Chance witness

According to his version, on 10.03.2022, he was present on the roof of his house and watering the roof-top when he saw two persons scuffling with each other; that one of them pushed the other from the mountain, who fell to the base of the mountain and became unconscious in injured condition, and the appellant was talking on the mobile phone

Said witness mentioned the name of appellant as the accused and stated that due to domestic issues, they were fighting

Said witness allegedly procured a vehicle and then the injured was sent to the hospital

Said witness had not given any plausible reason for his presence at the place and time of occurrence, and thus he was a chance witness

Investigation Officer prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, and the house of the said witness did not figure in the site plan

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by sole eye-witness, who happened to be a chance witness and his claim to have seen the occurrence appeared to be a claim which could be accepted only with a lump of salt

Said witness deposed with the depiction that he being a Rickshaw driver by profession, happened to arrive at the spot of the incident, as soon as passengers were leaving the seats, when all out of sudden, he saw a person storming towards another person sitting on a chair in a shop, aimed a pistol at him and made a fire shot, which hit on the right hand of the victim; he in retaliation tried to escape out from the reach and firing range of the accused by trying to enter into a house but the accused further made a fire, which hit his abdominal area, and another fire made upon him strick on the chest of the injured; the eye-witness further deposed that he made an attempt to save the skin of the victim but the offender made two ineffective fire shots upon the rescuer who narrowly escaped from the fire shots

Said witness claimed to be present on the spot, witnessed the whole episode and he initially took the injured into the rickshaw up to a particular place and subsequently, brought him to the hospital in a taxi but ironically, he was not identifier of the dead body of the deceased before the local police as well as before the doctor, rather it was identified by another witness

Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place adjacent to the house of deceased and besides the said witness, many other persons, shopkeepers and neighbours also were attracted to the spot, however, neither the taxi driver nor any inhabitant of the locality had been produced as witness during the trial

If said persons could furnish their account it would have strengthened the case of the prosecution

Details of injuries, disclosed by the witness were also materially different from that discernable from the medical evidence

Admittedly, the sole eye-witness was not familiar with the deceased as well as appellant and per his version, he came to know about the name of appellant subsequent to recording his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C but on the contrary, his S.161 statement purportedly contained name of the appellant, which fact alone was sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution story

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Eye-witness/nephew of complainant was resident of one city, whereas, the occurrence took place at an other city, about 100-kilometers away from his house

In his statement before the Court, said witness had failed to advance any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence in the wee hours of morning, as such he was a chance witness and his testimony could not be relied upon

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Ocular account was led by complainant and his brother-in-law/witness who deposed before the Court about role of present accused that he caused a firearm injury on the chest of deceased

Said witnesses claimed their presence in the house of witness adjacent to the house of accused and viewed the occurrence while glancing over to the house of accused because the intervening wall was four feet high

In the evidence, it was mentioned that complainant was not a resident of place of occurrence rather his house was at a distance of 50/55 kilometers away

Delay of five hours for lodging the crime report was reflective of the fact that he was not present at the place of occurrence

Though complainant admitted that father of deceased was mentally and physically fit person and he informed him yet did not arrive at the place of occurrence until next morning that too in the hospital

Complainant claimed his presence in the house of his brother-in-law/witness but did not state the reason for his presence and also could not justifiably establish that the house of his brother-in-law was near the crime scene

Occurrence took place in the house of accused and site plan showed house of deceased adjacent to it from the back on southern side but no house of witness was cited in the un-scaled or scaled site plan

Claim of complainant qua house of his brother-in-law was further doubted when he deposed that he did not help the Investigating Officer to prepare the un-scaled site plan

Considering such fact, if any anything unusual had happened, the first to respond should have been the mother or any other living person in the house of deceased, but she did not volunteer to become complainant or witness in the case

Eye-witness who was reportedly the brother-in-law of the complainant had claimed that deceased and his family members were living in his house on the day of occurrence, but if this was the situation, then in scaled or un-scaled site plan his house must have been swapped with the house of deceased

Complainant further conceded that people who came from another city also reached the hospital

Thus, it was apparent from the facts that complainant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time

Mother or others were not ready to report the matter; therefore, police waited for the person who could lead the drive for implication of the accused in the story concocted through FIR; thus, complainant was called from another city to become the complainant

By all means complainant being not a resident of the area was a chance witness who could not justify his presence at the place of occurrence, he was a step uncle of the deceased and it was shrouded in mystery that what grudge he nourished against the accused to involve him in this case to cash the murder of deceased, which occurrence was not supported by any one else from the locality

According to eye-witness, after hearing hues and cries, they ran to the house of father of accused

Fact of bending forward by the witnesses in contrast to running to the crime scene went a long way to discredit the presence of witnesses

Serious doubt was cast on the claim of eye-witness about his presence at the place of occurrence

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In ordinary parlance, a chance witness is the one who in the normal course is not supposed to be present on the crime spot unless he/she offers cogent, convincing and believable explanation, justifying his/ her presence there.

