Re-appraisal of evidence

Serious violence against law enforcement agencies even in the context of private feuds of third parties may acquire the character of terrorism when it systematically targets those upholding rule of law

If any harm is caused to an official outside their official duty hours on account of an act performed by them in discharge of their official duties, i.e. as consequence of their official duty, such harm is equally treated as arising from their official role and amounts to terrorism

Action of such accused falls within the definition of section 6(1)(m) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and altered it to one under section 7 (1)(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 however conviction and sentence under sections 302(b) and 148 P.P.C. were maintained

Appeal was partly allowed.

Complainant alleged that accused was her former husband who prepared a false Nikahnamashowing her different name to reap benefits from his employer organization

Trial Court as well as High Court acquitted the accused of the charge

Validity

Original Nikahnama was produced by complainant herself before Trial Court, which demonstrated that everything was well within her knowledge from the beginning

Nikahnama in question was never sent for forensic test or to handwriting expert for verifying its genuineness

Star witness could have been custodian of the record of employer organization to depose and testify actual position along with the details of benefits if any availed on account of alleged fake Nikahnama

Neither any witness was produced nor called upon through summons of Court as prosecution witness to verify genuineness of official record

To prove guilt victim must have been motivated and inundated or swayed by disingenuous representation to act; there should be delivery of property or worthful security; the straight upshot of inducement must be altering or obliterating a valuable security or document and the act must have actuated harm/injury or impairment to victim

Acquittal was not merely a verdict of not guilty, rather it was a ratification and endorsement that the State failed to discharge burden of proof for the guilt

Such confirmation of declaring accused not guilty maintained exalted reverence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity

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

Accused were charged for snatching motorcycle, wallet and a ring from the complainant during robbery and on resistance, committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Complainant stated that there was an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the petitioner prior to opening fire, however, when he was confronted during cross-examination that no such exchange of hot words was found mentioned in his complaint to the police, the omission of this integral fact in the earlier complaint became clear

Likewise, the record of cross-examination revealed such an exchange of hot words that complainant had mentioned in his complaint

Likewise, other witness did mention that there was heated exchange of hot words between the deceased and the petitioner

Therefore, the complainant had made improvements to his testimony rendering portions of it doubtful

Jail petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for snatching motorcycle, wallet and a ring from the complainant during robbery and on resistance, committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Alleged eye-witness stated that he was making his way to C-(Chichawatni) from his village via a route on which they crossed the place of occurrence

Said witness conceded that his residence at his village was at a distance of 11 or 12 kilometers from the place of occurrence

Interestingly, said witness did not furnish any reason as to why he washeading to “C” via the route, which would bring him to the place of occurrence

As such, said witness definitely was a chance witness

Likewise, complainant was a cultivator by profession

Complainant was not an employee of the forest department, but stated that on the day and time of occurrence he was going from the Divisional Forest Office to other office of Forest

Occurrence took place inside the forest of Block No.3 of Chak whereas, the complainant was resident of other Chak and as such he was also a chance witness

Complainant had also not given any valid reason of his travel from one forest office to another forest office on the day and time of occurrence when he was not an employee of the forest department

Complainant was, therefore, a chance witness and his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was not free from doubt

Jail petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for snatching motorcycle, wallet and a ring from the complainant during robbery and on resistance, committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

On the date of the accused's apprehension i.e. 08.12.2009, the golden ring stolen from the complainant was allegedly recovered from the petitioner during his personal search and was taken into possession vide recovery memo, attested by alleged eye-witness and a witness, who was later given up

No independent witnesses were involved in the recovery proceedings

Such failure was especially jarring since the consistent testimonies of three witnesses stated that a large group of members of the public had chased and encircled the accused, that members of the forest department were also present at the time of arrest; all of whom were available at the time of the accused's personal search

Same lapse was true for the recovery of the wallet containing Rs. 2000/-; the complainant's CNIC copy; a pistol; and live cartridges from the co-accused upon his personal search

Said fact rendered the recoveries alleged against the petitioner quite doubtful

Most important recovery was that of the motorcycle allegedly stolen from the complainant and the deceased made jointly upon the petitioner's and his co-accused's pointation on 17.12.2009

Said recovery was once again attested only by alleged eye-witness and the witness who had also been given up

Although the duty to associate independent witnesses might be less onerous for considering that the motorcycle was recovered from within Block No. 6 of the "Jungle" and members of the public might not be readily available but recovery alone was not sufficient to sustain the petitioner's conviction

