the petitioner-convict had no motive, was wholly un-comprehensible

Complainant had offered no cogent explanation as to why the petitioner-convict would commit such a grave offence against a son-in-law with whom no animosity existed so as to make his grand children orphans and daughter a widow

Such inconsistencies and improbabilities made the prosecution's case highly doubtful

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Claim of the alleged eye-witnesses that they were grazing their cattle at the very fag end of the day seemed to be highly improbable

Complainant's cross-examination further casted a shadow of doubt on his presence at the spot

Complainant admitted that someone from the spot informed him about the occurrence and that people advised him not to approach the police station, as the petitioner-convict was armed with a Kalashnikov and might kill him as well

If the complainant had actually witnessed the incident, it defied logic and normal human conduct that others would need to apprise him of the petitioner-convict's presence or advise him not to visit the Police Station

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on the following day of occurrence i.e. 15.09.2015 at 12:20 a.m. by Medical Officer

No explanation, much less a plausible one, had been furnished by the prosecution for this delay

Unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination raised serious doubts regarding the veracity of the ocular evidence and the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Complainant conceded during her cross-examination that petitioner had abducted her other daughter and FIR was registered in that respect against the petitioner

Complainant further stated that the said FIR was lodged after the arrest of the petitioner in this murder case

Complainant also conceded that complainant party had tried to get back his daughter (abducttee) about 3/4 days prior to the occurrence

Such admissions of the complainant showed that another daughter of the complainant was abducted by the petitioner prior to the occurrence of this case

Under the circumstances, there was no reason with the petitioner to come to the house of the complainant party on the night of occurrence in presence of the such strained relationship between the parties, in order to take his wife back and as such the prosecution story did not appeal to a prudent mind

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the daughter of the complainant, who was wife of the petitioner had come to the house of the complainant being annoyed with the petitioner and the petitioner wanted to take her back forcibly with him to his house

In such circumstances, daughter of the complainant was the best witness to prove the ocular account and the alleged motive but she was not produced in the witness box

As the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witness been produced in the evidence, then her evidence would not have supported the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Occurrence in this case took place on 08.10.2011 at about 2.00/3.00 a.m. (night) but no source of light had been mentioned in the contents of the FIR or in the site plan or in the evidence of prosecution's eye-witnesses

Under the circumstances, the identification of the petitioner in the darkness of night was not free from doubt

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

In the contents of the F.I.R,there was only mentioning of one injury caused by the petitioner with the butt of his rifle at the left side of the head of deceased but according to the medical evidence brought on the record through Medical Officer, there were two lacerated wounds on the left side of the forehead and left temporal area of the deceased and as such there was conflict between the ocular account, as mentioned in the contents of the FIR and in the medical evidence of the prosecution

In order to bring their evidence in line with the medical evidence, the prosecution eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements while appearing before the trial Court and stated that the petitioner inflicted butt blows of his rifle at the left side of the head of the deceased but their said evidence was in-conflict with the story narrated in the contents of the FIR, where there was no mentioning of infliction of any second blow with the butt of his rifle by the petitioner on the head of the deceased

As the prosecution witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their statements in order to bring their statements in line with the postmortem report, therefore, their evidence was not worthy of reliance

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Record showed that rifle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner

In the recovery memo, it was not mentioned that butt of the recovered rifle was stained with blood

In such circumstances, the recovery of rifle from the possession of the petitioner was of no avail to the prosecution and the said recovery had rightly been disbelieved by the High Court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Legal heirs of deceased made statements before Trial Court regarding compounding of the offence but subsequently they resiled from their statements

Validity

Legal heirs did not challenge before High Court, the statements of compromise recorded by Trial Court

Once the statements were made before Trial Court, the matter had become concluded and the legal heirs could not retract their statements later on

Accused was sentenced to death by Trial Court, who had spent approximately 10 ½ years in a death cell

All legal heirs of deceased had submitted affidavits to Trial Court and had also testified that they had forgiven the accused in the name of the Almighty Allah without receiving any compensation and that they had no objection to the acquittal of accused

Supreme Court altered sentence awarded by the Courts below from death to imprisonment for life

Application under section 338-E, P.P.C. read with section 345, Cr.P.C. filed by accused was partly allowed, as death sentence could not be upheld

Appeal was partly allowed.