Said witness just stated before the trial Court that he along with two other witnesses was present at the field and were ploughing agricultural land of complainant but no reason whatsoever had been explained by the said witness qua his visit to the deceased or the complainant

So, such witness in all eventualities could not be considered a natural witness and he could be categorized as chance witness

Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, abduction, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Unnatural conduct of eye-witness

Chance witness

Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after abducting him

Eye- witness, who was said to have witnessed accused persons and acquitted accused coming out of the car and throwing abductee in rice canal, was originally resident of another district and was related to the complainant

Said witness did not explain the exact circumstances behind his presence at the given time on the spot

Conduct of said eye-witness was not normal in that although he saw the accused persons throwing abductee in the rice canal, but did not try to save him with the assistance of a person, who allegedly was with him or raise even alarm to attract the people available to save the deceased or at least to take the dead body out of the water

City Point Bridge was a very busy place and remained open round the clock with cart pullers selling fruits, vegetables etc. and vendors available with rush of people

Being a busy place it was surprising that the incident was only noticed by persons who were somehow related to the complainant

Such facts and circumstances showed that evidence of said witness, who did not even convey information to the police but to the complainant, and the complainant only partially intimated the police, and the police remained inactive, was not reliable

Said witness was a chance witness and his presence at the spot was not without a doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution's case rested almost exclusively on the evidence of the sole eye-witness to the incident and his ability to correctly identify the accused who allegedly came on a motor bike along with others and fired on the deceased

According to the evidence of that witness, he was working at a printing press at the time of the incident but at the time of giving evidence he gave his occupation as a rickshaw driver which tended to cast doubt on what the actual job of the witness was and whether in fact he was a chance or planted witness

According to his evidence, he witnessed the incident from a gali at 11:45 pm at night when it was dark

No evidence was available on record that there was any source of light at that time and it was unclear how far away he was from the firing which would only have gone on for a brief moment and under chaotic circumstances

Under such circumstances, it was doubtful that even if the witness was present he would have been able to correctly identify the accused of whom he would have only got a fleeting glance on seeing him for the first time

According to his evidence said witness gave his statement to the police three days after the incident along with his name and address, however he was not contacted by the first Investigating Officer despite him being a really important witness who originally submitted his report in "A" class without any mention of the eye-witness which again raised doubt that he was even present at the time of the incident

Even if the eye witness was present at the time of the incident, which was very much doubtful, he would not have been able to correctly, safely and reliably identify the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Testimony of chance witness ordinarily is not acceptable unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In the normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of a chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth when the occurrence took place

Otherwise, testimony of said witness would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence consisting upon last seen evidence, report of Forensic Laboratory and medical evidence

Complainant had nominated the accused through subsequent application but had failed to describe the source of information in respect of involvement of accused in the commission of offence

Prosecution witness, claiming to have seen the deceased accompanying with accused, was a chance witness

Prosecution had not conclusively proved that the deceased was killed shortly after the alleged last seen

Conviction could not be recorded on the strength of last seen evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence

Complainant had failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Testimony of a chance witness is ordinarily not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time, because in normal course, the presumption under the law would be that such witness was absent from the crime spot.