Jail petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for snatching motorcycle, wallet and a ring from the complainant during robbery and on resistance, committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Record showedthat on 16.12.2009, petitioner while in police custody led to recovery of .30 bore pistol allegedly used in the commission of offence with three live bullets, which the Investigating Officer seized vide recovery memo, attested by witnesses

Crimeempty and the 30 bore pistol recovered by police were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison on 06.02.2010

Crime empty and the pistol which was said to have ejected the empty were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison together on the same day

Said concurrent dispatch rendered the recoveries of the empty and the pistol inconsequential and although the result of the Forensic Science Laboratory comparison was that the empty belonged to the pistol, that positive result could not be relied upon

Jail petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 314-kilograms narcotic substance was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant, while the other appellant was travelling on the passenger seat

Prosecution had produced only two witnesses who were associated with the recovery

For reasons best known to the prosecution the other crucial witnesses were given up and the Trial Court had also approved that request

It was difficult to imagine that the prosecution was not competent to appreciate that by doing so they would fail in discharging their duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It was not expected that the Trial Court would allow the request and prevent itself from reaching a just decision

Court was empowered under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C. to decline the prosecution's request to give up the material witnesses or to summon them even if not cited in the calendar of witnesses

Said fact would not have amounted to filling the lacunas of the prosecution's case but to exercise its powers vested under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C to enable itself to reach a just decision

Moreover, it would not come within the ambit of the expression 'filling the lacunas' because the Trial Court would not be facilitating the prosecution to remedy an inherent weakness in its case but would rather be correcting an inadvertent or reckless omission on the part of the prosecution during the trial

Prosecution in this case, through its own conduct, had failed in its obligation to prove its case while the Trial Court, by disregarding its mandatory duty under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C, had facilitated the prosecution

Unbroken chain of safe custody and transmission was not proved and, therefore, the positive report of the Chemical Examiner had lost its evidentiary value and thus could not be relied upon to convict the appellants

Prosecution had failed in establishing the safe custody and safe transmission of the alleged drugs recovered from the possession of the appellants and, therefore, the chemical report could not be relied upon

Benefit of doubt was extended as of right to the appellants and, consequently, they were acquitted from the charge framed against them by the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 314-kilograms narcotic substance was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant, while the other appellant was travelling on the passenger seat

Recovery of the alleged narcotic substance was made by Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector

There was no explanation as to why the prosecution had decided to give up the other witnesses and why specific permission to give up the said witnesses was granted by the trial Court

Prosecution had not produced any witness to prove the factum of safe custody of the narcotic substance nor the eight bags of case property which were sealed after the alleged recovery

Recovered narcotic substance was found packed in 314 packets and each packet weighed one kilogram

Moreover, each packet contained two slabs of the material alleged to be a narcotic substance

Evidence brought on record showed that the recovered material was sealed in eight bags

Inspector had deposed that he himself had sealed each bag and had placed the case property in the Malkhana of the Police Station

Other witness had contradicted such deposition

Said witness had stated in his testimony that the bags were not sealed by the Inspector himself and that the sealed bags were kept in the Malkhana by the Head Moharrir

Inspector had deposed that the bags were taken out from the Malkhana on 13.3.2017 and were sent to the Forensic Laboratory

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 314-kilograms narcotic substance was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant, while the other appellant was travelling on the passenger seat

Evidence placed on record showed that the bags were delivered on 14.3.2017 by a Constable, who was not produced as a witness

However, the laboratory in K-(Karachi) had returned the bags on the ground that they were to be examined by the office of the Chemical Examiner, R-(Rohri)

Bags were then sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner in R-(Rohri) on 15.03.2017 but there was nothing on record as to how the bags were dealt with and kept in safe custody in the Malkhana upon their return from K-(Karachi) and how or by whom they were again taken out from the Malkhana on 15.3.2017 and who had transmitted them to the Chemical Examiner's office in R-(Rohri)

However, the Chemical Examiner's office in R-(Rohri) had also not entertained the bags since they were returned

However, the bags were again sent to and received by the Chemical Examiner's office in R-(Rohri) on 22.3.2017

What happened to the bags and how they were dealt with from 13.3.2017 to 22.3.2017 was shrouded in mystery

Chemical Examiner's report, dated 29.03.2017, recorded that the eight sealed bags were received in the office in R-(Rohri) on 22.3.2017 and they were delivered by Constable, who was not produced as a witness to establish the safe transmission

