Defence plea

All the factors favouring belief in the accusation must be placed in juxtaposition to the corresponding factors favouring the plea in defence and the total effect should be estimated in relation to the questions viz. is the plea/version raised by the accused satisfactorily established by the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then the Court must accept the plea of the accused and act accordingly

If the answer to the question is negative, then the Court will not reject the defence plea as being false but will go a step further to find out whether or not there is yet a reasonable possibility of the defence plea/version being true

If the Court finds that although the accused has failed to establish his (defence) plea/version to the satisfaction of the Court but the plea might reasonably be true, even then the Court must accept his plea and acquit or convict him accordingly.

Prosecution case was that due to indiscriminate firing by the accused and his two brothers, two persons of the complainant party received injuries which resulted into amputation of leg of one injured and fracture of leg of other injured

Admittedly, two persons received firearm injuries at the hands of present petitioner and whether his intention was to kill them, the defence had taken the stance that there was exchange of hot words between the petitioner and injured persons and, during this altercation, they tried to snatch official rifle from the petitioner which suddenly went off during grappling, otherwise, the petitioner had no intention to inflict injuries

Said fact of using filthy language against each other had been admitted by the injured witnesses during their cross-examination

Moreover, fire hit the legs from a short distance, therefore, in such circumstances possibility could not be brushed aside that during grappling rifle suddenly went off and hit the legs of injured

Medical Officer, who medically examined both the injured, observed 'blackening' around injury of one injured and on injury of other injured

Such observation of Medical Officer regarding blackening established the fact that there was a short distance between petitioner and injured and they might have received injuries during grappling

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, with modification in conviction and sentence.

Improvised Explosive Device (I.E.D.) containing explosive was found from the possession of accused who was resident of city “K”, and he came to city “L” having that explosive in his possession

Such possession of explosive reflected that it was for endangering life or causing serious injury to property

Offences of having possession of explosive substance without lawful justification was proved against accused

Although non-appearance of accused under S.340 (2) Cr.P.C. for disproving allegation levelled against him did not create any inference against him, yet when he had taken plea of false implication and his abduction as well as detention for a long period, then regarding the same, he himself was the best witness to prove his version by appearing so and his non-appearance amounted to withholding the best evidence

High Court maintained conviction of accused but reduced sentence of imprisonment for life to 14 years

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village

Accused "S" took a stance in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., that on the day of occurrence, his real grandfather died and he along with his mother visited the village to attend the funeral ceremony of his maternal grandfather; that on seeing the accused party deceased along with his companion while armed with lethal weapons, launched murderous assault upon him at the resident of his father whereupon he made firing from inside the house in his self-defence and all the deceased received fire arm injuries as a result of indiscriminate firing of their companion assailants

Statement of the accused clearly showed that he had not denied the occurrence though with a difference stance of self-defence but he failed to produce any witness in support of his plea during investigation or before the Trial Court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.

Accused-respondent issued seven cheques against an outstanding amount of purchase of thread, which were dishonoured when presented before the bank

It was the plea of the respondent No.1/accused, as recorded in his statement on oath under S.342, Cr.P.C., that he had business terms with the appellant/complainant and he used to obtain Metallic Thread from him on credit basis and he had issued cheques in advance upon the condition that whenever the appellant/complainant would supply material to him, the said cheques would be encashed; that however, the appellant/complainant instead of supplying the requisite material to him, fraudulently presented the cheques referred to in FIR for encashment and then he lodged the FIR against him

Heavy burden laid upon the appellant/complainant to prove that the subject cheques were issued by the respondent/accused against the alleged supply of Metallic Yarn to respondent/accused for fulfillment of an obligation, which he could have proved easily by producing requisite record of his supply, but he failed to do so

Hence, the Trial Court rightly recorded acquittal of the respondents/accused by extending them benefit of doubt

Material on record approved the assessment of the trial Court

Prosecution had failed to bring home guilt of respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal acquittal appeal, therefore, stood dismissed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault and criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, common intention, possession of unlicensed arms, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defence plea

Scope

Accused being suspected persons were signalled to stop by the police, but they made firing upon the police with the intention to commit their murder, due to which a Police constable died while an ASI sustained injuries on his body part

Consistent defence of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in the case and was not present and that he was arrested from hospital where he had been admitted which was supported by a medical report which stated that he was in hospital after falling from a roof

Father of the accused had even written letters to the concerned authorities that his son/accused had been implicated in a false case

Defence when placed in juxta position with the prosecution case found to be worthy of being given some weight and could not be ignored

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.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by sprinkling acid on him, which resulted into burning of his face, chest and legs and later on he succumbed to his injuries

In the present case, one person appeared as defence witness and while deposing diverted the angle of the prosecution story, which was narrated by the accused in his statement under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C.