Incident occurred when the deceased approached the shop of the appellant for an "easy-load" and an altercation ensued between them

In the heat of passion, the appellant fired a single shot, which resulted in the death of the deceased

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C., were attracted, rather than those under Section 302(b), P.P.C.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the case of the appellant-convict squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to the erstwhile Section 300, P.P.C.

For the said reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court was modified to the extent that the conviction of the appellant-convict under Section 302(b), P.P.C., was converted into a conviction under Section 302(c), P.P.C., and appellant was sentenced to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Accused asserted that on the fateful day, his shop was closed; that certain individuals were cleaning a pistol in front of his shop when it accidentally discharged, hitting the deceased; and that he, along with other relatives, shifted the deceased in injured condition to the hospital on a motorcycle so as to save his life, but he was implicated falsely implicated by the complainant in the case

In support of this plea, the appellant appeared as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and produced three defence witnesses

Although the defence witnesses had attempted to corroborate the appellant's version, it was significant that none of them ever approached or appeared before the Investigating Officer during the investigation to advance or support the defence stance of the appellant

Likewise, neither the appellant nor any of the defence witnesses moved any application before the senior police authorities or any Court of competent jurisdiction for the recording or preservation of their version during the pendency of the investigation

Said witnesses's belated attempt to set up a defence story only at the trial stage, without any contemporaneous assertion backed by solid evidence, would not be sufficient for discarding the trustworthy and confidence inspiring prosecution's evidence

Even otherwise, the defence plea had been contradicted by the site plan

At Point No.1 the deceased had received the injury and from the said point blood was recovered

Point No.1 as per site plan was located inside the shuttered portion of the appellant's shop

Said fact clearly negated the appellant's claim that his shop was closed on the day of occurrence at the relevant time

High Court, upon a thorough appraisal of the defence evidence, rightly discarded the appellant's plea as an afterthought and devoid of merit

Thus, no reason was found to take a view different from that arrived at by the High Court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the case of the appellant-convict squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to the erstwhile Section 300, P.P.C

For the said reasons, life imprisonment was reduced to twenty years imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Forensic Science LaboratoryReport regarding the .30-bore pistol and crime empties could not be relied upon as the empties and weapon were transmitted together, which was an omission that rendered such forensic evidence inconsequential

High Court, treating the non-proof of motive and recovery inconsequential as mitigating circumstances, converted the sentence of death of the appellant into imprisonment for life

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the case of the appellant-convict squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to the erstwhile Section 300, P.P.C.

For the said reasons, life imprisonment was reduced to twenty years imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent on all material particulars of the incident, including the day, date, time and place of occurrence, as well as the mode and manner in which the appellant fired at the deceased with a 30-bore pistol

Eye-witnesses were further in agreement regarding the post-occurrence events, such as shifting the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital and the lodging of the report by the complainant

Both had singularly and directly implicated the appellant for murder of the deceased

Defence subjected both eye-witnesses to extensive cross-examination, however, nothing favourable to the defence or detrimental to the prosecution could be elicited from them

Said witnesses had offered plausible and natural explanations for their presence at the crime spot at the time of occurrence

Occurrence took place in broad daylight and the appellant being a co-villager was well known to the eye-witnesses, hence, the possibility of mistaken identity of the appellant stood completely excluded

No material had emerged from the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses to suggest the existence of any prior enmity, animosity or motive with the appellant to suggest his false implication

Even otherwise, it was wholly unbelievable and contrary to ordinary human conduct that a real father and paternal uncle of the deceased would substitute the actual culprit of murder of their beloved with an innocent person

Although both eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased, however, mere relationship did not, per se, render a witness unworthy of reliance

Where the presence of such witnesses was natural, their statements stood firm on material particulars, inspired confidence, and found support from independent circumstances; their evidence could not be discarded merely on account of relationship with deceased

Medical evidence tendered by Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, fully supported the ocular account

Medical Officer observed a single firearm entry wound on the chest of the deceased with corresponding exist and opined that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature

Medical evidence, therefore, lent material support to the prosecution case and reinforced the reliability of the eye-witnesses' account

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to certain peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the case of the appellant-convict squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to the erstwhile Section 300, P.P.C

For the said reasons, life imprisonment was reduced to twenty years imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

From the depositions of witnesses, it was clear that the main source of light i.e. bulb was never taken into possession by the Investigating Officer

It was a matter of record that the said bulb was not even inspected by Investigating Officer to verify whether it was in working condition or not

Admitted position that the Investigating Officer had wrongly mentioned in the site map about the proper place where the bulb was installed

Failure to take the bulb into possession, created a doubt in the instant matter

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and appellants were acquitted.