Moreover, the prosecution had also not produced any witness to establish that the recovered narcotic substance had been kept in safe custody while it was kept at the Police Station

In this case the only two witnesses who had entered the witness box to prove the prosecution's case had not been associated with the safe custody while the narcotic substance was kept at the Police Station nor when it was being transmitted to the Chemical Examiner's office or when it was returned

Narcotic substance was recovered on 12.3.2017 and, according to the testimonies of the two witnesses, the eight sealed bags were kept in the Malkhana, though they contradicted each other as to who had actually placed them there

Inspector claimed in his testimony that he had done so but did not depose whether the entries were recorded in the relevant register/books

Other witness had materially contradicted that assertion

Neither any witness such as the Moharar, Naib Moharar or any other official performing functions relating to the Malkhana was produced nor was any other evidence adduced to prove that the eight sealed bags, which were sent for chemical analysis, had been kept in safe custody while they remained at the Police Station

Sealed bags were stated to have been taken out from the Malkhana more than once for transportation to the Chemical Examiners office and then re-entered on return

No evidence was adduced to establish the factum of safe transmission to and from the respective offices of the Chemical Examiner

Positive report of the Chemical Examiner lost its evidentiary value and could not be relied upon unless the safe custody and transmission from the stage of recovery till its final transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner had been established through unimpeachable evidence

Such failure on the part of the prosecution was so fatal that the petitioners would become entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right and earn acquittal from the charges framed against them

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution, by producing unimpeachable evidence, had to prove that the chain of safe custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indisputable, safe and secure

Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control regarding possession of the samples caused doubts relating to safe custody and safe transmission of the samples and, consequently, it impaired and vitiated the conclusiveness and reliability of the chemical report of the government analyst

Therefore, it rendered the conviction to be unsustainable

If the prosecution failed in establishing safe custody or safe transmission of the alleged drug then the chemical report of the government analyst became doubtful and unreliable

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Crime weapon had matched the crime empties collected from the crime scene since the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was positive

Prosecution in order to prove its case had produced two eye-witnesses to depose the ocular account

Said witnesses were consistent in all material facts and their testimonies had been found to be reliable, confidence inspiring and trustworthy

Ocular account was supported by the medical evidence brought on the record by Medical Officers

Prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt

Nature of the occurrence was gruesome and shocking

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court was justified in handing down the sentence of death, which was later confirmed by the High Court

Petitioner had not been able to show any misreading or non-reading of the evidence let alone any other legal infirmity

Sentence of death on four counts in the facts and circumstances of the case was also justified

Petitioner had not been able to persuade that a question of law had arisen for consideration

Thus, no case was made out for grant of leave

Consequently, leave was refused and the petition was accordingly dismissed.

Accused was convicted and sentenced variously by Trial Court with maximum sentence of imprisonment of seven years and to also pay Arsh

High Court set aside sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 337-D, P.P.C. but payment of Arsh was maintained

Validity

Prosecution proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt to the extent of offences under Sections 324 and 336, P.P.C.

Ingredients of offence under Section 337-D, P.P.C. was not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, as the same were attracted if any injury would extend to the body cavity in the trunk of a person

Only one injury was sustained by complainant which was on the back side of his neck and the same was not part of the trunk of body, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to accused for the offence under Section 337-D, P.P.C. was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused under Section 337-D, P.P.C. and the judgment was modified accordingly, whereas convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 336, P.P.C. were maintained and upheld

Appeal was partly allowed.

However, the samples were dispatched for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Agency on 23.11.2022, after a delay of 04 days for which no explanation, much less plausible, had been furnished by the prosecution

In cases involving recovery of contraband, the chemical analysis report constitutes the cornerstone of the prosecution's evidence

Such an inordinate delay in forwarding the seized item to Forensic Science Agency inevitably casted a shadow of doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the samples

In such view of the matter the possibility of tampering, substitution or contamination of the seized narcotics could not be excluded

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioner-accused beyond the shadow of doubt

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

Accused-petitioner had brought on record the Call Data Records (CDRs) of the Seizing Officer and Lady Constable which were not effectively rebutted by the prosecution

Call Data Records revealed that at the time of occurrence, the mobile device attributed to Lady Constable was located in a Chak, far away from the place of occurrence

Similarly, the mobile data pertaining to Seizing Officer indicated that his mobile cell number was connected to a cell tower situated in an area other than the place of occurrence