On reappraisal of the testimony of complainant, it could be held that complainant was not present at the time of occurrence, as such was a procured witness

Complainant had not furnished any explanation, much less plausible, about his presence at the spot along with his brother at the time of occurrence

Complainant had also failed to prove his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence through some strong physical circumstance

Circumstances established that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true perspective, thus, had arrived at an erroneous conclusion by holding the accused guilty of the offence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing

Complainant stated that on the day of incident he was informed by the deceased regarding the interest of a party in their shop to purchase and in order to negotiate the price, he along with eye-witness went to the place where his shop was situated

Complainant further stated that party who was interested in purchase of their shop was hailing from Waziristan

Complainant further stated that the matter was negotiated, but the bargain could not be stuck between the parties

Record told that the only and only purpose of the complainant to visit his brother was the negotiation regarding the sale of their shop, but the complainant admitted that it was not his routine to visit

Site-plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant

Record told that the deceased was few paces ahead while the complainant a few paces behind and that it was at 04.00 p.m., when the accused attracted to the spot and fired at the deceased

Deceased was the youngest, whereas the complainant was the eldest, and that it was the complainant, who was charged for the murder of the brother of absconding co-accused

Complainant was to tell that when it was broad day light and that when he was chasing the deceased with a distance of few yards, then why the accused did not kill the complainant and that why the deceased fell a prey

Complainant being the real enemy would have been the prime target, but the lack of interest in killing the complainant indicated his absence from the spot at the time of incident

Had complainant been present he would have been the prime target

Presence of the complainant was further doubted from the fact that the report was made at 05:00 p.m., in the same hospital where the postmortem was conducted, but the dead-body was examined at 06.30 p.m.

When report had already been made and the injury sheet along with inquest report were prepared, then why the postmortem examination was postponed till 06.30 p.m.

Delay caused in examining the dead-body when read in juxtaposition with non-mentioning of time of arrival and examination of dead-body in the postmortem report belied the stance of the complainant

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Chance witness is a witness who claims that he was present at the crime spot at the fateful event notwithstanding, his presence there was per sheer chance as in the ordinary course of events he was supposed to be present at same other place

Testimony of chance witness in such context is ordinarily not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the spot at relevant time

In normal course of events presumption under the law that would operate would be that such witness was not present at the crime spot.

Complainant and other cited eye-witnesses could not offer any valid reason of unimpeachable character regarding their presence at the place of occurrence

Said witnesses had claimed that they had gone to see their ailing relative but he was neither produced during the investigation nor during the trial to verify/corroborate their version in that regard

Eyes of the deceased had been mentioned as open in the column No. 8 of the inquest report

If complainant being real brother of the deceased was available at relevant time and place of occurrence, then he must had closed eyes of his deceased brother

In such state of affairs, ocular account had not been found as confidence inspiring and truthful, therefore, same was not reliable

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

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

So far as eye-witness was concerned, he was admittedly not resident of the place of occurrence rather lived 5/6 kms. away from the place of occurrence

Admittedly, said witness did not have any business or office in the area of place of occurrence during the relevant time

So, said eye-witness was a chance witness and no explanation/plausible reason regarding his presence at the time and place of occurrence was mentioned in his statement and FIR

Said witness tried to introduce reason of his presence at the spot as settling a family dispute between deceased and accused and for such purpose three other persons including a neighbor were allegedly present there

Said neighbor did not state such fact

Therefore, testimony of said witness, who was a chance witness, was suspect evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt

Furthermore, locale of receipt of firearm shots by deceased i.e. in front of abdomen and left rib as narrated by eyewitness, was not confirmed by medical evidence and entry wounds at right renal area and on breast of the deceased were not mentioned by said eye-witness, hence his version was also not supported/confirmed by medical evidence stricto sensu

So, prosecution's ocular account was neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring, hence not reliable

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Chance witness has to plausibly/reasonably explain and prove reason of his presence at the time and place of occurrence.

Testimony of a chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

Presumption would be that he was not present in normal course, at the crime spot

Testimony of a chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence at the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Testimony of chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise his testimony will fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. [Para. 4 of the judgment]

Eye-witness, however could not name his shop and its location or even his residential addresses during the last 15 years with any precision

Furthermore, witness was not named in the FIR as an eye-witness

No genuine reason was on record to show that witness was present in the vicinity thus appeared to be a chance witness

Even if said witness was present at the scene at the time of the incident although it was a daylight incident there was no mention in his evidence as to how far away he was from the incident

Witness had not given any hulia in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C of either of the accused persons

Said witness did not know the accused persons prior to the incident and it appeared that he would have only got a fleeting glance of them during a chaotic and frightening incident whereby he would be looking to take cover from the indiscriminate firing

Record showed that the eye-witness identified the accused persons at an identification parade 15 years after the incident, however, he could not be safely relied upon as having correctly identified the accused persons who fired at the deceased who later died on account of the wounds

FIR although registered promptly based on hearsay evidence only contained a list of persons including the accused persons who had allegedly threatened the complainant's deceased brother against which no formal complaint was made which at best made the accused persons suspects

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.

