Defective investigation

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, mischief by killing or maiming cattle of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries

Record showed that despite the visit of Police Officer at the crime scene on 30.05.2017 the crime empties were not taken into possession by him, rather according to record the same were secured by Investigating Officer during his visit at the crime scene on 03.06.2017

Nowhere in the prosecution evidence it had come on record that the crime scene was secured and the crime empties recovered later on were lying at the same places and in the same position as mentioned by Investigating Officer

Another Police witness during cross-examination also admitted that the case diary of 03.06.2017 was silent as to whether the crime scene was secured

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prime duty of the Investigating Agency was to collect all possible evidence, including scientific and technical assistance, in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused

In the present case, the Investigation suffered from glaring lapses

Despite the availability of forensic means, no effort was made to preserve or examine fingerprints from the dead body or the surrounding area, nor was any forensic opinion sought in that regard

Rule 25.14 of the Police Rules, 1934, clearly mandated that the Investigating Officer were expected to take steps to secure expert technical assistance, wherever relevant

Moreover, the prosecution failed to examine marginal but material witnesses, those included the females of the locality, who, according to the complainant, had informed him about the alleged teasing behavior of the accused towards the deceased

Similarly, the owner of the land where the dead body was found was not examined, even the person who allegedly produced the mobile phones of the deceased and the accused was not cited as witness

Omission to examine such witnesses raised serious doubts about the trustworthiness of the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant

During cross-examination, Investigating Officer admitted that he did not record the statement of sister of the deceased and voluntarily stated that she initially supported the complainant's version but later changed her stance due to pressure

However, that assertion by the Investing Officer was not corroborated by his own investigation, as the police record did not include the police diary entry dated 13.10.2021, which purportedly contained the S.161 Cr.P.C. statements of sisters of deceased

Absence of that critical record casted serious doubt on the credibility of the investigation and effectively discredited the Investigating Officer's testimony

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant also acted as an Investigating Officer in the case; however, he failed to examine any member of the staff of the Daewoo Cargo Terminal at K-(Karachi) or at R-(Rawalpindi) from where the alleged shipment was booked

Another noteworthy aspect of the prosecution case was its claim that the subject shipment was dispatched from R-(Rawalpindi) and arrived at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, K-(Karachi)

Nevertheless, after the alleged recovery of ICE-(methamphetamine)-soaked cloth pieces, the complainant/Investigating Officer did not offer any explanation as to why the packing material or packing bags of the said shipment was not seized and produced during the trial, so as to demonstrate that the alleged recovery of white cloth pieces soaked with ICE-(methamphetamine) was indeed effected from the shipment that had arrived at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, K-(Karachi)

Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged recovery of narcotic-soaked cloth, also claimed to have seized a motorcycle, which was allegedly used by the appellants

Surprisingly, that motorcycle was never produced before the Trial Court as case property

Moreover, no verification was undertaken from the relevant Excise and Taxation Department to ascertain the ownership of the said motorcycle

Such unexplained omission not only reflected a lapse in investigation but also created a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind regarding the veracity of the prosecution's claim of recovery, particularly in view of the stringent requirements of proof mandated under the Act, 1997

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity

Appreciation of evidence

Defective investigation

Prosecution case was that the accused-petitioners entered the house of complainant, caused him injury with a sharp-edged weapon, took away cash amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/-, a gold ring and five mobile phones

Investigation itself suffered from gross procedural defects

Alleged recoveries of cash were made after a lapse of 2 years

Admittedly, the currency notes were not the same, which were stolen and the currency notes were drawn from the bank, hence it was insufficient and against the norms of justice to connect the present accused/petitioners with alleged recovery

Furthermore, neither the recovered dagger nor the pistol was sent for expert examination, and no fingerprints or forensic evidence were collected from the crime scene

Said omissions rendered the investigation highly doubtful and unreliable

Petitions were allowed and petitioners were acquitted by setting aside impugned judgments, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, harabbah

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for attempting to take away the cattle upon which brother of complainant made resistance, thereafter he was murdered by the accused persons through firing

Sketch of wardat was prepared by Mukhtiarkar, who went to the place of occurrence on 09.2.2014 i.e. after eight days of the occurrence

Therefore, on part of the Investigating Officer there was negligence and failure in collecting the evidence

Investigating Officer had not opted to proceed to the spot forthwith, however he was bound by the Police Rules 1934, mentioned at Rule number 25.13 for preparation of two site plans of the offence

Investigating Officer did nothing in securing the scene of occurrence rather acted negligently even in lodging the FIR

Site plan got prepared through the Mukhtiarkar, was incomplete and be was even unable to highlight the sight of occurrence and also had not shown the place of presence of the witnesses or the cattle

Said witness also had not mentioned the place of collection of blood stained earth by the Investigation Officer

In short, same proved a futile exercise and served no purpose whatsoever for the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, the brother of complainant was hit and died during dacoity

In this case, the claim of prosecution regarding arrest of four accused persons after a police encounter was important and had to be proved before the Court