Matter of record that the manner in which the parcels of hatchets were handed over to Investigating Officer for onward transmission to Forensic Science Agency was shrouded with mystery and created doubt regarding the delivery of the same in a proper and legal manner

Matter of record that while recovering the hatchet at the accused's instance neither the persons from the village were associated as witnesses nor were their names mentioned in the Investigating Officer's deposition

Notable that the recovered hatchets did not match with the sketch of the recovery memo, which aspect had also remained unexplained

It was perplexing on the part of the Investigating Officer as to why he did not send the hatchets and blood stained clothes for DNA analysis

If all these factors were considered in juxtaposition, it would reveal that the instant matter was tainted with doubts and contradictions, as was evident from the witnesses' testimonies

Thus, the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and appellants were acquitted.

High Court had thoroughly thrashed out the matter in detail and had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the aspect of motive was missing in the instant matter and only then had converted the death sentence into a life sentence

Where the aspect of motive was missing in any case, the death sentence was usually not awarded

Since it had been established that the aspect of motive was missing, awarding the death sentence would be quite harsh

Therefore, Supreme Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the High Court, which was based on sound reasoning and did not call for any interference

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head

Crucially, no site plan aligned the camera's field of view with the locus in quo

There was no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or system clocks nor any demonstration that the footage was free from edits or overlays

There was no forensic report with respect to the veracity of the footage

Even on its face, the footage was equivocal; resolution, angles and lighting did not permit positive identification beyond reasonable doubt; it neither captured the actus reus nor theweapon and at best suggested presence in a shared space, already a neutral circumstance

Deposition of the various witnesses alleging that the accused was seen on camera carrying the cinderblock with which he murdered the deceased, was also shrouded with doubts and mysteries as, according to witness, the CCTV footage only captured the accused carrying "a heavy thing", the description of which could not be given due to the darkness whereas according to the other witnesses, accused-petitioner was allegedly carrying a "cement block"

Such wavering depositions put a major dent in the case of the prosecution

Moreover, it had also come on record that whenever the USB was attempted to be played, the Court computer flagged it as virus-infected

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges.

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head

There was no record or proof of the petitioner allegedly teasing or having quarreled with the deceased, in fact, one of the witnesses, stated that "the deceased and the accused were close friends and that fact was disclosed to him by other students

Moreover, none of the students had deposed that the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with each other in the past

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges.

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head

In the present case, the "last-seen together" circumstance was equally frail

For it to acquire probative value, the prosecution must have established with clarity (i) the specific point in time when the deceased was last alive in the company of the accused, and (ii) a narrow temporal gap between that point and the discovery of the body so as to exclude intervention by others

Neither requisite was satisfied

Common accommodation with multiple persons having ready access to each other, undermined the value of the "last seen" evidence

Testimony deposed by last seen witness set up as proof of the petitioner's guilt again did not aid the assertion of "last seen" since he only stated that around 12:30 a.m. he had seen the petitioner alone in the washroom and, upon returning, saw him asleep in his bed

In such circumstances, an inference that the petitioner alone could have committed the act would be speculative at best and that fact remained a neutral circumstance that might arouse suspicion but could not shoulder the evidentiary burden needed for a conviction especially when it had come on record that room of deceased was shared by some 25 students

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges.

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head

Record revealed that a blood stained knife was recovered from petitioner's bed underneath his pillow

Said very knife was sent for chemical examination and returned with a positive result for traces of human blood

Interestingly, however, the medical evidence mentioned no injuries attributable to the blade, instead only highlighting injuries sustained as a result of a heavy object falling on the deceased's skull, the cinderblock

Said fact added another doubt in the plethora contained in the prosecution case

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges.