If a crime is committed on a public thoroughfare or at a place frequented by the public generally, the presence of passerby cannot be rejected by describing them as mere chance witnesses, unless, of course, it is found that the witnesses concerned could not give any satisfactory explanation of their presence at or near the spot at the relevant time or there was otherwise any inherent weakness or contradiction in their testimony.

Statement of chance witness could be believed if he plausibly explained his presence at relevant time at the place of occurrence.

Occurrence had taken place at 06.45 p.m., which had been reported by complainant at 08.10 p.m. wherein he had charged the accused along with absconding co-accused for committing murder of deceased with firearms

Complainant, alleged eye-witness, was real cousin of the deceased

Though, evidence of complainant could not be discarded on the sole ground that he was close relative and interested witness, but necessary caution had to be observed in accepting his evidence because it was generally approved proposition that in case of rivalries and enmities, there was general tendency that a person from victim side would pose himself as eye-witness of the occurrence and would rope in the influential members of rival side for participating in the assault with a particular designed role

Veracity of said witness had to be examined with utmost care and caution, particularly, with regard to his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence when he had not disclosed the purpose of his visit to the spot

In the initial report the complainant had not stated a single word as to when and how he met the deceased and they both reached the spot

Complainant had also not disclosed the purpose of his visit to the spot

Complainant was also a chance witness

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

For conviction of an accused person it would be highly unsafe to rely upon testimony of a chance witness when remained uncorroborated

For conviction of accused on capital charge on the basis of testimony of chance witness, the court had to be at guard and corroboration had to be sought for relying upon such evidence.

Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died

Motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood feud between the parties

Complainant stated that the deceased had no ill will with the acquitted accused and that was on record that in fact the blood feud did exist between the complainant and accused

Why the deceased was chosen as the target, when the complainant being the prime target was present on the spot was not understandable

Complainant, eyewitness and the deceased were maintaining a distance of two paces, whereas the accused had been shown at a distance of nine paces, with no hindrance in between, so while lying on the ground the complainant if present would have been the easiest target

Complainant stated that at the time of incident he was armed with a Kalashnikov

When the accused was leaving the spot why accused was not fired at by the complainant

Had complainant been present on the spot, duly armed, the result would have been otherwise

Complainant displayed an unnatural conduct when he stated that the co-villagers accompanied dead-body to the hospital and he came to the spot from Police Station

Surprisingly, both the witnesses did not identify the deceased at the time when the inquest report was prepared and even at the time of post mortem examination

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused through cogent, coherent and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

If a chance witness was unable to establish the reason of his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence then his evidence was not worthy of reliance.

Admittedly, complainant was not an eye-witness of the subject occurrence which, as per prosecution's case, was witnessed by other two witnesses

Said witnesses were not the residents of locality

Complainant, during cross conceded that one eye-witness was his cousin while the other eye-witness was a friend of his cousin

Both the said eye-witnesses purportedly were going to visit at the relevant time when on their way, they witnessed the occurrence

Facts transpired that both the witnesses were not only related witnesses but the chance witnesses as well which required strict scrutiny of their testimony

Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Testimony of a chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time.

Presence of witnesses on the spot at the relevant time was doubtful in nature because had they been present on the spot they would have tried to rescue the deceased or to catch hold of the accused

Story cooked up by the prosecution was improbable and did not appeal to a prudent mind

Complainant (mother of deceased) was a chance witness

No convincing or plausible reason was assigned by her for her presence at the place of occurrence

No motive was set out in the FIR or stated before the Trial Court

During the course of investigation, nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside and he was acquitted to the charge, in circumstances.

Testimony of a chance witness ordinarily is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

Presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of a chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence at the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Testimony of chance witness is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon provided convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise, testimony of said witness would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Incident was reported to the police with a delay of about two hours and ten minutes without there being any plausible explanation

Post-mortem was conducted after a noticeable delay of eight hours and thirty minutes

Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they had allegedly seen the incident from a close distance but had remained fail to intervene

Ocular account was in direct conflict with the medical evidence

Complainant, during investigation and trial,had changed the locale of injuries allegedly caused by accused on the person of deceased

Complainant was a chance witness as his residence was far away

Father of the deceased, who was inmate of the same house, was not produced during trial

Prosecution had withheld best available evidence and in view of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 adverse inference could be drawn that had that witness been produced before the Trial Court he would not have supported the prosecution case

Solid evidence qua motive part of incident was not produced

Alleged recovery of 30 bore pistol at the instance of appellant was immaterial because no crime empty was secured by the Investigating Officer at time of spot inspection

Prosecution had failed to prove its case

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Testimony of a chance witness requires cautious scrutiny and is not to be accepted unless he gives satisfactory explanation of presence at or near the place of occurrence at the relevant time.