According to the statements of accused and defence witness the acid was sprinkled on deceased and he was seriously injured and defence witness took them to hospital and while leaving them on the main gate, he went from there

Keeping their statements in juxtaposition with the medical evidence and the statement of mother of accused, recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C, which did not corroborate their version, as such, their statements could not be believed

Nothing on record was available to show any previous enmity between the accused and complainant except the allegation that the then injured used to talk to his sister-in-law on mobile, which allegation was refuted by the then injured and despite that, the accused threw acid on the deceased

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Sole defence plea taken by the accused was that due to depression, anxiety and being sole bread winner of his own family as well as to that of his brother's family, he had lost his senses

Accused denied the accusation of murder, but his plea was giving impression that the crime was committed due to depression and loosing senses

Such plea of the accused could not in any manner considered to let him free or exonerate him from the charges, who brutally murdered his wife by inflicting more than eleven dagger blows and even he injured his own mother

Even otherwise, the defence had failed to bring any iota of evidence that the accused at the time of commission of crime was unsound person

In absence of any medical evidence, the bald plea of the accused was not admissible under the law

Admittedly, the accused in order to save his skin from the consequences had taken such baseless plea, which otherwise could not be made basis to exonerate him from the charges of brutal murder of his own wife as well as the murder of his unborn baby as the deceased had three months pregnancy as well as assaulting to his mother

Held that there were sufficient incriminatory evidence on record establishing the unnatural death of the deceased and injuring to injured by the accused through dagger, which was recovered from his possession soon after the occurrence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the assistant of brother of complainant and causing injuries to his brother

Accused throughout the proceedings had taken the plea of his false implication due to previous enmity, but had failed to produce any solid or concrete evidence to rebut the confidence inspiring evidence produced by the prosecution

Mere denial of the accused was not enough to brush-aside the entire prosecution evidence

Defence plea so taken had established the motive behind the occurrence, which was stated to be an old enmity and the injured was nominated in the murder of brother of accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused took the plea of alibi, stating therein that a day before the occurrence he was in custody of the police of another Police Station as his motor car was taken from his possession under S.550, Cr.P.C

Investigating Officer visited the concerned Police Station and recorded statements of all concerned including the Police Officials who arrested the accused and of an Advocate with whom the accused and two others stayed for a night

No doubt, the documents regarding interception of the motorcar were produced and placed on file and no doubt, the concerned witnesses stated of his confinement in the police lockup, but that alone was not sufficient to substantiate the claim of the accused rather the accused in order to prove his presence there, must have produced reliable witnesses and reliable documents

Documents so produced could not be taken into consideration in support of his plea of alibi

Court is to determine as to whether the plea taken and not proved would weigh against the accused

No ambiguity that if an accused takes a plea regarding his innocence and if he does not succeed to prove the same, it can not be taken against him, as the prosecution is still under the bounded duty to establish its charges and the burden never shifs

However, when an accused takes the plea of right of self-defence then in that situation the accused is under the obligation to prove the same failing which the Court, dealing with the matter, can take it into consideration against the accused charged, but in the present case the situation was otherwise as it was the prosecution which had to establish its case through cogent, convincing and trustworthy witnesses and the burden never shifted to the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused

Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed.

In a case where a specific plea is raised by the accused, he has to prove the same.