Investigating Officer had not prepared any sketch of the said place of encounter

Although cross firing had been claimed by Investigating Officer, an act of firing upon the police party could not be considered as a minor offence, which otherwise was punishable under S.353, P.P.C and even under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if it was covered under S.6 (m) (n) of the Act ibid, and as per Rule 25.13 of the Police Rules 1934, yet operative plan of the scene was required to be prepared for explanation of the scene but the same had not been prepared for highlighting the said venue

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements

Fund raising

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused was arrested for providing his services to the proscribed organization and an amount was recovered meant for the assistance of martyr activists of the banned organization

Complainant of the case who mostly reiterated the contents of his fard-e-bayan, but during the course of cross-examination he derailed from his earlier statement and contradicted the case of prosecution to some extent

Complainant admitted that the alleged taxi driver was not associated in the recovery proceedings, in whose taxi accused was de-boarded

Complainant further admitted that except the appellant five other persons were also present at the time of recovery in the taxi

Said witness admitted that in his presence the Investigating Officer neither included the said persons in the list of investigation nor recorded their statements

Complainant showed his ignorance with regard to conducting business in Pakistani currency across the Pak-Afghan Border

Complainant also admitted that the place of occurrence was a populated area, but despite of the fact no independent witness was associated in the recovery proceedings

While, Incharge of Malkhana/Head Moharar received the sealed parcels from the Investigating Officer, subsequently made entries whereof in the Register No.19, but he had also failed to produce and exhibit the copy of Register No.19 during trial

Eye-witness as well as the member of raiding team stated that complainant handed over him the accused (appellant), the letter of DAESH written in Pashto language containing monogram of proscribed organization and the recovered amount

Pashto letter was translated and was sealed in a parcel, while the amount was sealed in other parcel, but that witness had also failed to produce the sealed parcel of Pashto letter and to exhibit it before the Trial Court nor the same was available on record

Other eye-witness produced the recovery memo. and admitted that the letter of proscribed organization was neither having any reference number nor the same was duly signed and stamped by the banned organization

Investigating Officer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation, in his cross-examination, admitted that he neither associated the driver of the Taxi nor any private person as witness in the proceedings

Thus, such negligence on the part of the prosecution created serious dents in the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer during cross-examination admitted that he did not record the statement of driver, who transmitted the Murasila to the Police Station and with-whom the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence

Driver being the member of patrolling team as well as transmitting the Murasila to the Police Station was ought be produced before the Trial Court as witness to prove its case

Investigation Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not prepare the site map

Besides, in the present case, the whole proceedings were conducted by Investigating Officer in violation of the provision of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite the fact that there were two other Police Officials of the rank of SI and ASI in the entire proceedings, but none of them bothered to prepare the site plan

Such conduct of the prosecution, while dealing with a heinous case, caused considerable loss to its case because neither any site plan nor any card of arrest was prepared

Had it been prepared, the same would have been found on file to support the prosecution story

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Investigating Officer of the case admitted in his cross-examination that he transmitted the USB for Forensic Science Laboratory, but the analysis report whereof had not been received yet

Investigating Officer also admitted that the place of occurrence was thickly populated area, but he did not associate any independent witness in the recovery proceedings

Furthermore, Investigating Officer admitted that the parcel of recovered mobile phone was prepared in the Police Station

Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not record the statement of operator, who traced out the stolen mobile

Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the DVR of the CCTV Camera

Prima facie, the Investigating Officer of the case had failed to conduct a proper investigation to strengthen the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of the complainant, capturing her pictures and threatening her of dire consequence

Main allegation against the appellant was that he committed rape with the sister of complainant and also captured her naked photographs, but the prosecution failed to recover the mobile phone through which the photographs were captured, despite the fact that the appellant was arrested on the same date, which otherwise was the best piece of evidence with the prosecution to strengthen its case

Thus, such negligence on the part of the prosecution made the case doubtful

Circumstances established that prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for making murderous assault by making firing upon the brother of complainant due to which he sustained firearm injuries

While reporting the matter,it was mentioned by the complainant that the accused and absconding co-accused arrived at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle, but neither the registration number nor model was disclosed

Investigating Officer could not collect any documentary evidence which could tell that it was in the ownership of the accused, and in such eventuality, no doubt the prosecution could not succeed in connecting the accused with commission of the offence, that too, under S.34, P.P.C.