Statement of Investigating Officer and scaled site plan revealed that the dead body was present in an open field having wheat crop

Presence of complainant at the spot could not be doubted being inmate of the house but second eye-witness had no reason to visit the complainant's house

Occurrence had taken place at 09:30 a.m. and the dead body had remained present at crime scene for quite sufficient period as the application for registration of case was also drafted and submitted to the Investigating Officer at the crime scene but according to assertion of the Medical Officer, the dead body was received in the hospital at 09:30 a.m.

Eye-witnesses had claimed that the accused persons had fired from a distance of one pace but only one injury was found having burning and tattooing around it and all other injuries did not have the burning blackening and tattooing

Medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution story, rather it contradicted the same

Empties found from the crime scene were not fired from the weapons recovered on the indication of accused persons

Two defence witnesses had deposed that they were the persons who had firstly reached at the place of occurrence, that none of the eye-witnesses were available at the crime scene and that they had called the complainant

Investigating Officer had admitted that one of the defence witnesses was present at the place of occurrence whereas the other had appeared before him to plead innocence of an accused with the same version as narrated before the Trial Court

High Court observed that evidence of defence witnesses was sufficient to create reasonable doubt

Sentences awarded by Trial Court to the accused persons were set aside

Appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

If a chance witness is unable to establish the reason of his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence then his evidence would not worthy of reliance.

Testimony of a chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of a chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence at the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place

Otherwise testimony of chance witness would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., abetment, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Last seen evidence

Chance witness

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant after abducting him for ransom

In the present case, the witness of last seen evidence had stated that he knew all the three accused and had seen two of them who entered the bungalow with the deceased

However, there was no evidence that he knew all the three accused let alone the deceased and as such the safer course was to hold an identification parade in order to establish his identification of the accused which was not done

Said witness appeared to be a chance witness as no record of his employment in that area had been tendered in evidence

Even otherwise since there was no evidence on record that he knew the deceased before the incident, his identification of the deceased could not be safely relied upon especially as he did not state in his evidence as to which day the deceased went into the bungalow with the accused and that the deceased was taken into the bungalow by the accused by force or against his will

Facts remained that it was 9.00 p.m. and that it would have been dark and it was not known how far away he was from the accused and the deceased when they allegedly entered the house also casted further doubt on his ability to safely identify any of the accused or the deceased

Said last seen evidence could not be safely relied upon in order to convict the accused, in circumstances.

Nothing had been brought on record which could suggest that said girl actually was adopted by the deceased as their daughter

Had said daughter been there at the place of incident, she would not have been let alive by the culprit to implicate him in double murder case

Availability of daughter of deceased at the place of incident appeared to be doubtful

Said girl had stated that she had intimated to the "Mohalla" people after sunrise, who informed the police and the complainant party

No person from the "Mohallah" had been examined by the prosecution to lend support to such assertion of said witness, which appeared to be significant

Such evidence, in circumstances, could not be believed

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted.

Accused along with others were alleged to have attacked upon the deceased, who took shelter in a shop but the accused persons being armed with pistols entered into the shop and made firing upon the deceased

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of about 23 hours without any plausible reason

Accused was nominated in the FIR but he was not assigned any role

Accused was later on assigned the role of holding the deceased but no reliance could be placed upon such an improved statement

No plausible explanation was furnished as to why the shopkeeper or the person who took the deceased to the hospital was not examined

Non-production of most natural and material witnesses strongly led to an inference that they would not have supported the prosecution case

Prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased and were chance witnesses

Prosecution case was highly doubtful and was not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which two persons died including the son of complainant

In the present case, the presence of the complainant was doubted when he admitted in his cross-examination that it was not his routine to enjoy the company of the deceased, rather his medical checkup brought them together on the day of occurrence