Eye-witness was not expected to give photo-picture of each and every injury received by deceased, in a state of panic and sensation which developed at the time of occurrence due to attack and firing of accused

Delay in conducting postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased was not fatal to prosecution case

Medical evidence produced through doctor, fully supported ocular account of prosecution brought on record by prosecution witnesses

Prosecution proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt and two Courts below had rightly passed judgments against accused

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgments passed by the Courts below as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appellate Court, under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been provided power to record additional evidence separately and thereafter decide appeal which cannot be mixed up or intertwined with exactitudes of Section 423, Cr.P.C., which deals with general powers of Appellate Court including the power of remand

Even if additional evidence was ordered to be recorded without any application from any party, the matter could not be remanded but it should have been recorded by High Court itself and if such task was assigned to Trial Court then after recording and receiving evidence, the High Court should have decided the appeal to fulfill requirements of Section 428, Cr.P.C. but this was lacking in the proceedings

Supreme Court set aside order in question and the matter was remanded to High Court to decide appeal of accused afresh

Appeal was allowed.

Conduct of the eye-witnesses as reflected in record was unnatural as the real son of complainant and real brother of the eye-witness was being murdered in front of their eyes and they neither resisted nor raised any hue and cry to rescue the deceased

Time durations as narrated by prosecution also did not add up harmoniously to support prosecution story

Distance between place of occurrence and police station was 32 kilometers and despite of the same there was a delay of 7-1/2 hours in conducting the post mortem

Said contradictions were also coupled with the fact that the crime weapon was not recovered and motive was not established

All these circumstances created reasonable doubt and the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the petitioner

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

As per prosecution version the occurrence took place on 15.10.2005 at 06:00 p.m. and the post-mortem was conducted on 16.10.2005 at 01:30 a.m. i.e. after 7-1/2 hours

As per report of Medical Officer, at the time of post mortem, rigor mortis was fully developed

Rigor mortis signified the post-mortem stiffening of both voluntary and involuntary muscles in the human body

Such process typically commenced within 2 to 4 hours after death and achieved full development within approximately 12 hours in a temperate climate

Similarly, the reverse process with which rigor mortis disappeared was called algor mortis

In sudden natural deaths occurring in a temperate climate during average seasonal conditions rigor mortis usually commenced within 2 to 4 hours of death, which reached to a peak in about 12 hours and started to disappear after another 12 hours

Admittedly, the deceased was young male of 26 years in a temperate climate area where the weather was comparatively hot even in early winters

Occurrence statedly took place at 06:00 p.m. and the post-mortem was conducted the next day at 01:30a.m. i.e. after 7-1/2 hours

Swift development of complete rigor mortis on the body of young adult deceased in the temperate region contradicted the time of occurrence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and development of rigor mortis within such short span of time was implausible which suggested that the occurrence did not appear to have taken place at the point of time mentioned by the witnesses

Determination of time was further clarified by deposition of Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem of deceased

Said Medical Officer admitted during the cross-examination that as per his report, the time duration between death and post mortem was sixteen to eighteen hours and by that calculation the death occurred on 15.10.2005 in between 7:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.

Said witness further admitted that according to the condition of dead body it was impossible that death occurred in between 05:00 p.m. to 07:00 p.m. as alleged by prosecution

Deposition of expert witness/Medical Officer also appeared to be in accord with the medical jurisprudence

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

Anomaly of time of death suggested that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the same appeared to be unseen occurrence

Prosecution witnesses were relatives of deceased and several contradictions had also been pointed out

Complainant/eye-witness and the other eye-witness stated in their examination-in-chief that the dead body of deceased was brought to Police Station on donkey cart where report was lodged and thereafter the police had given the letter to hospital for post mortem, however, the complainant during cross examination admitted that they took the dead body to hospital and they returned to Police Station after that

FIR also depicted that firstly the dead body was taken to hospital and then the complainant approached the Police Station to report the incident

Moreover, the eye-witnesses also made improvement regarding robbing of Rs.25,000/- from deceased during their examination-in-chief which was not reported in FIR

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

Complainant, who was the sole eye-witness, did not specify in her statement the distinct role played by each of the accused

Narration of complainant was general in nature, attributing no specific or individual role to accused as such making the case fit for further inquiry

Case of accused squarely fell within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling accused to concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry into his guilt

Bail was allowed.