Accused took the plea that he acted in self defence in order to save his own life from the hands of deceased as evident from the statement of accused

Accused claimed innocence and pleaded acquittal on account of false implication

If the prosecution evidence was disbelieved by the court in its entirety, the defence version was to be accepted or rejected as a whole and it was legally not possible to accept the inculpatory part of the defence plea and reject its exculpatory part

Defence plea could be accepted or rejected in toto and the practice of picking and choosing some sentences favouring the prosecution in isolation of those favouring the accused was strictly prohibited by the law

Circumstances established that the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its duty

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that two kilograms explosive, safety fuse measuring about 5-feet, a match box containing three detonators and pistol .30-bore along with magazine and seven live bullets were recovered from the possession of the accused

Accused had taken specific plea that he was abducted much prior to the registration of the case and subsequently roped in the case at belated stage

Accused himself was a best witness to depose entire detail that who abducted him, where he was kept, when he was brought to the place of occurrence and of course law had provided a chance to him in that behalf through S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. while appearing his own witness in support of his version but he did not opt so

Although non-appearance of accused under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., for disproving allegation levelled against him did not create any inference against him yet when he had taken specific plea and regarding said plea, he was the best witness, then he could prove his said version by appearing so and his non-appearance was to be taken as withholding the best evidence

Accused had produced copy of FIR which was got recorded by his real brother regarding his said abduction but he did not produce his said brother in support of the same and again withheld best evidence

When case of the prosecution had been kept in juxtaposition with such defence version/plea taken by the accused, then it had become crystal clear that defence version was neither proved nor any dent was created in the case of the prosecution rather prosecution version to extent of recovery of 2-kgs explosive, safety fuse and pistol .30-bore along with magazine and bullets from the possession of the accused had been proved beyond shadow of doubt

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was set-aside, conviction recorded under S. 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was maintained but sentence was reduced from seven years to three years, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for ransom and released him after receiving the ransom amount

Defence plea was that accused were arrested on demand for a bribe from police; that the kidnapping took place on 06.02.2018 and the abductee was let go on 31.05.2018; that arrests of the two accused persons took place on 09.06.2018, which was after the release of the abductee and they (accused persons) were already known to the police by then

Validity

Statements of defence witnesses merely appeared to be belated arrangements made by the well-wishers of the accused persons which had no bearing on the outcome of the case

Even otherwise, defence witnesses had not been able to establish any ill-will or animosity on the part of the abductee and the complainant party, to whom they were not even known before the incident, who had otherwise fully implicated the accused persons for the commission of the offence

Another defence plea raised was that Rs. 10.15 million, that is the ransom, was arranged by the accused persons and given to the police, but it was instead foisted on them

It was a matter of record that the complainant had filed an application under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C., for collecting the ransom amount back and at no point did any of the accused persons object to the same besides taking the said stance in their S. 342, Cr.P.C. statements nor was the said order impugned before the appropriate forum

Thus, accused persons could not seek to gain benefit from the same

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Defence plea

Accused were charged that they on seeing the Police Officials started straight firing on them with intention to commit qatl-i-amd; in retaliation Police Officials also made some fire shots at accused persons, due to which one passerby child, two Police Officials and one accused sustained injuries, and later on passerby child died

Record showed that the defence case was simply one of false implication by the police

Accused did not give evidence on oath

According to accused, he was arrested from a bus stop but he did not produce any defence witness to support his case as such court disbelieved the defence case as an afterthought in the face of reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring eye-witness and other corroborative/ supportive evidence against the accused which had not at all dented the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Defence plea

Accused were charged for assaulting the complainant party, due to which the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant died, whereas complainant and his nephew sustained injuries

Record showed that during cross-examination of the witnesses, initially the accused persons took defence that the people of "HR" group attacked upon complainant party and then they approached Mr. "M" for exoneration, subsequently Mr. "M" asked them to lodge case against the accused persons

Moreover, it was suggested that complainant party was kamdar of Mr. "M"

Accused persons took another defence that it was a road accident and they had not committed any offence and then two Court Witnesses were examined before the Trial Court

Neither the Court Witnesses were eye-witness of the incident nor did they produce referral of the doctor or any police later which might show that it was a road accident

It was only stated by the court witnesses that they were informed by the attendant of the patient that due to road accident injured received the injuries

No doubt accused could take several defences during the trial but the same were subject to some legal weight

Benefit of weakness of defence could not be given to the prosecution in presence of established principle of law that the prosecution was duty bound to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

None of the defence version was brought by the accused persons before the Investigation Officer during the investigation of the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