Complainant stated that soon after the incident the accused decamped from the spot, where after he came towards the deceased and with the help of co-villagers shifted them to cots

Investigating Officer did not notice as to whether hands of complainant were besmeared with blood or not

Complainant stated that the deceased were shifted in a vehicle to hospital and he after making the report came back to his village in the company of witness

Question was as to how a real father and real brother could leave the dead-bodies of the deceased unattended and unescorted and that why they did not take the pains to accompany the dead bodies to the hospital for post mortem examination

Conduct of the complainant was not only unnatural but abnormal as well, when he went back to his village in an unholy haste

Presence of the complainant was further doubted that neither he nor the eye-witness was the witnesses of identification before the police at the time of preparation of the injury sheets and inquest reports

None of the witnesses identified the dead-bodies before the doctor at the time of their post mortem examination, which showed that complainant was not present at the time of incident and the report was made when his attendance was procured

Said fact told nothing but that the report was made after preliminary investigation

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he and co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which the nephew of complainant and another person were hit and died, whereas three persons sustained injuries

Motive was shown to be the previous blood feud between the parties

Complainant stated that at the time of incident lights were glowing where he could see the accused and the deceased at the time of incident and prior to it

Motive was though stated to be blood feud between the parties where brother of the complainant was murdered leading to a charge against the accused/assailants and that the deceased fell prey to the same, but the presence of the complainant had objection, that why he was not targeted being the prime target visible to the assailants as the bulbs were on

Complainant was still to answer that why other male members of his house did not accompany to the spot/musical show as on one hand it was pitched dark and on the other, they had a blood feud

Complainant admitted that his three sons were present at home and his other brother was also living in the said house and were present at the time when the complainant left the house, but his coming alone tells otherwise and it casted doubt on his veracity

Complainant as well as the injured eye-witnesses admitted that the number of the people gathered on the spot would be more than 80/90

Admittedly the dancing 'Athan' was in progress in a circle

Assailants resorted to indiscriminate firing and that why the people dancing in circle intervening between the parties did not receive firearm injuries, as in that eventuality numerous people should have received injuries, that too when four persons duly armed with sophisticated weapons were firing

Deceased had left for the musical show after performing his Isha Prayer and that when the assailants were also present at the place of incident, right from the beginning, i.e. when the program was not yet started then what precluded the accused/assailants to kill the deceased soon after reaching to the place of incident and that what kept them waiting till arrival of the complainant

Said situation told nothing but that the complainant was a chance and interested witness

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

For conviction of an accused person it would be highly unsafe to rely upon testimony of a chance witness when remained uncorroborated

For conviction of an accused on capital charge on the basis of testimony of chance witness, the court had to be at guard and corroboration had to be sought for relying upon such evidence.

Circumstances proved that the deceased after his second marriage had expelled the complainant along with his mother and sister from his house and they were residing in the house of maternal grandfather of the complainant

Complainant used to teach Islamic education to children in the Mosque situated near the house of his grandfather, therefore, presence of the complainant in the house of the deceased was beyond the understanding of a prudent mind

If the relation of the deceased was so strained with mother of the complainant that she along with children was expelled from the house then living of the complainant in the house of his father did not appeal to a prudent mind, in such circumstances

Complainant, in circumstances, was a chance witness

No explanation, much less plausible, had been furnished by the complainant to justify his presence in the house of the deceased

Sufficient circumstances had been revealed by the complainant in his statement on the basis of which his presence in the house of deceased could not be admitted by any stretch of imagination

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused through cogent and confidence inspiring direct or circumstantial evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant had clearly proved that after second marriage by the deceased, the complainant along with his mother and sister was expelled from the house by the deceased, therefore, they were residing in the house of his maternal grandfather

Besides, the complainant used to teach Islamic education to the children in a mosque situated near the house of his grandfather

Presence of the complainant, in that view of the matter, in the house of the deceased was beyond the understanding of a prudent mind

If the relation of the deceased were so strained with mother of the complainant that she along with children was expelled from the house then living of the complainant in the house of his father did not appeal to a prudent mind

Complainant, in circumstances, had fallen within the category of chance witness

No explanation much less plausible had been furnished by the complainant so as to justify his presence in the house of the deceased

Rather sufficient circumstances had been disclosed by the complainant in his statement on the basis of which his presence in the house of the deceased could not be believed by any stretch of imagination

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Chance witness is one who is not supposed to be present at a specific place, unless he advance convincing and confidence inspiring reason justifying his presence

Once the claimed eye-witness has failed to prove the purpose or a definite work of his presence at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time, his testimony cannot be relied upon to maintain the conviction and sentence under the capital charge.