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the culpability of the accused in the present case through reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, house-trespass, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for committing murder of father, brothers, daughter and sister-in-law of complainant and causing fire arm injures to the complainant and his brother

As was evident from the record that out of the deceased, the deceased "ZA" received one firearm entry wound, "MK" two firearm injuries, "Z" three firearm injuries, Mst. "O" one firearm injury, Mst. "S" one firearm injury and the deceased "B" three firearm injures

Total number of injuries was 24, whereas twelve (12) persons were charged for causing the same, so the Court was not persuaded from the report of the complainant and the number of accused had been exaggerated

Investigating Officer failed to mention that from what places the empties were collected, rather he stated that 27 empties of 7.62 bore were collected from the places of the accused

As was evident from the record that the accused were shown firing from three different places, so the Investigating Officer should have mentioned the same, but he did not and this slackness on part of the Investigating Officer had created dents in the prosecution case coupled with the fact that no trail of blood was noted between the places, where the deceased received firearm injuries and where they fell on the ground

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant

Statement of the eye-witness was shown recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C where she narrated the incident in a different manner by disclosing that the accused tried to kidnap/take away the deceased but the deceased was not willing, so the deceased grappled with the accused and the accused fired at the deceased

If such statement was taken into consideration, then the Court was to see that why the human hair found in possession of the deceased, collected by the Medical Officer, handed over to the Investigating Officer, was not sent for DNA, knowing the fact that it was the best evidence, in possession of the prosecution for establishing the identity of the accused

Reluctance on the part of the Investigating Officer to transmit the same to the laboratory for DNA was a factor which the Court could not ignore and the Investigating Officer did not send the same apprehending that the same would exclude the involvement of the appellant and that his miseries, to investigate further, would increase

As admittedly, human hair was found in possession of the deceased, the same was collected by the Medical Officer and received by the Investigating Officer, so under all circumstances, it was essential for the Investigation Officer to have asked for conducting of DNA, but knowing the fact that the same would lead to the actual culprit, the evidence was disrespected and dishonored

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

From the site plan, prepared at the instance of the complainant, it appeared that the houses of both the parties were adjacent to each other

Points at which mother of complainant was hit, the places at which both the accused were present and the place at which complainant was present, were pointed out, but the place at which father of complainant was present and hit, was not shown

No evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer in respect of the deceased/father of complainant whose dead body was allegedly shifted by the accused party forcibly from the spot and buried

Investigating Officer made no application to the Judicial Magistrate for exhumation of dead body of father of complainant

In the site plan, the deceased mother of complainant was shown to have been present in front of the wall between the houses of the parties

Allegedly, mother of complainant was present at a point, near the wall separating the said two houses

Respondent/accused was shown at another point while firing at his mother

However, it was natural that the wall would have been hit with the fire shots, but, the Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that no marks of bullets strike were founds on the said wall

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home guilt against the respondent/accused

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Investigating Officer collected blood from one place (point No.1) and admitted during cross-examination that blood so collected was deposited in the Forensic Science Agency on 16.08.2022 after about three months which fact was reflected from Forensic Science Agency Report as well as from the statements of HC, Moharrir and Investigating Officer

At the time of collection of blood police was not sure about the place where actually deceased received the fire because dead body was lying contra to claim of witnesses

In the memo. of collection of blood there was an overwriting/cutting of words "Mitti/soil with cotton/Rooi" probably due to reason that courtyard of baithak was soiled and not soling

Such facts were visible on naked eye view of report, and ran against the claim of prosecution about place of occurrence

Mala fide of Investigating Officer was reflected from the fact that though on 16.08.2022 he was not posted in the police station concerned yet he took the samples of blood-stained earth for its deposit in the Forensic Science Agency and such fact was admitted by him

Said fact showed that Investigating Officer conducted defective investigation and did not dispatch the samples in time, that was the reason no other Police Officer was ready to take responsibility of depositing of parcels in the Forensic Science Agency

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly

As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant disclosed that he had obtained the mobile numbers of accused "Q", but despite attempts, he could not make contact

Once the mobile numbers came into the knowledge of the police, there was no explanation or record of any concrete steps taken by the Investigating Agency to trace the culprits through geo-location, Call Data Records (CDRs), or by approaching the concerned Mobile Service Providers to determine the location or ownership details of said numbers

Conduct of the police gave the impression that no proactive investigation was undertaken and that they merely waited for the abductee to reappear, rather than making timely and serious efforts to recover her or apprehend the alleged accused

Moreover, the complainant did not make any serious or effective efforts to locate the accused by utilizing modern means of communication and investigation, despite being in possession of the mobile numbers allegedly used by the accused

In the present digital age, where location tracking, call record analysis and mobile surveillance are readily available as investigative tools, the complainant's failure to initiate or request any such steps further weakened the prosecution's stance

Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the Society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Record showed that there was doubt over the credibility of some of the witnesses who gave evidence

Investigating Officer admitted that all the five witnesses were facing NAB inquiries at the time of their evidence and one had even been convicted and another had already had his Voluntary Return (VR) accepted so they had every reason to support the prosecution case in return for lenient treatment in the NAB cases which they were facing

Even the Investigating Officer of the case was dismissed on account of misconduct which casted doubt on his entire investigation

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused person committed murder of the deceased lady by firing on the allegation of kari

Allegedly, the appellant had committed the murder of his sister in his Otaq, so some part of the onus had shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances in which the deceased had died an unnatural death in his Otaque on the fateful day, which part of the onus had not been discharged by the appellant