Mere denial by the said prosecution witnesses that their mobile phones were not in their possession at the material time, unsupported by any corroborative evidence such as the production of a second SIM, mobile swap record, or any logical explanation, did not suffice to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner

Where circumstances created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the truth of the prosecution's case, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt as a matter of right, not as concession

Doubts in the present case were not speculative or imaginary but were borne out of material contradictions and improbable aspects of the prosecution's case, which remained unexplained and unaddressed

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioner-accused beyond the shadow of doubt

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

Place of occurrence, as shown in the site plan, was a straight kacha road leading from east to west, adjacent to a canal near kachi abadi

Presence of the petitioner was shown at the bank of the canal towards the south

Panoramic view of the site plan revealed that the place of occurrence was open and visible from a considerable distance, which rendered the presence of any one approaching towards the place of presence of the petitioner, visible from sufficiently long distance

It was not the prosecution's case that the petitioner upon noticing the arrival of Police Officials made any attempt to flee or to dispose of the contraband in the nearby canal

In such background, the easy arrest of the petitioner and recovery of narcotic from her possession, appeared inherently improbable and did not appeal to reason or the conduct of an ordinary prudent person

First Information Report also contained a categorical allegation that the petitioner was present at the spot selling narcotics

However, no equipment such as digital or manual weighing scales, staplers, small empty sachets, paper slips or similar items which were normally kept by narcotics sellers in their possession for selling narcotics in small quantity had been shown recovered

Neither any alleged customer was arrested at the spot nor had the prosecution associated any customer as a witness to lend credence to the allegation of the sale of narcotics against the petitioner

Site plan was silent with regard to the presence of any customer and the presence or positioning of the Seizing Officer, any accompanying Police Officials, or the witness to the alleged recovery proceedings

Such glaring omission from the prosecution's own documentary evidence undermined the procedural sanctity and evidentiary reliability of the recovery proceedings

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioner-accused beyond the shadow of doubt

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

In her statement recorded under Section 342,Cr.P.C., the petitioner had categorically stated that she was apprehended by the police from her residence a day prior to the registration of the instant F.I.R

Police demanded a huge amount for her release and upon her refusal, she was falsely implicated in the present case

In support of her stance, the petitioner had also referred to case FIR No.1045/2020 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, lodged at same Police Station

According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid case 12 gold earrings and a koka (nose ornament) were forcibly removed from her person by the police but were neither reflected in the recovery memo nor in the written complaint

Claim of the petitioner was that the said gold ornaments were subsequently handed over to her husband, indicating police intent to misappropriate her belongings

To substantiate that version, the petitioner produced the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in the said case including Lady Constable who had acknowledged that the aforementioned gold items were indeed taken from the petitioner

Investigating Officer also admitted in his testimony that the same were later returned to the petitioner's husband

Said sequence of events in two separate criminal cases were registered against the petitioner within the same police station and both shared common factual threads, raising serious questions about the prosecution's case

Consistent claim of the petitioner supported by depositions from prosecution witnesses in the earlier case lent material credence to her defence narrative

In such circumstances, the possibility of mala fide on the part of the police could not be ruled out, particularly where animus and prior misconduct stood demonstrated on the record

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioner-accused beyond the shadow of doubt

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

Record showed that in appellant's retracted confession, he stated that his motive for committing the murder was to cause the complainant grief because they had earlier exchanged bitter words

Similarly, the Investigating Officer stated that earlier on while the police interrogated the appellant, he admitted to committing the crime due to strained relations with the complainant, i.e. the deceased's father, and the complainant's brother, i.e. the deceased's uncle

Both of the complainant's brothers were present during that interrogation

Complainant's brother also submitted in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the appellant had committed the crime on account of some heated exchange with the complainant

Later, complainant's brother disclaimed his earlier statement, updating his story by mentioning that no harsh words were exchanged between the complainant and the appellant rendering the exact motive doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Witness of last seen evidence claimed that he had last seen the appellant leading the deceased from mosque's gate up its stairs

Said witness statedly had seen that happen around 9:00 p.m. on 24.11.2011 from his vantage point at a barber shop, where he had called his relative and from where he would head onwards to some other place that same night

Said witness returned home on 27.11.2011 where he was informed about the death of deceased

Said witness allegedly set out to offer his condolences to the complainant that very day; when en-route he encountered a police mobile van where he informed the Investigating Officer that he last saw the deceased with the appellant

