Inconsistencies in statements of witnesses

2013 PCrLJ 192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417Qatl-e-amdAppeal against acquittalAppreciation of evidenceFailure to prove motiveInconsistencies in statements of witnessesUnseen incidentFailure to produce ballistic expert report

Prosecution witnesses had stated that accused had no motive to kill the deceased and they had not actually seen accused firing at the deceased

Evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was full of inconsistencies and no corroborative evidence of independent witnesses, other than that of relatives of the deceased, was brought forward to prove that accused actually fired at the deceased

Prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused firing at the deceased had not come forward and deposed

Prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, deposed that they heard the fire shots while sitting elsewhere and at the same time they had also stated that they saw the accused shooting at the deceased

Mere number of prosecution witnesses was not the deciding factor, but it was the quality and worth of evidence given by the witnesses which mattered

Weapon and bullet recovered after twenty (20) days of the incident had admittedly not been sealed on the spot as required under the law, and same was produced in court in broken condition

Tampering or change of weapon, in circumstances, could not be ruled out

Weapon had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and ballistic expert report was not produced, therefore, the presumption was that such report was never obtained

Despite recovery of weapon, bullet and empties, the most crucial evidence, i.e. report of ballistic expert had not been obtained, benefit of which had to go to the accused

Impugned judgment of acquittal required no interference and, accordingly, appeal against was dismissed.