If the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of the defence case being true then this would react on the whole of the prosecution case and then accused would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Prosecution case was that 94.700 kilograms of charas lying in four bags was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused

Record showed that the accused had put up a strong defence of false implication on account of enmity with the Anti Narcotics Force Officials which he stuck throughout during cross-examination of witnesses, during his S.342, Cr.P.C statement, whilst giving evidence under oath and by calling two defence witnesses

Brother of the accused gave evidence that the accused was taken away by armed men from his estate agency and he lodged such a report at Police Station which was duly exhibited

Other defence witness of Police Station gave evidence that he received the aforesaid application/report which was entered in the police station register and the application duly received by him was exhibited

First Information Report which was lodged against the accomplices of the Anti Narcotics Force Officer had also been exhibited which when all taken together revealed that the Anti Narcotics Force had a serious enmity with the accused

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Accused had claimed to be arrested after the complainant allegedly took a bribe and let the real culprits go from whom 300 to 350 kilograms were recovered

No animus had been proved against the prosecution or the complainant

Nothing was brought on record to suggest that the accused persons were not arrested by the police from the truck as per the evidence

Mere assertion of accused persons that they had been involved falsely in the narcotics case, in absence of any tangible evidence, was of no consequence nor did it create any doubt about the recovery of narcotics

One of the accused persons even admitted his presence in the said truck and claimed that he was delivering wheat bags in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Accused persons were bound to establish the defence plea of false implication through their arrest prior to the actual incident as agitated by them through adducing tangible evidence and such allegation in absence of sound evidence, could not be considered in view of Art. 121 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution had undoubtedly proven the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

When specific defence plea is raised by the accused, the burden to prove the same lies upon him.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which the mother and brother of the complainant were hit and died, whereas the sister of the complainant received injuries

Accused had alleged that he was present at his work place at the time of occurrence

Accused examined two defence witnesses in his defence and they deposed that accused was working with them

Accused was arrested by police in the case, however, the defence witnesses after arrest of the accused in the case did not appear before Investigating Officer for recording their statements regarding false implication of the accused in the case

Defence witnesses had failed to explain the nature of the job or work which they were performing along with accused at the time of incident

Both defence witnesses had mentioned different places of work

Mere plea of the defence witnesses that the day of occurrence accused was working with them without cogent material was not sufficient and the same appeared to be afterthought

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees and common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Defence plea

Scope

Prosecution case was that the police party signalled to stop the suspects, but they started firing upon police party with intention to commit their murder, police also made firing in defence

Plea taken by the accused in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. that they were arrested from their respective houses and booked falsely in the cases, however, in support of such assertion neither they had examined any witness in their defence nor produced any document and even they had not examined themselves on oath as provided under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor had they produced any witness in their defence

Although a suggestion was put by the accused to the complainant and mashir that accused was arrested along with his friend, who was released after obtaining bribe and that accused was falsely implicated in the cases as he could not fulfil the demand of the police, however, said suggestion was denied by the witnesses

Said friend of accused had also not been produced as a defence witness to support the version of accused

Besides, the accused had also not succeeded to prove any enmity with the Police Officials

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Accused was arrested by the Police Officials and from his exclusive possession a huge quantity of charas was recovered and it would be enough for a prudent mind to realize that such huge quantity of contraband could not be foisted upon the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused, which did not require any interference

Appeal against conviction being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that pistols with two live bullets and hand grenades were recovered from the possession of the accused persons

Record reflected that in their statements recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the accused claimed that they were falsely implicated in the case, however, they had not produced any witness in support of their contention and even no application to higher authorities or any constitutional petition was filed by anyone for the release of the accused, which suggested that the accused managed a false story to save their skin

No suggestion against the Police Officials of enmity or ill-will was made during cross-examination nor any application or petition was filed before any forum to prove false implication of the accused in the case

Evidence of the police witnesses were reliable, trust-worthy and confidence inspiring and had no reason to doubt

Recovery of hand grenades, .30 bore pistols, and live bullets were proven by the prosecution by producing confidence-inspiring and trustworthy evidence supported by the Bomb Disposal Unit reports so also report of Forensic Science Laboratory

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

No cross-examination of any prosecution witness was made on the point of alibi, thus, the eye-witnesses and other corroborative evidence had proved that the accused murdered the deceased

High Court observed that with regard to the murder of lady deceased, no other conclusion could be drawn except that the accused or his son shot her, because the accused and his son were alone with lady deceased in her flat when the eye-witnesses heard the gunshot from her flat and they rushed to her flat within minutes of the shot the accused and his son were coming from out of the flat

No other explanation except that the accused murdered the lady deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Motive was not alleged

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, the sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment in respect of each murder.