There were, however, flaws in testimony of said witness; foremost amongst those was that said witness had not promptly informed that he last saw the deceased with the appellant, preferring only to inform the police when he happened to cross paths with a police mobile van

Said delay raised doubt for the additional reason that the incident had caused uproar in the locality and said witness likely having knowledge of the same, still did not come forward promptly

Said witness also acknowledged during cross-examination that in his statement to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he did not mention that he encountered the police mobile van

Again, said witness did not reasonably explain his presence at the barbershop except by stating that he had called his relative there even though the said relative lived at a great distance from the shop and despite that the barber himself was not present at the shop

Furthermore, the sitemap did not describe any barbershop from where the gate of the mosque was within view despite describing adjacent houses and streets

Sitemap certainly did not describe any source of light at the entrance of the mosque or the gate itself

Said witness's testimony as the "last seen" witness was thus also rendered doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that the complainant did not inform the police that the offence (sodomy) had been committed with his son, the deceased

In fact, the police only included the offence under Section 377, P.P.C., subsequently after the Chemical Examiner's report arrived

Moreover, Medical Officer stated in the postmortem report, issued under his hand, that there were no physical signs or symptoms of sodomy

Medical Officer recorded that no semen, nor blood, faecal matter or lubricant was found around anus, and no laceration on mucus membrane inside the anus

Anus was not prolapsed

Medical Officer, however, reserved his final opinion until receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner in regards the internal and external anal swabs he had taken

Moreover, it was only upon the receipt of the report which found human sperm on the deceased's shalwar and on the internal anal swabs that the Medical Officer concluded that sodomy had been committed with the deceased

Appellant's DNA, however, was not compared with the DNA in the sperm on the deceased's shalwar and internal anal swabs

Keeping in view that the instant case was one where there was no direct evidence, where there were otherwise missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and where the appellant's DNA was not sent for comparison with the DNA of the sperm found on the articles sent for examination, it would therefore be unsafe to rely solely on the presence of human sperm on the internal anal swabs and shalwar of the deceased to maintain a capital sentence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Admittedly, the uncles had left the deceased, a child of barely five or six years, behind at the mosque after the night (Isha) prayers, later began their search for the deceased when he had not returned home for some time

Again admittedly, the search party arrived at the mosque around 9:00 p.m.

Initial act of leaving behind a child unattended at the mosque in the darkness of night during the winter month of November was perplexing in itself but also because the mosque was usually closed after the Isha (night) prayer

Only one other person was present in the mosque when the search party arrived, further establishing the absurdity of the witnesses' actions and their account of events

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that a bloodstained saw was claimed to have been recovered at the appellant's instance from the roof of the same mosque where the deceased's body was found

Admittedly, the recovery had been effected from a place open and accessible to the public i.e. a mosque frequented by worshippers, and so it could not be claimed that the recovery was made from the appellant's exclusive possession

Moreover, the mashirs, who had witnessed the recovery, were told by the police to arrive at the mosque telephonically

Thus, the recovery of the weapon of offence was rendered doubtful

Again, the saw was not subjected to any forensic testing to match the appellant's fingerprints with those that could have been taken from the weapon's hilt

Thus, in the instant case i.e. one where there was no direct evidence and there were missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the recovery of the saw and the results of the testing it was subjected to were inconsequential and did not advance the prosecution case since the weapon had not been independently linked to the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

On the following day of arrest of accused, the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded his confessional statement to the extent of murdering the deceased on account of some harsh exchanges between the appellant and the deceased's father, the complainant

Importantly, the FIR, lodged approximately two days after the occurrence, was completely silent about any possible motive

Furthermore, neither the complainant nor his brother made any mention of a heated exchange in their depositions nor had they uttered a single word regarding the appellant's possible motive for committing the crime

Again, in his statement under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant also mentioned that he had no enmity with anyone, in stark contrast to his confessional statement

Such material aspect of the appellant's confessional statement rendered the confession doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In the time that had elapsed, the postmortem examination of the deceased took place, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry at the place of occurrence, recovering articles and preparing the corresponding memos, the deceased's funeral and burial took place, the complainant met with relatives extending their condolences and yet still the FIR was not lodged

Record also confirmed that the complainant and prosecution had nowhere sought to explain the delay or even provided a reasonable justification for the belated registration of the FIR