However, investigating Officer failed to collect the title documents of the alleged Otaque from the relevant office

Suppose the Otaque was not registered in the name of any family member of the appellant; in that case, the Investigating Officer should have obtained a possession certificate for the house to link the appellant to the alleged recovery of the dead body

Nothing was brought to the record during the trial to establish a connection between the appellant and the alleged recovery

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Appellant was charged for committing misappropriation of Rs. 1,082,500/= and making changes in ledgers/pay rolls

Record showed that the amount was to be disbursed to the trainees of the Project, but Investigating Officer failed to record statements of trainees in order to strengthen the version of prosecution regarding alleged misappropriation on the part of appellant

Merely saying that the appellant had misappropriated amount would not be sufficient as it was the duty of prosecution to establish its case from all four corners

Investigating Officer during his evidence had also confirmed that there was no account in Post Office opened in the name of appellant nor any transaction of stipend amount was made in any account of the appellant in Bank or Post Office

Even Investigating Officer had not collected any documentary proof regarding alleged misappropriation nor recorded the statement of any of the trainees during investigation

In order to confirm involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer had not collected Call Data Record of Cell number of the appellant for ascertaining the truth

Furthermore, non-association of "AG", Quality Controller, Literacy Coordinator as accused in the instant case, when they were nominated in the earlier FIR had also dented the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ocular testimony in the case was led by the complainant, and two other persons who were residents of a village situated around 30 to 35 kilometers from the place of occurrence

Incident occurred in the night at 8:55 p.m. in the month of October and the testimony of the eye-witnesses remained unsuccessful in establishing any source of light at the scene of the crime

It was only after a lapse of two and a half months of the incident that the respondent (acquitted accused) was implicated in the case

No identification parade was conducted for determining the involvement of the accused persons and the evidentiary value of identification at a belated stage had little value in the eyes of the law, more particularly when the lineaments and physiognomy of the accused were not mentioned anywhere by the complainant or the eye-witnesses

Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not show the place of incident in the site plan through the prosecution claimed that the incident occurred near a hotel; I.O. also admitted that he had not demarcated the place from where the accused had fired at the victim in the rough site plan, nor had the prosecution witnesses shown him the specific place of death of the deceased at the site of the occurrence; I.O. further admitted that he had called upon the inhabitants of the place of occurrence i.e. owners of the nearby haveli and service station, but they could not provide any detail of the occurrence or any description of the assailants

As per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained two firearm injuries, however the postmortem report revealed that only one firearm injury was found on the deceased's body

High Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the case against the respondent

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

Accused were charged that they made murderous attack upon the complainant party, due to which there persons were seriously injured, however one of them died

Initial investigation in the matter was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation and admitted that he did not take into possession the blood stained earth, stone and empties etc. from the place of occurrence

Said Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not go to hospital along with injured and neither visited the hospital on 21st or 22nd October, 2019

Said witness also admitted that he did not meet the Medical Officer from 21st to 26th October, 2019

Admissions so made by the Investigating Officer created doubts in the case of prosecution rendering his investigation not worth of credence

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Record showed that due particulars of the vehicle, like its registration number, kind and type, colour etc., were neither part and parcel of the investigation nor that of the trial

While proceeding to the police station, it had been fairly conceded that the blood of the deceased was oozing in the vehicle but strangely enough, such circumstantial evidence was not part and parcel of the investigation followed by the trial

Investigating Officer for reasons best known to him had not collected the signs and symptoms of the said circumstantial evidence from the rear portion of the vehicle through which the victim was shifted to the police station

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer stated that Constable, who brought the post-mortem documents and garments of the deceased was not examined under S. 161, Cr.P.C

Said witness admitted that name of said Constable was not mentioned in the calendar of witnesses

Admittedly, Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of any Police Official who took the crime articles including the alleged recoveries to the Forensic Science Laboratory

Admittedly, Investigating Officer had not verified the status of ownership of any shop where bulb was installed

Investigating Officer did not remember that who took the empties and pistol to the Forensic Science Laboratory

Admittedly, pistol was recovered on 31.08.2017, whereas it was received in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 14.09.2017, however, Investigating Officer had not annexed any documents on file regarding safe custody of the said articles

Investigating Officer admitted that he did not annex the daily diary regarding his departure and arrival to the police station

In view of such discrepancies, such statement could not be made the basis to sustain conviction on a capital charge

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Prosecution's version was that the death information was received at 06:00 a.m., but column No. 3 of the inquest report revealed that the date and time of receiving information of death were 21.12.2009 at 04:00/05:00 a.m.