No substance had been brought on record by the accused to justify his false implication in the case at the hands of the complainant party on account of the previous enmity

Accused, in the matters of capital punishment, would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute/ enmity but would be required to bring on record that there had been such a dispute/enmity which could be believed to have motivated the natural witnesses in involving the innocent at the cost of the escape of real culprits

Where the natural witnesses were in blood-relations then normally the possibility of substitution became rare

Accused had failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the deep-rooted enmity existed earlier between the parties which could have been the reason for false involvement of the accused in the case, particularly when it was a case of single accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife and daughter by plying the dagger on the basis of suspicion that deceased had illicit relation with someone and the daughter was born out of said relation

Accused at the time of recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C took the simple plea that allegation against him was false and he was not available at the time of incident and the dagger was foisted against him

Said defence at the belated stage was not helpful to the accused as during the evidence of all the eye-witnesses he had not taken the same defence nor he produced any defence evidence in that respect

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

If any doubt in the prosecution case had crept in because of the lapses pointed out by the defence, it was overwhelmingly wiped out when one seen what the accused said in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement

Accused lived in his house with his young wife and four small children

Deceased wife was hammered to death in the middle of the night in the bed room they shared

Accused-husband ran away immediately, leaving his four small children behind, in the middle of the night and the children woke up to a mother who had been brutally hammered to death and a father who ran away

Trauma that accused left the little children to deal with all alone was shameful and despicable, to say the least

Accused did not attend the last rites of his wife, in fact, he absconded since that very day for a period of seven years

When asked about his abscondence at trial accused said that he had no knowledge about the case

Said fact was an obvious lie as earlier in his statement accused had already admitted that he knew of the incident and that the reason he did not attend the funeral was because he was afraid that the police would arrest him

While claiming that a false case had been registered against him, accused went on to acknowledge that he had taken no steps to clear his name

As regard why his own daughter would testify against him, accused was of the view that his daughter was influenced by her uncle

Said fact was simply not believable

Accused could also not come up with the explanation as to who had or as a matter of fact would have wanted death of deceased

Man such as the accused could be given no concessions

In particular, concessions that were based on sole technicalities and which did not take into account ground realities

Circumstances established that no reasons were found to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused were charged for causing injuries to the brother of complainant when he restricted them from depriving him from his wallet, cash and other documents

In the present case, the plea taken by accused to the effect that Investigating Officer had been influenced by influential persons of a particular community over money transaction, carried weight and that aspect of the defence theory was not kept in juxtaposition by the Trial Court

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 78 kilograms charas and 08 kilograms heroin were recovered from the possession of accused persons

Defence alleged that accused were arrested by the Rangers and then handed over to Anti Narcotics Force Officials

Such defence plea appeared to be an afterthought, which had rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court

Accused persons had failed to provide any valid proof such as news clippings from a TV channel to ascertain that they had been arrested by Rangers

Moreover, the accused persons examined four witnesses, one related to each of the accused

Each one of these four defence witnesses, while asserting that the accused persons were arrested by Rangers also admitted that they had, at no point, considered filing a motion before a Court of law for their recovery from the alleged "illegal confinement" by Rangers nor had any of them approached any Rangers higher-ups to ensure the safe return of the accused persons

As far as defence witness was concerned, he stated that he being the Bureau Chief at a TV Channel had come across the news clipping of the arrest of the accused persons by Rangers personnel, however in his cross-examination admitted that he had come across this information by another reporter and that he had made no efforts to confirm the same "news"

As such, belated arrangements made by the accused persons of well-wishers to testify in their favour failed to override positive evidence pointing towards their culpability

Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Prosecution case was that accused mis-appropriated 2970 bags of wheat and had caused wrongful loss of Rs. 20,19,600/- to the government exchequer