In fact, the Investigating Officer stated categorically that during the spot inspection at 3:00 a.m. on 25.11.2011, barely 1½ hours after the complainant had turned back from the way to H-(Hyderabad), he told to complainant to lodge the FIR, but he said that after funeral ceremony, he would lodge the FIR

Although there was no cavil to the proposition that a delay in registering the FIR was not per se fatal to the prosecution case, the same must be explained to grant the belated FIR some sanctity of truth

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Whenever a serious allegation of being an incestuous father was levelled, higher standard of proof by the credible prosecution witnesses was required

Rare allegation of one of the most serious offences committed in the presence of other children and old father of the convict in the house had been levelled

According to the victim herself, she was beaten by the appellant, therefore, her statement was to be weighed with due care and caution

In the present case the complainant and her brother were not the eye-witnesses but were hearsay witnesses, thus it was an unseen occurrence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and conviction and sentence of appellant were set-aside.

Case of the complainant was that minor victim was subjected to rape by the appellant at 2.00 p.m., 2/3 days ago when she was at home

However, the statement of victim recorded without certification of the Presiding Officer about the capacity of the child created doubt about her credibility and, therefore, required strong corroboration

Even otherwise statement of victim revealed that she was beaten and threatened in the presence of her maternal-grand father and brother but no one objected

According to the complainant the victim was brought to the hospital where she was examined in her presence

However, the Medical Officer's opinion was self-contradictory as in her examination in chief she stated that the victim was subjected to rape but in the cross-examination she categorically stated that on the basis of Chemical Examiner's report no rape was found to have been committed with her

Thus, a serious question on the credibility of the statement of the victim and the possibility of false implication of the appellant arose

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and conviction and sentence of appellant were set-aside.

As per record, the Trial Court had not put the rationality test to the victim/child witness prior to recording of her statement

Under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a child was a competent witness if he/she passed a standard of the sufficient maturity of understanding about the facts which were to be narrated by her

Note/observation by the Court, based on the relevant questions and their answers would make such statement credible

In the given situation the statement of victim needed strong corroboration, which was lacking

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and conviction and sentence of appellant were set-aside.

Prosecution's case was that the petitioners were motivated to commit the crime in question by the co-accused (who had since been acquitted) due to the lack of hope for justice from the Court

Moreover, it appeared that personal animosities and revenge had played a substantial role in the commission of the crime in the instant case

Petitioners' revenge was cultivated in their minds and, ultimately, the instant occurrence occurred

If mitigating circumstances were present, a life imprisonment sentence might be appropriated in lieu of the death penalty

Court had acknowledged that the motivations behind the crime might be influenced by personal vendetta rather than a premeditated intent to murder in situations characterized by enmity

Objectives of justice would be satisfactorily accomplished if accused-petitioners were compensated with a diminished penalty permissible by law

Prosecution proved its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life

Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed.

Alleged incident occurred in broad daylight near the Court premises and the matter was reported with reasonable promptness

Present petitioners were identified as the individuals responsible for the gun fires

Four eyewitnesses had provided the ocular account, consisting of two private witnesses and two police personnel

One of the private witnesses was the real brother of the deceased, he was present at the time of the incident while other private witness was a family friend of the complainant and the deceased individuals

Consequently, the presence of said witnesses at the time of the incident could not be questioned in any way

In the same vein, the ocular evidence provided by the eyewitnesses was also consistent with the testimony of police officials

It was not plausible that the complainant would falsely implicate or substitute the petitioners in the murder of his real siblings and allow the real culprits to escape without consequence

Ocular account provided by the said witnesses was fully substantiated by the medical evidence

Ocular account was also supported by the Forensic Science Agency's affirmative report and the recovery of crime weapons from the possession of petitioners

Petitioners' guilt had been established to the hilt by both the Courts below, which had conducted an exhaustive analysis of the evidence on record

Upon its independent evaluation of the evidence, Supreme Court was unable to adopt a stance that differed from the concurrently held view of the Courts below

Prosecution proved its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life

Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed.

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.

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.

Occurrence took place at magrib wela (at the time of sunset) in the house of deceased and parties were earlier known to each other due to previous enmity of murders

There was no chance of misidentification of accused during occurrence by prosecution eye-witness

Cross examination at length was made on eye-witness / complainant but his evidence could not be shaken and nothing favourable to accused could be brought on record

Eye-witness / complainant remained consistent on all material aspects of the case like time of occurrence, the weapon used by accused, the manner in which occurrence took place etc.