So far as the quantum of sentence was concerned, it was straightaway observed that the evidence against the appellant was direct and convincing

Motive was established

Appellant, upon being refused for marriage by the deceased, resorted to violence culminating in her murder

Act of firing a single shot at the chest demonstrated clear intent to kill targeting a vital organ, which negated any argument for mitigation based on the nature of the act

No one had the right to force another into marriage and the autonomy and dignity of women were protected by law

Act of taking a life because of refusal to marry was an affront not only to the individual but to the principle of justice and the autonomy of women

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

First Information Report (FIR) in respect of the alleged occurrence had been lodged with reasonable promptitude wherein the present appellant was named with specific role of firing

Complainant and two others were natural witnesses of the occurrence being the inmates of the house wherein the occurrence had taken place and the time of occurrence was such that they were likely to be present in their house at that time

Appellant had a close relationship with the complainant i.e., he was the son of his maternal aunt

Complainant had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the murder of his daughter

Medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account furnished by the said three witnesses

Both the Courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellant having been established to the hilt, thus, the Supreme Court had not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the Courts below

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Only blackening of margins of entry wound could occur from a long-range fire shot and even when body of victim was covered with clothes because blackening of margins of entry wound could occur due to touching of bullet (a boiling object) with the skin at the entry wound of victim

There was no burning, charring and tattooing and there was only blackening of margins of entry wound of deceased which could occur even in the case of a long range shot

Medial evidence fully supported ocular account of prosecution

Evidence of prosecution was proved through confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses which was fully supported by the medical evidence brought on the record

Accused was arrested at the spot immediately after the occurrence and was handed over to the police

Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by High Court to the accused

Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt who failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity in judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Record indicated that the recording was submitted to police for forensic analysis examination and report thereof was also produced

Such report confirmed that recording was not edited in any way and facial comparison of accused was positive and matched with him

Recording was automatically generated without human intervention

DNA report was also on record to establish that deceased was subjected to sexual assault in addition to recovery of crime instrument which was stained with blood of deceased

Accused failed to provide any explanation regarding presence of deceased in his residence and ensuing recovery of body of deceased from his premises

Absence of any explanation for such circumstances and presence of accused at the site of crime were critical factors that must not be disregarded

Supreme Court declined to interfere in findings of facts by two Courts below who reached the unanimous conclusion that guilt of accused was fully established

Supreme Court declined to adopt any stance that could differ from the concurrent stance of the courts below

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Unsound mind at the given time and relied on by accused was never raised at the time of remand and no evidence was produced in defense to fortify the contention that accused was suffering from any psychiatric problem or mental disorder

There was no evidence on record that accused used to consult any psychiatrist, therapy workers or consume any drug in absence of which or due to which he could become furious and went out of mind

No motive was set by prosecution against accused for commission of offense by him

It was not bounded duty of prosecution to prove a motive

There were no mitigating circumstances, except minor discrepancies in time of occurrence, and delay in postmortem

Furthermore there were no fingerprints on knife but it matched with DNA of accused

Minor delay in lodging of FIR did not affect credibility of prosecution evidence which had proved guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt to award a capital punishment

It was a case of circumstantial evidence but one end of the rope was found tied with the dead body and the other end tied with the neck of the accused

Occurrence was a direct result of a vice spreading in upper society, which was known as 'living relationship', in which societal compulsions were ignored so as to defy not only the law of land, but also the personal law under Islamic Sharia, which was a direct revolt against the Almighty Allah

This Lordship put such act as a topic before social reformists to discuss in their circles for young generations to note its horrible consequences, such as in the instant case

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Accused was young in the year 1991 when the occurrence had taken place; he was accompanying his father and the motive was attributed to his father and not to him

Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on five counts

Validity

It could not be ruled out that accused might have acted under the influence of his elders, particularly his father

Accused did not have any criminal record prior to the occurrence and, therefore, he was a first time offender

Recovery of fire arm weapon was not free from doubt and evidence brought on record in such regard was not safe to be relied upon

In addition to such recognized mitigating factors, accused had served full term prescribed for alternate punishment of imprisonment for life without benefit of remissions

Supreme Court on account of such mitigating and extenuating circumstances, converted sentence of death on five counts to imprisonment for life on five counts

Supreme Court also extended benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C., in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Legislature while prescribing two alternate punishments under section 302(b), P.P.C., did not intend that a convict in addition would also be subjected to torture by treating him or her, as the case may be, in a cruel, inhumane and degrading manner

Condemned convict has no option and is, therefore, compelled to suffer agony of unauthorized punishment

Such an unauthorized punishment amounts to a penalty greater than or of a kind different from the penalty prescribed by law for the offence at the time it was committed

When death sentence confirmed under section 302(b), P.P.C., is executed after the convict has served prescribed term for imprisonment for life then such a condemned prisoner has suffered and is inflicted with three distinct punishments not envisaged under section 302(b), P.P.C.

