Unseen incident

2022 PCrLJN 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 364, 120-B, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Unseen incident

Scope

Accused was charged for abducting the son of complainant and then murdering him

Record showed that there was no eye-witness of the murder and no evidence was available with the prosecution as to when the murder was committed and by whom it was committed

Complainant stated that accused took the deceased on 1.4.2011 and dead body was recovered on 3.4.2011

At the time when dead body was recovered blood was oozing from the nose, fact that blood was oozing had also been confirmed by the other witnesses including the police witness

Witness/brother of complainant admitted during the cross-examination that he was not eye-witness of the incident and also had not seen accused while committing murder of deceased

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtUnnatural conduct of witnesses in not saving the deceased at the time of occurrencePresumptionUnseen incidentEffectAccused was alleged to have stabbed the deceased repeatedly with a knife which resulted in his deathCrime report revealed that besides the complainant, occurrence was witnessed by three prosecution witnesses

Accused was armed only with a knife and except raising lalkara to the deceased, he had not extended threats to any of the prosecution witnesses

None of the prosecution witnesses had even made any attempt to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused

Passive conduct of the prosecution witnesses at the scene of occurrence reflected adverse to the narrated prosecution story

Unnatural behaviour of the prosecution witnesses indicated their non-presence at the place of occurrence

Attending circumstances created reasonable doubt about the veracity of prosecution story and also had suggested that prosecution version with regard to ocular account was tainted, not inspiring confidence and result of due deliberations and consultations

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge by setting-aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

2015 SCMR 315 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubtUnnatural conduct of witnesses in not saving the deceased at the time of occurrencePresumptionUnseen incidentMotive not establishedEffectAccused was alleged to have stabbed the deceased repeatedly with a scissors which resulted in the latter's death

Alleged motive for the occurrence was that deceased, who was a head teacher, had transferred the accused (teacher) to another school

Deceased had numerous stab wounds on his body, numbering nineteen in all

Accused was armed only with a scissors, and causing many wounds to the deceased with a scissors must have consumed reasonable amount of time

However, the three witnesses, who were all related to the deceased, remained silent spectators, and did not react or show any response when the accused was allegedly stabbing the deceased

Intervention by a close relative in such a situation was very natural but in the present case witnesses neither did anything nor attempted to chase the accused to apprehend him

Presence of witnesses at the crime spot had become highly doubtful due to their unnatural conduct, therefore no explicit reliance could be placed on their testimony

Presumption was that deceased was done to death when no one was present to rescue him

Motive for the occurrence was not established in any manner through any documentary evidence or even secondary evidence of reliable nature

Even otherwise deceased, who was a head teacher, had no authority to transfer the accused-teacher to another school

Such circumstances rendered the motive for the occurrence entirely feeble, artificial and not appealing to a prudent mind

Since the ocular account was worthy of being discarded, the recovery of scissors from accused, which otherwise was doubtful, and other pieces of evidence would not be sufficient to carry conviction on a capital charge

Appeal was allowed accordingly and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of doubt.

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.