No doubt the accused could take several pleas in his defence to disprove the case of prosecution and the burden of proving the case was always lying upon the shoulders of the prosecution

In the present case no supporting evidence, which might include oral as well as documentary evidence, was brought on record by the accused to prove any of the four defences taken by him during the trial

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence which included oral and documentary evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

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, possession of illegal firearm

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Defence plea

Scope

Accused were charged for making firing upon the police party with the intention to kill them when they were asked to surrender, police also made firing in retaliation in defence and arrested one of the accused persons

Accused took a special plea in his defence that he was picked up by the police from his home and his father filed a habeas corpus petition under S. 491, Cr.P.C. which was disposed of

Thus, according to the accused, he was picked up by the police from his home and was in police custody when he was falsely shown to have been present at the place of occurrence

Said special plea of the accused was not examined at all by the Trial Court

As per record, the said application was dismissed the very next day, the accused was shown to have been arrested from the place of occurrence

If the version of the accused was accepted i.e. he was picked up from his home, then the entire prosecution case crumbled to the ground

Plea of the accused persons with regard to illegal gratification demanded by police and had held that their plea without proof would have no value in the eyes of law

However, the plea taken by the accused with regard to his illegal arrest from his home, which was duly supported by the order passed the same Presiding Officer in Habeas Corpus Petition filed by his father, was completely ignored

Said fact was unbecoming of a Judicial Officer holding such a high post in the District Judiciary

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

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C, had simply denied the prosecution allegation by stating that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant due to murder of Pathan as they had levelled allegation of murder of Pathan upon the deceased

Accused had produced certified copies of FIR and direct complaint

Complainant and other prosecution witnesses in their evidence had categorically stated that accused due to the enmity over the murder of Pathan accompanied with other accused, who were absconders, attacked and fired upon brother of the complainant from their respective weapons and committed his murder, which had been corroborated by the medical evidence

Said aspect of the matter had not been contradicted by the defence during lengthy cross-examination meaning thereby that it had been admitted

Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Dacoity with murder, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Defence plea

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of the complainant during the course of dacoity in odd hours of the night on highway

Record showed that all the accused persons in their respective statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C., while giving answer to question had stated that they were not present on the cited date and time at the place of occurrence

Stating further that they were present at their respective residences, which needless to say, were situated at different areas and far away from each other as was evident from the title page of memo. of the appeal

However, none among them had established such alibi plea, by examining any person even from the inmates of their respective houses, which adversely reflected upon them

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Defence plea

Scope

Accused was charged for committing murder of his father and also causing injury to the complainant by firing

Defence had raised a plea that the accused had been a drug addict at the relevant time

Such fact had also been admitted by the eye-witnesses before the court during their cross-examination

To support his assertion, defence referred to certain portions of cross-examination of said eye-witnesses

Taking of intoxicants by a person at his will and commission of an offence during such state of intoxication had never been recognized as an exception from the criminal liability that was ensued as a result of doing of the act

In the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest that the intoxicant was administered against the will of the accused or that he had been suffering from any mental debilitating condition

Besides, the manner in which the offence had been committed, escape of the accused after commission of the offence and then going in abscondence nowhere showed that he had ever been suffering from any mental illness

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Stance of the accused was that in a Panchyat, which had been convened to settle the differences between two families, an altercation took place when one person of one family hurled abuses to the mother of the accused, which infuriated him who slapped that person

Brother of said person aimed pistol at the accused and due to intervention of other members fire went off from the pistol, which hit the deceased causing injury at the neck of the deceased

Injuries on the person of the deceased stood substantiated by deposition of the Medical Officer and the definite conclusion of the Investigating Officer that fire hit to deceased accidentally during scuffle provided full corroboration to the defence of the accused

Admitted fact that accused arrived at Panchyat empty-handed

Admittedly, there was no premeditation, no animus or motive to kill the deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution 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.