Evidence of eye-witness / complainant was trustworthy and confidence inspiring

Medical evidence was furnished by doctors who conducted postmortem examination on dead bodies of deceased persons and found firearms wounds on the bodies of deceased persons

Medical evidence of prosecution fully supported ocular account furnished by eyewitness / complainant

Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused under Penal Code, 1860, but that under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

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.

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.

Recovery witnesses of looted articles were cross-examined at length but nothing favourable to accused could be brought on the record

Prosecution case against accused was corroborated by recoveries of motorcycle, mobile phone of the deceased, original identity card of complainant and Rs.300/-, which were looted during the occurrence

No empty was recovered from the spot, therefore, High Court rightly held that recovery of pistol at the pointing out of accused was inconsequential for prosecution

Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Supreme Court declined to interfere in convictions and sentences awarded to accused

Supreme Court directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently

Appeal was dismissed.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and were sentenced to death, whereas 13 co-accused persons were acquitted of the charge

High Court maintained conviction of accused persons but altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

No report of concerned Court was produced in prosecution evidence that CCTV cameras were not installed inside the courtroom on the day of occurrence

Even CCTV footage of cameras installed in corridor outside the courtrooms was not produced in prosecution evidence in order to establish that accused persons were present at the spot or they could be seen in camera recordings while entering and coming out of courtroom at the time of occurrence

Excuse was made in such respect by the prosecution that CCTV cameras installed in corridors outside the courtroom were out of order on the relevant day but no report of District Courts was produced in such respect by prosecution in support of its claim

Important piece of evidence was withheld by prosecution without any valid justification, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could validly be drawn against prosecution that had the above-mentioned piece of evidence (CCTV camera recordings) been produced in evidence, the same would not have supported prosecution case

Single circumstance which creates doubt in prosecution story is sufficient to acquit accused

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and acquitted them of the charge, as the case was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story

Appeal was allowed.

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.

Accused persons were civil servants working in Post Office who were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for committing criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and misconduct

Validity

Matter was shrouded in mysteries and doubts and even in inquiry proceedings, as per Post Office Manual, proper procedure was not adopted which had been endorsed by High Court in it judgment

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused person and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Held: Report of Forensic Science Laboratory reflected that collective analysis of twenty parcels of opium and three parcels of chars was done

Neither the samples were tested separately nor individual report of each sample was prepared

This was violative of the principles laid down by Supreme Court

Collective forensic report not only reduced credibility of chemical examination but also had raised serious doubts regarding representative nature of samples sent for chemical analysis

Recovered substance was sealed with a monogram reading as "MN", unrelated to any officer or witness involved in the case, and such fact remained unexplained by prosecution

There were serious procedural violations, absence of credible forensic evidence and dents in prosecution's case

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge, as prosecution was not able to prove its case against accused beyond a shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Deposition of Medical Officer revealed that there was a delay about ten hours in conducting the postmortem examination after receiving the dead body of deceased

Medical Officer explained that it was not his fault since the police papers were not made available to him by the police, hence the postmortem could not be conducted in a timely manner

Record also revealed that there was a delay of almost twenty three hours in conducting the postmortem from the time of the death of deceased

Delay in conducting postmortem could be considered as a factor which created doubt in the prosecution case, thus it suggested that the occurrence was unseen and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of false eye-witnesses

Unexplained delay in conducting the postmortem examination caused damage to the prosecution's case

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

Record revealed a major contradiction in statement of the witnesses as according to some there were financial dispute between the deceased and the petitioner, whereas some said that there was a grudge between deceased and petitioner on the ground that deceased had married petitioner's daughter against his wishes

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

Deposition of the complainant revealed that since the police declared three accused persons innocent, he filed a private complainant against those persons, which was subsequently dismissed to their extent

Moreover, one "M" was named in the private complaint filed by complainant but was never produced as a witness in the instant case

Strangely enough, no muhallah residents had been arrayed as witnesses and all the witnesses were relatives of the complainant

Moreover, no document with regard to the dispute concerning any financial matter had been furnished by complainant so as to justify that there was, apart from the fact that the deceased had married the daughter of the accused, difference between the parties with regard to any financial aspect

Similar type of statement was given by the brother of the complainant, who also stated that he simply recorded a cursory statement before the Court and stated nothing about recovery of blood stained cotton, one empty from the spot, as well as, the recovery of blood stained Kassi, 12-bore gun and two live bullets from the house of the petitioner

Said witness also admitted that he did not try to catch hold of petitioner, while he was inflicting hatchet blows upon the deceased