As per the prosecution case, fard bayan was written at 06:00 a.m., and in column No.4 of the inquest report, names of the persons who identified the dead body at the time of the inquest were mentioned

If it was so, it was required to be explained by Investigating Officer, by plausible evidence on the record as to how the inquest was undertaken at 04:00/05:00 a.m. in the presence of witness, who was called from another place and proceeded at about 08:30 a.m. and directly went to THQ Hospital

Investigating Officer deposed that on 21.12.2009 he received the information of occurrence in village

After that, Investigating Officer along with other Police Officials proceeded to the place of occurrence; recorded fard bayan; prepared an inquest report and an injury statement and entrusted the dead body of the deceased to Police Constable for taking to the mortuary for postmortem examination

If Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence upon receiving information, then the complainant had met with her and recorded fardbayyan and he prepared an injury statement

On perusal of the injury statement, it revealed that space was left blank after mentioning "Banam" and it revealed that till preparation of the injury statement, fardbayyan was not prepared

Under Column No. 24 of the Inquest Report, a sketch plan of where the dead body was found was not given

Investigating Officer had not prepared a drawing of where the dead body was lying and its condition but left it blank

Conduct of the Investigating Officer and his investigation of the case was not above board

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal of the accused was accordingly allowed.

Investigating Officer had not mentioned the distance between different points in the un-scaled site plan prepared on 08.11.2018

Whereas, the distance between different points had been mentioned in the scaled site plans prepared by draftsman on 10.11.2018

Scaled site plans were prepared to bring the prosecution version in line with the postmortem examination report

As per the postmortem report, there was burning, blackening, and tattooing on the injuries

Admittedly, an autopsy was conducted on 09.11.2018, and the draftsman visited the place of occurrence on 10.11.2018, and after that, he prepared site plans

So, mentioning distance by the draftsman in scaled site plans became immaterial

Investigating Officer's conduct and investigation were not above board

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Abduction for ransom, dacoity, house trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, hurt by rash or negligent act, shajjah-i-khafifah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, wrongful confinement, common inten-tion

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused was charged for maltreating with the servant of complainant, forcibly taking the detenu, abusing the complainant, extending threats of dire consequences and also firing just to spread fear, terror and insecurity in general public, when the complainant went to police station for releasing the detenu

Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination deposed that he had not recorded the statements of the officials of hospital staff from where detenu was recovered from a quarter of same hospital

Investigating Officer had not recorded the statements of two servants of accused who were found guarding the alleged detenu, though same fact was mentioned in the FIR lodged by Judicial Magistrate

Investigating Officer had not recorded statement of taxi driver in which Judicial Magistrate had conducted the raid and also not recorded the statement of any Duty Officer who was day incharge on the day of incident

Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of shop keepers situated near the Police Station, though there were shops situated adjacent to the walls of Police Station

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeals against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her

According to the evidence of first Investigating Officer in this case on 01.08.2015 he initially arrested Mr. "G" and Mr. "N" on suspicion and brought them to the Police Station

During interrogation Mr. "G" informed him that one of the present accused persons had come on motor cycle with the deceased girl at his mechanic shop to meet Mr. "I", which led him to arrest said accused on 02.08.2015 who was located through spy information

Significantly, Mr. "G" would have been the best witness for last seen evidence however he was not called as a witness to give evidence for the prosecution and nor was Mr. "I" for reasons best known to the prosecution

Surprisingly Mr. "G" did not mention that the girl was raising any objection to being with accused or was in any kind of distress

No explanation was furnished as to why the Investigating Officer found Mr. "G" to be innocent and was dropped as the main suspect although the defence claimedthat it was on account of him taking a bribe

Once accused was arrested rather conveniently a further statement was taken from the complainant introducing for the first time that a ransom demand had been made for the safe return of the deceased and accused was later conveniently identified by the complainant as one of the persons who made the demand

Evidence to be treated as reliable must appeal to logic, commonsense, reason and natural conduct

In the present case it did not appeal to logic, commonsense, reason or natural conduct that accused would go to a mechanic with many workers present with an abducted girl who would be able to identify him especially if he raped and murdered the girl within one day

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Complainant in his evidence had claimed that he had prepared the memo (of recovery and arrest) in presence of the Mashirs and obtained their signature thereon

Mashir in his evidence had added Excise Constable in the episode and had named him as the author of memo

Documents retrieved from the vehicle showed that its owner was one Mr. PA, and not the accused, yet nothing was done to investigate such person and ascertain his role in the case

Complainant in his evidence had admitted that he had not investigated the fact, nor he had any material in his possession to show that accused had prior knowledge of presence of concealed Charas in the spare tyre

Spare tyre was neither sealed at the spot being a curial piece of evidence supporting accusation, nor was it even produced in the Court at the time of evidence to reinforce such part of allegation

Complainant had claimed that endorsement i.e. crime number, serial numbers, identification marks on each sample was written by him with a blue marker pen

Yet, at the time of evidence such writing was found to have been made with a black marker pen, and further the witness had revealed that such endorsement on the samples and remaining property was made by Excise Constable

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for making firing upon police party, due to which one Police Constable sustained firearm injury

In the present case, investigation should have been conducted by some other agency

Standard of proof in this case should have been far higher as compared to any other criminal case when according to the prosecution it was a case of police encounter