Accused along with others were alleged to have waylaid the deceased and eye-witnesses, who were closely following the deceased on a motorcycle and fired at the deceased

Complainant and eye-witness were stated to have saved their lives while lying on the ground

Alleged place of occurrence was not the place of witnesses' residence, which was a thoroughfare and, in that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the eye-witnesses to furnish any solid reason in order to establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time

Complainant had not furnished any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence either in the complaint or in his deposition before the trial court

Eye-witnesses while lodging the crime report and making statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. were in unison on the point that the accused persons along with their co-accused (since proclaimed offender) had started firing with their respective weapons upon the deceased but while appearing before the trial court, they had deviated from their earlier stance and had let off the said co-accused from the role of making firing at the deceased

Assailants, as per scaled site plan, were standing at a distance of eight feet from the deceased but according to post-mortem examination report, there was tattooing around an injury on the person of deceased

Medical officer had explained that such tattooing occurred only when the fire shot was made from the range of less than three feet

Constable who had arrived at the scene of occurrence had deposed that crime empties were lying close to each other which led to the conclusion that all the fire shots were made by one person

Evidence of said witness also gave an impression that when he and other police officials reached at the spot, the dead body was lying there which was contrary to the prosecution version

Statement of Investigating Officer led to the conclusion that the complainant was not present at the spot

Post-mortem examination was conducted after a delay of eight hours

Case was replete with several doubts

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant, during cross-examination, stated that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about hundred meters from his house

Complainant had stated that the house of witness was situated three houses away from his house

Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses had their residences or their businesses at the place of occurrence

Alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned in column No.4 of the inquest report as being the ones who were present at the time of preparation of the said inquest report by the Investigating Officer

Said witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem report

Said witnesses claimed that after the occurrence they put the then injured (deceased) in a Rickshaw and proceeded to the hospital

Clothes of both the witnesses should have been smeared with blood in circumstances, however, Investigating Officer did not take any such blood stained clothes of the witnesses in possession

Said omission struck at the roots of the case of the prosecution and laid bare the untruthful and false claim of the said witnesses to have been present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence

Both the said witnesses were under a duty to provide convincing explanation appealing to a prudent mind of their presence at the crime spot otherwise their testimony had to be declared questionable and unacceptable

All those omissions were conspicuous by their absence

In absence of physical proof or the reason for the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene, the same could not be relied upon

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.

Chance witness was one who claimed that he was present on the crime spot at the relevant time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resided, carried on business or run day to day life affairs

Testimony of chance witness, in that context, ordinarily, was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence on the crime scene at the relevant time.

One firearm shot had been made and that too in the room of the deceased and his second wife at the odd hours of the night i.e. at 01:20 a.m., thus, question of presence of the complainant and other cited eye-witnesses at that time at said place of occurrence was of crucial/vital importance in the case

Presence of eye-witnesses in the room of deceased and his second wife, the place of occurrence, was an attempt to settle the dispute between the deceased and his second wife which had arisen due to illicit relations between second wife of deceased and the accused

Record showed that it had been found that prosecution had not produced any cogent evidence to prove the aforesaid illicit relations

So much so, complainant as well as eyewitness did not depose that they ever had seen accused and second wife of deceased in any such condition, which could be referred to say that they were having any illicit relations

Said witnesses even did not state that they had seen dispute, which took place due to that reason

Complainant simply claimed in his statement before the court that his father told him about alleged illicit relations of his second wife, however, on the one hand, no detail about the same was given by complainant and on the other, it was a hearsay evidence and even he did not mention in the application for registration of case that his father told him about the illicit relations

Witness had clearly stated that he never acted as instrument in the patch up of any quarrel between anybody

Presence of complainant along with other cited eye-witnesses in the room of his father and step mother at the odd hours of the night i.e. time of occurrence, could not be established

Complainant stated that he usually slept at 08/09:00 p.m., hence, presence of complainant in the room of occurrence at odd hours of night i.e. 01:20 a.m., was not in his routine

Complainant was chance witness with respect to his stated presence at the time and place (i.e. in the room) of occurrence and he could not establish any valid reason for his presence there at that time

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.