Said witness also admitted that he did not try to save his brother by rushing him to the hospital and instead he merely stood by during the occurrence and remained silent

It was evident that the conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased was highly un-natural which showed that actually they were not present at the spot at the relevant time

Other eyewitness also admitted that though there was hue and cry raised by the complainant but no muhallah residents were attracted to the spot after the occurrence

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

Record revealed that the Trial Court acquitted the three co-accused, against which, acquittal appeals were filed against two only but subsequently the said appeals were withdrawn, whereas no appeal was filed against the acquittal of third accused

Police had declared two of the accused as innocent which aspect had also been endorsed by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court since appeals against their acquittal were dismissed by the High Court as withdrawn

Said aspect clearly led to the conclusion that on the given set of facts/evidence, benefit of doubt had been given by the Courts below to co-accused, who were allegedly carrying a gun and pistol respectively, so there was no reason why the said benefit of doubt could not be extended to the present petitioner

Under the given set of facts/evidence, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the present petitioner as well

Since the prosecution evidence had already been disbelieved against co-accused, therefore, it would not be prudent and justified to rely on such evidence qua the case of the present petitioner i.e. it would be unsafe to rely upon such evidence alone for convicting the present petitioner, without independent corroboration, which was lacking in the present case

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

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.

Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced one to death while the other was given imprisonment for life

High Court reduced the sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life whereas the other was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Allegation of sodomy lacked corroboration due to absence of DNA report or chemical examiner's findings, despite the claim of prosecution that anal swabs were submitted for testing

Critical DNA profiling and chemical report that could have supported the charge of unnatural lust were missing

Court could infer under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it and missing documents would not have supported prosecution's case

Motive was not established, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were doubtful and medical and forensic links were either suppressed or infirm

Chain of circumstantial evidence stood fractured

Where prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain was to be proved to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt

Failure to establish any one link was sufficient to vitiate the entire case

There were legal limitations of Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and prosecution had failed to satisfy strict conditions for admissibility and reliability of custodial recoveries

Chain of circumstances necessary for conviction was not satisfactorily established

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and declined to interfere in acquittal of co-accused by the High Court.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing rape with complainant / alleged victim and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years

Validity

Fornication is distinct from Section 376 P.P.C., which means that it is concerned with the act which is not consensual and it is against the will of the person who is the victim of such offense

Modification of offence was not justified, unless element of consent was established through independent and cogent evidence and not merely on the basis of assumptions or surmises

Accused was not initially charged with Section 496-B, P.P.C. and was charged under Section 376, P.P.C.

His Lordship declined to modify conviction under Section 376, P.P.C. to a conviction under Section 496-B, P.P.C. just to reduce sentence of accused

Such modification of conviction would be against the basic principles of law which stated that to convict a person under a particular offense all ingredients of that offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

This Lordship declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

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

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing rape with complainant / alleged victim and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years

Validity

After the occurrence, complainant / alleged victim came back to her house where her brother and other family members were admittedly living but she remained mum for almost 07 months

Long silence of complainant / alleged victim for a period of 07 months spoke volumes against her conduct

Story narrated by complainant / alleged victim with the delay of 07 months regarding forcible rape could not be relied upon blindly

Pistol was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of accused but the same was not used during the occurrence

Pistol was recovered from a residential house and no witness of the locality was associated during recovery proceedings, which was violative of the provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C., therefore, such recovery could not be relied upon

It was not a case of rape as envisaged under Section 376, P.P.C. rather it was a case of fornication i.e. zina with consent, punishable under Section 496-B, P.P.C.

Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that once it was held that it was a case of fornication punishable under Section 496-B, P.P.C. then complainant / alleged victim was also liable to be proceeded against and punished as an accused of the offence of illicit intercourse with consent

Supreme Court did not punish the complainant / alleged victim at this present stage without providing her opportunity of defence, as she had not been challaned by Police and no charge of fornication under Section 496-B, P.P.C. was framed against her by Trial Court, and she had no opportunity to defend herself

Supreme Court modified conviction and sentence of accused under Section 376, P.P.C. to one under Section 496-B, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years along with fine

Appeal was disposed of. [Majority View]

Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and the judgment was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Evidence produced by parties had rightly led two Courts to believe that there were incurable dents in the evidence of petitioner / plaintiff

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not supposed to reach at a different conclusion on re-appraisal of evidence, particularly when there was no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence on the issue of performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.