Thus, it was desirable and even imperative that it should have been investigated by some other agency

Police could not be investigators of its own cause

Investigation which was woefully lacking independent character could not be made basis for conviction, when it was riddled with many lacunas and loopholes, apart from the afterthoughts and improvements

Moreover, it would not be in accord of safe administration of justice to maintain the conviction and sentence of the accused in the circumstances of the case

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Initially the investigation of the case was conducted by the levies, but the Tehsildar, Investigating Officer destroyed the case by ignoring the material evidence

Complainant being dissatisfied from the investigation conducted by levies, submitted an application for transfer of case to the Crimes Branch, which course was accordingly done and investigation was transferred to the Crimes Branch

Unfortunately Sub-Inspector, Crimes Branch, also failed to collect the necessary evidence and record the statements of the material witnesses

File showed that due to obliviousness of first Investigating Officer, reasonable delay seemed to have been occasioned for collecting and recording necessary evidence, but the negligence of second Investigating Officer had also caused serious flaws in the prosecution case, which seemed to be colorful exercise of powers by both the Investigating Officers

Delay in recording the necessary evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case, but any such delay castes reasonable doubt and suspicion on veracity of evidence so collected and recorded

Complainant and other witnesses could not be held responsible for such delay, which was ultimately caused by mis-exercising of power for extending undue leverage to the accused

Since such aspects of the case were yet to be addressed, therefore, Court intentionally refrained to render any observation in that behalf

Appeals were partly allowed and case was remanded to Trial Court.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, common intention, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defective investigation

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also committed murder of wife of one of the accused on the pretext of honour

As per prosecution version, complainant was carrying the bag of deceased while the other eye-witness had a shopping bag of the deceased while on their way in the company of deceased

Strangely the Investigating Officer had neither taken the referred luggage of deceased into possession nor shown the same in the site plan to corroborate the version of complainant regarding departure of deceased to another place on the day of occurrence

Said omission on the part of Investigating Officer showed that the version of complainant as narrated in the FIR regarding departure of the deceased was only a concocted story

Even otherwise, carrying of loads was usually the job of males and it could not be expected from the deceased to let his sister and sister-in-law, being females to carry his bag and shopping bag

No evidence was available on record to show that the deceased was sick or otherwise incapable of carrying any load himself at the relevant time

Circumstances estab-lished that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Investigating Officer during the course of his cross-examination admitted that he did not mention the name of any of accused persons on injury statement, and recovery memos. regarding blood stained earth and empty of 30-bore

Said omission was reflective of the fact that till the preparation of said documents, the names of the assailants were not known to Investigating Officer and application and FIR was belatedly drafted after due deliberation and consultation

No record was either produced by the complainant or collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation to establish the fact that on the date of occurrence amount to the tune of Rs. 100,000/- was actually drawn from the bank as mentioned in complaint

Complainant during the course of his cross-examination stated that he did not produce any receipt before the Investigating Officer about the withdrawal of money from the bank

Investigating Officer also admitted during the course of his cross-examination that he did not take any record from the concerned bank regarding withdrawal of the amount by the deceased

Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any bank official in that regard

Deceased was claimed to have been brought at THQ Hospital in injured condition but Investigating Officer never made any attempt to record statement of injured while preparing injury statement

Record showed that injured was further referred to another Hospital but Investigating Officer did not visit said Hospital for a period of around ten days in order to record statement of the injured till he succumbed to the injuries

Non-recording of statement of injured for about ten long days simply shattered the whole prosecution story given in complaint particularly where it had not been plausibly explained at trial that what refrained the Investigator from recording statement of injured

All the said facts clearly suggested that FIR in the instant case was lodged after due deliberation and consultation between complainant and police without recording statement of injured who was in his senses when he was firstly medically examined at THQ Hospital

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that complainant's brothers including deceased and nephew were receiving threatening phone calls from cell phone one specific number was identified registered in the name of one accused who was arrested by the police and also obtained his physical remand for two days from the Court of competent jurisdiction

Said fact was also admitted by complainant in his cross-examination

Said accused was not got identified by the eye-witnesses

Owner of other SIM number could not be traced during the course of investigation nor any evidence was produced in that respect before the Trial Court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for criminal misconduct and making assets beyond his means and also failed to furnish declaration of his assets

Although, the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and even in his evidence had alleged that the accused had acquired the properties which were beyond the known sources of his income, however, he had failed to enquire into and give details regarding the income of the accused and other earnings of the accused, which was fatal to the prosecution in such types of cases

Investigating Officer had also failed to record statements of the wife, mother-in-law, brother and other relatives of the accused in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of complainant's allegations as well as the defence put forward by the accused

At the same time, prosecution was also duty-bound to establish, by producing tangible evidence, that the accused had misused his official position/authority in order to acquire the properties disproportionate to known sources of his income

Circumstances established that prosecution had not been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, extortion, putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, common intention, possessing illicit arms, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Defective investigation

Scope

Prosecution case was that the accused demanded extortion money from complainant and his father, issued threats of dire consequences to them, police tried to apprehend them when they reached for collecting extortion money, on seeing police, accused made firing upon police, in retaliation police also made firing, due to which accused persons were hit and fell down and were apprehended

Although there were some defects/omissions in the prosecution case/investigation but were only of minor nature and did not dent the prosecution case or led to any benefit of doubt to be given to the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however the offences did not fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act as such accused was acquitted of the offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act

Appeal was dismissed by maintaining the convictions and sentences with regard to the non-Anti-Terrorism Act offences so charged.