First portion of defence plea adopted by accused was that the complainant party tried to snatch Kalashnikov which was triggered accidently, but keeping in view the nature of firearm used during the occurrence, the said plea appeared to be absurd and ridiculous

Besides, defence had no satisfactory explanation that if the accused had no intention to commit that tragic incident, then why he had brought the fully loaded Kalashnikov with him

Kalashnikov being on automatic mode could not have been triggered accidently, therefore, the version of accused that trigger was accidently pressed did not appeal to mind

Other part of defence plea was that the deceased lost his life due to negligence of complainant and the doctor, but even that plea was not established from the record as it was part of the record that the deceased, in an injured condition, was shifted to the Hospital in order to save his life but firearm injuries inflicted by the accused on his person did not let him survive

Even otherwise, keeping in view the provisions of Art. 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the onus to prove his defence plea was squarely shifted upon the accused but he had failed to discharge that onus inasmuch as he had neither made any statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence to support the version of the incident advanced by him

Defence plea could not save the accused from the consequence of his deliberate and intentional act of committing murder of deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had taken the plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the police on account of his enmity with his community people

In that regard accused had also annexed the copies of two FIRs to strengthen his plea

All the said factors suggested the false implication of accused in the case, which could not be ruled out

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

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Record showed that in the statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., the accused took plea that he committed murder of his wife on account of suspicion of being unchaste having illicit relations with brother-in-law of the accused

Reiterating the same plea, accused also appeared as his own witness under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., but declined to produce defence evidence

Thus, it appeared that at the time accused chose not to disclose the name of any person, but at the time of recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C and statement on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., the accused named his brother-in-law whose name was disclosed to the accused by sister of deceased, but surprisingly said sister was not examined by the accused in his defence

Plea raised by the accused was found to be afterthought

Defence plea had not been substantiated by some material

Trial Court had rightly disbelieved the defence theory

Even otherwise, no one had licence to kill wife

Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the accused, thus, conviction was upheld under S.302(b), P.P.C., but reduced the sentence of accused from that of the death penalty to life imprisonment

Appeal against conviction was disposed of with said modification in sentence.

If accused has a defence plea the same should be put to witnesses in cross-examination and then to put forward while recording statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

If accused person has a defence plea the same should be put to witnesses in cross-examination and then put forward the same while recording statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Where no specific plea is taken by accused person in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., such statement has to be discarded for not confidence inspiring.

In the present case, defence plea had been raised by the accused that he was picked up by the Police Officials while he was coming from hospital along with his cousin

Investigating Officer failed to examine such plea during investigation even Trial Court ignored defense evidence without assigning cogent reasons

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Prosecution case was that on spy information, police party signalled the car of accused to stop, which led the culprits in the car to firing which hit the informer, police returned fire in self-defence, due to which, tyres of the car burst and stopped and accused was arrested

Arms, ammunition and 80 kilograms charas were recovered from secret cavities of the car, made in different parts of the car and inside the mudguards made with aluminium

Evidence of the complainant was corroborated in all material respects by a witness, who was an independent witness, who was behind the accused car at the toll plaza and acted as mashir of arrest and recovery and had no axe to grind with the accused and had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused in that case

Said witness was not a chance witness as he was travelling and was stuck behind the accused vehicle at the toll plaza, thus there was no reason to disbelieve said witness

Even the informer who was present with the Police party and who pointed out the accused's vehicle was shot and killed during the operation which showed that the police had gone to the specific place as mentioned by the informer

No major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses was found

Most significantly the narcotics were recovered from secret cavities in the car which was owned by the accused as admitted in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C and he was driving at the time of the arrest and recovery

Circumstances suggested that it would be extremely difficult to foist such a large amount of charas being 80 kilograms and the fact that it was all hidden in secret cavities in a car owned and driven by the accused, which pointed to his actual knowledge of the narcotics and his guilt for the offence as charged

Recovered narcotics were kept in safe custody from the time of their recovery to the time when they were taken for chemical analysis and no suggestion of tampering with the same had even been made

Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that on spy information, police party signalled the car of accused to stop, which led the culprits in the car to firing which hit the informer, police returned fire in self-defence, due to which, tyres of the car burst and stopped and accused was arrested

Arms, ammunition and 80 kilograms charas were recovered from secret cavities of the car, made in different parts of the car and inside the mudguards made with aluminium

Record showed that the arrest and recovery was made on the spot and the accused was caught red handed with the narcotics by the police

Accused had also admitted his presence at the spot

Accused had claimed that the police had falsely implicated him since his wife had filed a case against the Investigating Officer

