Case of no evidence

2015 SCMR 155 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 364-AOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(3)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203FQatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, zina-bil-jabr liable to tazirShariat appealBenefit of doubtCase of no evidenceLast seen evidence not reliable

Accused was alleged to have kidnapped the victim-girl, whereafter he committed zina-bil-jabr upon her and then killed her

Witnesses of last seen evidence deposed before the police that they had last seen the victim in the company of the accused

Trial Court awarded death sentence to accused, which was reduced to life imprisonment by the Federal Shariat Court

Validity

Both witnesses of last seen evidence were related to the complainant and were frequent visitors to his residence, but they kept silent for more than a week

One of the said witnesses admitted that he was not on good terms with the accused

To cover up the delay in giving last seen evidence, witnesses introduced a story of having gone to another city for about seven days, but no fare ticket of transport/travel or any other document about stay in a hotel or at any other place for such a long period was produced

Evidentiary worth of such last seen evidence had diminished almost to zero

Delayed statements of said witnesses to police had rendered them false witnesses

Question as to at what time the victim was ravished and done to death had not been established through reliable evidence

Distance of the place where the victim was last seen with the accused and wherefrom her dead body was recovered had remained unexplained, thus, the elements of close proximity of time and place being fundamental and mandatory requirements for accepting last seen evidence were absolutely missing

Witnesses of last seen evidence could also be held to be chance witnesses as it was not their case that it was their routine of passing through the same street regularly

Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court acquitted accused of all charges levelled against him and set aside his conviction and sentences

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2013 MLD 159 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 392RobberyAppreciation of evidenceCase of no evidenceComplainant's mare and cash had been robbed from himSaid mare was recovered from the accused on the basis of which he was implicated in the present caseTrial court convicted the accused under S. 392, P.P.CContention of the accused was that it was a case of no evidence against himValidityAccused was not implicated by the complainant during his evidence before the Trial Court

Eye-witness of the incident and private witnesses named in the F.I.R., were given up by the prosecution without assigning any reason

No ocular evidence was available to connect accused with the alleged crime in circumstances

Accused acquitted from the second F.I.R. registered against him for alleged recovery of robbed mare

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

2013 YLR 1474 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 412Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38 & 39Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoityBail, grant ofCase of no evidenceImplication of accused in the offence on basis of disclosure made by co-accusedCo-accused with similar roles already granted bailEffect

Allegation against accused persons was that they took away an oil tanker belonging to the complainant and sold the oil present therein

Pleas of accused persons were that they were implicated in the offence on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused; that there was no evidence collected by police to determine as to who sold the stolen oil, to whom it was sold and for how much consideration

Validity

No iota of evidence was available to connect accused persons with charge of dacoity under S.395, P.P.C.

Application of S. 412, P.P.C. was also lacking in view of the record and evidence recorded by the court

Accused were initially arrested on the disclosure made by a co-accused, who was subsequently discharged by police after a compromise with the complainant

Admission/disclosure made by co-accused was not admissible in evidence in view of Arts.38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Amount of sale proceeds allegedly received by accused persons for the stolen oil remained shrouded in mystery and same could be determined at trial

Car allegedly used in commission of the offence was not shown in the F.I.R.

Co-accused persons having similar roles to that of accused persons were granted bail, therefore, principle of consistency was applicable to the present case

Accused persons were released on bail accordingly.