As per record, Investigating Officer himself admitted that he was told by two witnesses that a bearded man and a maid would often come to the deceased's house

Although Investigating Officer claimed that he had recorded S. 161, Cr.P.C. statements of both witnesses but neither testified at trial

Bearded man was identified as Mr. "S", the same man who had informed the family of the deceased about his death

Both witnesses apparently also did not disclose that accused would also come to the apartment

Thus, it appeared that absolutely no investigation was done on that lead

Investigating Officer himself admitted that the apartment where the murder occurred was a "huge building" with three gates to it

Investigating Officer further acknowledged that he questioned no resident of the building or a member of the building committee or the watchmen at the gates during his investigation

Not only was the police investigation incomplete, it appeared that evidence was created by the Investigating Officer, indicating dishonesty

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Accused/wife of deceased was charged for committing murder of her husband/brother of the complainant in collusion with other accused by administering some intoxicant substance to him

Investigating Officer was fair enough to admit that there was no eye-witness to the incident except lady accused none else was produced by Investigating Officer before Judicial Magistrate for recording their confessional statements

No explanation was offered as to why no other accused was produced for recording their judicial confession

Further, it was admitted by the said Investigating Officer that no finger print marks on cloth piece and pillow cover which allegedly were secured by him during course of investigation were obtained

Such omission too could not be lost sight of

Investigating Officer further admitted that no SIM card was found registered in name of lady accused

If it was so, then she could not be connected with the Call Data Records (CDR) reports allegedly obtained and produced in evidence

Be that as it may, during course of her examination under section 342, Cr.P.C, when asked about her judicial confession, it was stated by said lady accused that it was not read over to her and was obtained by putting her under pressure at the instance of the complainant, who intended to establish an illicit relationship with her and wanted to grab the property of the deceased being his brother

Lady accused examined a witness in her defence, who happened to be son of the deceased, who impliedly declared her to be innocent

In these circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution had not been able to prove the involvement of the accused persons in commission of incident beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Accused were charged for robbing the complainant party and when brother of the complainant offered resistance in a scuffle, accused opened fire, killing him at the spot

Perusal of the record showed that Investigating Officer had committed serious and grave mistakes either by not collecting evidence or by not presenting some very relevant pieces of evidence before the Trial Court

Hence, negligence of police, especially Investigating Officer cast a fatal blow to the prosecution case

Record showed that the blood stained clothes of the deceased were never taken into possession by the police; hence, were never produced in the Trial Court

Torch in the light of which the complainant and other witnesses saw and recognized all the three accused persons was never taken into custody; hence, was not produced in the court

Motorbike upon which all the accused persons were riding when they allegedly attempted to commit robbery and killed the deceased was not produced in the Trial Court, when the complainant was examined

Failure of the police to take possession of the relevant pieces of evidence in custody or not producing them in the court of law after taking their possession, either reflected their incompetency and or negligence on the part of Investigating Officer, causing fatal blow to the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

By owning the assets though burden shifted on accused but still it was prosecution who had to establish that sources shown by accused firstly during inquiry/investigation and secondly before Accountability Court, were not legal or not in conformity with his properties

Investigating officer on each occasion failed to properly investigate the matter

Investigating Officer was obliged to investigate each and every aspect of case keeping in view the defence version taken by accused at the time of investigation

Prosecution was supposed to have discovered and proved the known sources of accused

Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was narrow and limited as in acquittal presumption of innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisdiction and accused was presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and such presumption of innocence was doubled

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Accountability Court in favour of accused

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by stabbing and also attempted at the life of witness

High Court observed that investigation conducted in the present case was against the law and relevant procedure, however, no fault of conspicuous nature could be found in the entire investigation proceedings to have prejudiced the accused in any manner

Objection of defence was repelled

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused through trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, his conviction and sentence by the trial court did not call for any interference

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Accused was charged that he on the command of his co-accused/father committed murder of the husband of the complainant by firing

Record showed that the Investigating Officer visited the spot, recovered bloodstained earth along with an empty of 7.62 bore and on pointation of the eye-witnesses the site-plan was prepared

Record showed that the blood-stained earth was recovered from point 'B' where initially to the Investigating Officer the deceased after receiving firearm injury fell down

Investigating Officer soon thereafter changed his version by stating that the deceased did not fall to the ground after receiving the fatal shot