Said defence plea was not believable for the reason that if the Investigating Officer wanted to fix the accused, they would have fixed his wife instead as she was the one who filed the complaint and not the accused

Wife of accused did not come as a defence witness to support that position nor did he exhibit any document showing that the wife of accused had made any complaint against the Investigating Officer

Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 80 bags containing cannabis grinds/poppy wing 25 kgs. in each bag, totalling 50 maunds were recovered from a truck driven by the accused

Record showed that the defence could not substantiate plea of animosity with the raiding police party

Defence could not point out any convincing material, which might be attracted, that the raiding police party was motivated against the accused due to some personal grudge or they were instrumental of any third party having animosity with the accused

Accused had not raised such defence during his statement recorded under S.342 Cr.P.C.

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused had got recorded his statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., wherein he had denied allegation of murder of deceased stating that at the time of occurrence he was at his home with some guests

Accused had also produced two defence witnesses in his defence who had also narrated the same story/version of accused

Statements of said defence witnesses were not reliable/trustworthy and not confidence inspiring

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however keeping in view juvenility/minority of the accused sentence of imprisonment was converted/reduced from life imprisonment to fourteen years

Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Accused were charged for snatching mobile phones, gold ornaments and cash from the house of the complainant, on resistance, one of the accused fired with pistol, which hit the brother of complainant who died

Defence plea of accused, as per their statements recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., was that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated

Such plea about their alleged false involvement without showing any animosity or even bitter acrimonious relations with natural eye-witnesses of the incident had not been established

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Trial Court while awarding sentence under S.544(A), Cr.P.C., in case of default of payment of compensation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding two years' imprisonment, whereas the maximum period provided under S.544-A(2), Cr.P.C., was six months

Said period was modified with sentence of six months in case of non-realization of compensation amount

Appeal was dismissed with said modification.

Qatl-i-amd, destruction of document, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, omission to assist public servant when bound to give assistance, abetment

Appreciation of evidence

Defence plea

Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by firing

Accused had stated that two groups started fighting near a hotel

Accused went to intervene and received a stick blow and fell down and became unconscious and the groups after making firing went away

Police, thereafter reached the spot, and accused was shifted to the hospital

No corroborative piece of evidence was produced by the accused to establish that he was falsely implicated in the case by the witnesses despite the fact that there was no enmity between the accused and the complainant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Same could not cause any dent in the case of prosecution, particularly, when any reason to falsely implicate the accused by the complainant/victim/abductee in that case was not on record

Defence plea carried no value in circumstances

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case up to hilt beyond shadow of doubt through confidence inspiring evidence against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused did not produce any documentary evidence to support the claim that on the day of occurrence he was present in the city

Although, the defence witnesses admitted that they had their mobile phone devices with them, however, none of them produced the Call Data Record (CDR) of the said mobile devices under their use so as to establish their presence in the city on the day of the occurrence

No independent, relevant and admissible evidence was produced to establish that the accused had a meal along with the defence witnesses at a restaurant in the city

Even the name of the said restaurant had not been mentioned by any of the defence witnesses

Neither the owner nor any server available at the said restaurant was either produced before the Trial Court or the Investigating Officer to vouch for the claim of the accused

One defence witness claimed that he drove the vehicle belonging to the accused on the day of occurrence, however, admittedly he did not produce any documents before the Investigation Officer with regard to the ownership of the vehicle or the fact that he possessed a license to drive any vehicle

Said defence witness also stated that he did not remember whether he joined the investigation of the case or not

Said witness also stated that the affidavit containing his statement was got prepared by the father of the accused

Other defence witness also claimed that he met the accused on the day of occurrence in the city, however, said witness failed to prove the said fact

Said witness during cross-examination admitted that he did not produce any evidence before the Investigating Officer of the case that he had a valid license for driving any vehicle

Said witness candidly admitted that he made improvements in his previous statement while appearing before the Trial Court

Another defence witness claimed that he had taken a meal with the accused only on 14.02.2014 and not on 15.02.2014 as was claimed by the other two defence witnesses

Said witness also admitted that he made improvements in his previous statement while appearing before the Trial Court

Accused failed to prove his plea of alibi in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, the sentence of death awarded to the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.