This is a grave travesty of justice and an affront to the administration of criminal justice system and amounts to violation of right guaranteed under Article 12(b) of the Constitution

In such an eventuality, execution of sentence of death would mean serving out other alternate legal punishment of imprisonment for life and in addition enduring unauthorized penalty of being subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

Principle of expectancy of life is relevant in the context of section 302(b), P.P.C., when the convict who has been handed down sentence of death has served equal to or more than the term of other prescribed legal punishment i.e. imprisonment for life during pendency of legal remedies provided under the law

Such question also becomes relevant when enhancement of sentence to death has been sought while the convict has already served out the sentence of imprisonment for life and has been or is yet to be released

In the latter case the discretion must be exercised in favour of the principle of life expectancy and, therefore, against enhancement, keeping in view the spirit of Article 13(a) of the Constitution

In case of former eventuality, principle of expectancy of life can be considered as a crucial mitigating or extenuating circumstance for considering modification of sentence from death to imprisonment for life

Such principle by itself and as a sole mitigating factor is not sufficient for a Court to exercise its discretion by commuting sentence of death to imprisonment for life

This is one of the factors to be taken into consideration along with some other or more than one mitigating factors

There is no general rule that serving out one of the legal sentences provided under section 302 (b), P.P.C., while pursuing legal remedies by itself entitles a convict to seek alteration of his or her sentence

Principle enshrined in section 403, Cr.P.C., is not attracted nor does the principle of expectancy of life entitle a convict to claim protection of guaranteed right under Article 13 (a) of the Constitution for the purposes of seeking modification of the sentence of death to imprisonment for life as of right.

Allegation levelled against the appellant as narrated by the complainant in his report as well as in his statement before the Court was that on 17.11.2022 at 6:15 pm, the accused persons being equipped with pistol made firing on his brother, due to which he died

Case was registered on the complaint of complainant on the basis of his Fard-e-Bayan, wherein he had specifically nominated the appellant and attributed a specific role of firing upon his brother, due to which one bullet hit on the head of the deceased

Alleged occurrence took place on 17.11.2022 at 6:15 pm and the FIR was lodged on the same date at 7:50 pm promptly without any delay

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

However, a related witness became an interested witness when his evidence was tainted with malice, was indicating a desire to implicate the accused by fabricating and concocting evidence

Defence could not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant and eye-witnesses had falsely implicated the appellant in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed the murder of their relative

Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Complainant narrated the whole story with regard to the occurrence and correctly stated the time, date and manner in which the occurrence had taken place

Complainant had correctly identified the appellant before the Trial Court

Likewise, the other two witnesses were also eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they attributed the role of firing to the appellant

Said witnesses gavea consistent, natural and straightforward ocular account of the occurrence

Defense subjected them to lengthy searching cross-examination, but their testimonies remained unshaken and un-shattered

Said witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in that case; therefore, it could safely be concluded that their testimonies were reliable, straightforward, and confidence-inspiring

Said prosecution witnesses were natural witnesses who were residents of the locality and were supposed to be present there

Presence of complainant was also established at the spot of the occurrence due to the fact that he lodged the FIR promptly and shifted the deceased to the civil hospital and his name also reflected in the medical certificate wherein it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the complainant

Presence of eye-witnesses was also established on the basis of their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., which were promptly recorded by the Investigation Officer

All the witnesses gave consistent and straightforward ocular accounts of the occurrence

Despite conducting exhaustive and lengthy cross-examination, nothing was brought on record, that would significantly demonstrate the falsity of the witnesses' account or their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful and distrustful

Medical evidence was in complete harmony with the ocular testimony of the complainant and both the other eye-witnesses

No conflict could be pointed out to create a dent in the prosecution's case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

On assessment of evidence, it was found that the motive had not been alleged by the complainant against the appellant in the FIR and for that the complainant in his statement recorded before the Court stated that the said occurrence took place at the spur of the moment due to altercation

Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to what was the real cause of the occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of deceased, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant was quite harsh

As such, while maintaining the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.