As to which of the witnesses was telling the truth and which not, and in order to ascertain as to whether in fact the deceased did not fall to the ground it was essential for the Investigating Officer to recover the vehicle which was not done

Despite the fact that the registration number of the vehicle found mentioned in the report and even it was the vehicle which was used for transporting the deceased to Police Station but it was not taken into possession

If the statement of the driver was taken into consideration regarding the ownership of the vehicle where he stated that the vehicle belong to a person "M" and even that fact was mentioned in his 164, Cr.P.C statement, but the Investigating Officer did not associate the said "M" with the process of investigation

Said lack of interest on part of all concerned led to hold that either the incident did not occur in the mode and manner or that no blood was found in the vehicle

In order to wriggle out from the glaring contradiction the Investigating Officer chose to conceal that material piece of evidence without realizing the fact that his such concealment would spoil the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Defective investigation conducted by a Police Officer could not stand in the way of complainant who was seeking justice from the court.

Deceased fell down after sustaining the firearm injuries and was lifted by both the eye-witnesses, who claimed that their clothes got blood stained but neither those clothes were taken into possession during the investigation nor produced by the witnesses

Complainant being dissatisfied with the investigation filed the private complaint with his own story but had not appended any scaled site plan with the private complaint nor cited any other draftsman in the calendar of witnesses appended

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for making firing upon the police party, due to which one Police Constable was hit and died, whereas one bullet hit at the side door of the official mobile

Investigating Officer after completion of investigation had submitted challan under "A" Class as no one could be arrested by the Investigating Officer at that time (2011)

Investigating Officer deposed that he was Investigation Officer of FIR and during search of the accused of that crime, on receiving spy information about presence of accused of that FIR they arrested accused in presence of Head Constable, who admitted their guilt before police

Investigating Officer did not make efforts to get his confessional statement recorded before Judicial Magistrate as provided in law under S.164, Cr.P.C., in order to prove that crime against him on merits by adopting legal process but instead brought unauthentic, inadmissible and unrecognized evidence on record

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

After the proforma arrest of the accused, the prosecution had not tried to get remand of the arrested accused for the purpose of investigation, which was important in such type of cases where the recovery of weapon was required

Another important prosecution witness was the owner/ Manager of Public Call Office (PCO) from where the abductee had contacted his father and brother

Even the investigator did not try to collect the CDR of the phone number through which the alleged abductee had contacted his relatives

Investigator had also not collected the call record of the PCO from where the abductee had contacted to establish that link that he had reported his recovery from PCO

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that twenty seven kilograms Charas was recovered from the luggage of accused persons while they were travelling through a bus, hence the FIR

Investigating Officer failed to examine the bus driver and its cleaner so also the passengers who were travelling in that bus to establish the ownership of the accused with regard to the bags lying on the roof of the bus

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Witnesses admitted that bloodstained earth was not collected by the Investigating Officer, who even failed to take any independent person with him while taking the accused to the place of incident for pointation of place of incident

No independent Mushir was made at the time of recovery of alleged two empties from the place of occurrence

Present case was investigated earlier by different Investigating Officers, but remained fruitless as such the matter was disposed of in 'A' Class

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

No site plan, no sketch, merely some observations and that too had been drawn at the instance of informant, who was not an eye-witness of the incident

No blood-stained earth was collected from the venue on the pretext of flooring of the room

Witnesses claimed to have seen the accused firing through windows, the observation did not contain any statement as to whether it was practicable to watch; and were the accused visible

One of the witnesses claimed to have seen the accused through bulb-light but no observation regarding source of light nor the bulb was secured into possession

None of the said inherent defects and lapses that created serious doubt regarding veracity of the statements and the manner of the commission of offence prevailed upon the Trial Court

Non-production of Investigating Officer was also prejudicial to their interest

Prosecution sought exemption on the ground that the Investigating Officer was paralyzed, whereas Official Witness stated that he had been retired

Non-examination of Investigating Officer on such flimsy and contradictory ground was a serious irregularity

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were alleged to have made indiscriminate firing, set ablaze 6-7 vehicles and shops resultantly one person was murdered and others were injured

Prosecution failed to establish that the vehicles and shops belonged to complainant party and Investigation officer also did not inquire about from any independent witness despite the fact that alleged occurrence had taken place at a thickly populated area

Neither statements of owners of vehicles nor of shops which were set on fire were recorded by investigation officer

Crime empties were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and it could not be determined as to how many accused persons made firing

Investigation was not conducted diligently and investigation officer failed to associate any independent person from the locality other than the relatives and tribesmen of the complainant to dig out the truth

Witnesses of ocular account though had a stamp of injuries on their persons yet they failed to prove their truthfulness during trial

Complainant took sufficient time in lodging crime report after going through the reports of postmortem examination as well as medico-legal reports of injured witnesses and also after consultation and deliberation

Dead body and injured witnesses were examined prior to registration of FIR

Prosecution had managed eye-witnesses as well as prosecution story

Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt and benefit of doubt favoured accused persons

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and both the accused persons were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circum-stances.