Unseen occurrence

Whenever a serious allegation of being an incestuous father was levelled, higher standard of proof by the credible prosecution witnesses was required

Rare allegation of one of the most serious offences committed in the presence of other children and old father of the convict in the house had been levelled

According to the victim herself, she was beaten by the appellant, therefore, her statement was to be weighed with due care and caution

In the present case the complainant and her brother were not the eye-witnesses but were hearsay witnesses, thus it was an unseen occurrence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and conviction and sentence of appellant were set-aside.

Anomaly of time of death suggested that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the same appeared to be unseen occurrence

Prosecution witnesses were relatives of deceased and several contradictions had also been pointed out

Complainant/eye-witness and the other eye-witness stated in their examination-in-chief that the dead body of deceased was brought to Police Station on donkey cart where report was lodged and thereafter the police had given the letter to hospital for post mortem, however, the complainant during cross examination admitted that they took the dead body to hospital and they returned to Police Station after that

FIR also depicted that firstly the dead body was taken to hospital and then the complainant approached the Police Station to report the incident

Moreover, the eye-witnesses also made improvement regarding robbing of Rs.25,000/- from deceased during their examination-in-chief which was not reported in FIR

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charges.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Unseen occurrence

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant

Undisputedly, it was an unseen incident and there was no direct evidence against the appellants

No one had seen the appellants while killing the deceased

Role played by the appellants in the incident in issue had neither been mentioned in the FIR nor disclosed before the Trial Court through any solid or convincing evidence

Moreover, it had never been disclosed or alleged by the prosecution in the FIR as to under what circumstances, the deceased had been done to death and it remained shrouded in mystery

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complaint through which crime was reported did not bear any time of reporting and it was also not taken care of by the police because Police Official did not mention the time of receiving such complaint

Place of receiving complaint was also disputed in this case

Police Official claimed receiving of complaint at Government Hospital, whereas accompanying constable deposed receiving of such complaint at a roundabout

Such facts created a shadow of doubt on prosecution case from the very inception which in turn doubted the presence of witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence, particularly when the dead body was received in the mortuary after three hours at 8:45 a.m. but the police papers were given to the doctor with a further delay of more than four hours at 1:00 p.m.

Yet neither the name of complainant nor of eye-witness was mentioned in inquest report or the postmortem report

Therefore, transportation of deceased to the hospital by the witnesses through Rescue Service 1122 became an answered situation

Investigating Officer also conceded that he did not record the statement of any member of Rescue Service 1122 about that fact

Investigating Officer further conceded that no CDRs of the witnesses were obtained by him in order to verify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time

Thus, apparently it was an unseen occurrence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that surprisingly the spot was pointed out to the Investigating Officer by nearby shopkeepers, however, as per deposition of that witness those shopkeepers were reluctant to record their statements

Investigating Officer stated that he had not even mentioned their names in the investigation proceedings

Said witness stated that widow and aunt of the deceased were not the eye-witness to the occurrence and the widow and aunt of the deceased were not present at the time of spot inspection

Said witness further stated that he had not mentioned as to how the widow and aunt of the deceased came to know about the incident

Besides, that witness prepared site plan, took into possession blood stains through cotton and an empty of .30 bore, recorded statements of witnesses as well as identifier and received blood stained garments of the deceased at the spot produced by police constable

Shopkeepers were the star witnesses of the occurrence, however, none amongst them came forward to become a witness

High Court observed that in that newly merged area, people avoid to become a witness in such like cases, however, it was equally true that law did not accept such type of an excuse

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Co-accused had implicated the accused in the commission of offence in his confessional statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate

During investigation another co-accused was arrested who disclosed to the Investigating Officer of the case that he had committed the crime with the help of his two co-accused but those accused persons were not challaned

Investigating Officer also arrested another co-accused against whom the allegation was that a mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from his possession, but he was also released by the Police

Case had been challaned, nothing was recovered from the accused

Case of the accused appeared to be on better footings than those who had not been challaned by the Police, which required further probe

Bail application of the accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Identification parade was conducted where the witness had seen the glimpse of accused during commission of offence but in the present case, identification parade was conducted wherein one accused had identified the other accused which was not permissible

Prosecution had conducted the identification parade after more than fourteen days

Bail application, of the accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Naib Tehsildar while recording accused's statement as well as complainant had stated that on receipt of information, they had proceeded to the place of occurrence where accused had been tied by the local people with a tree whereafter he had been unfastened and taken in custody

None of the two witnesses had been eye-witnesses of the occurrence

Same was the case with other witness, who had also reached the spot after receipt of information of the occurrence when people had already tied accused with a tree

Said witness had not been an eye-witness of the occurrence also

Statement of another witness/Assistant Political Agent had been recorded but he had also narrated the proceedings conducted after arrest of the accused

No direct evidence regarding commission of the offence by the accused was available

Some people of village might have seen the occurrence but none of them had been produced in evidence

Deficiency of ocular evidence of the actual occurrence could not be supplied by the subsequent evidence of arrest of the accused

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Even the injured complainant himself had not seen the accused at the time of firing nor he had claimed to have seen him fleeing from the spot after the occurrence, as such, he did not charge any accused in the initial report and the FIR was registered against some unknown assailants

Injured complainant had died a natural death, therefore, he could not be examined by prosecution during the trial proceedings

Status of FIR lodged at instance of a person who died afterwards a natural death was that of his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. and nothing more

Statement of complainant could not be relied upon unless cross-examined except when the said statement was recorded as dying declaration

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused to the extent of offences under Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi), P.P.C.

Appeal was partially allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court under Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi), P.P.C., whereas the prosecution proved its case under S.15 Arms Act, thus appeal to the extent of said offence was dismissed.

Complainant had recorded his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., naming the accused after a considerable delay of 13 days and without disclosing his source of information

No direct evidence was available to prima facie connect the accused with the commission of offence

Evidence in the shape of Call Data Record (CDR) regarding presence of accused in village, without corroborative evidence, was a weak type of evidence and refusal of bail by Trial Court on such a ground was unjustified especially when it was not mentioned in the FIR or statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused

Nothing was recovered from the accused nor had he made any confessional statement, therefore, the case against accused was required to be established through pro and contra evidence

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Although the incident was unseen yet the accused was nominated by the complainant on the basis of statements made by two persons who had seen the deceased with the accused on the date of occurrence

Police had recorded statements of two witnesses who had stated that the accused had admitted his guilt before them

Pistol was recovered from the possession of accused and the same had matched with the empties secured from the place of occurrence

Offence alleged against the accused came within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police

Sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence

Grounds urged by the accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be taken into consideration at bail stage

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Inordinate delay in lodging the report against unknown accused by the complainant, who was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, could be attributed to consultations and calculatedly preparing the crime report

Person who had informed the complainant about the occurrence was not produced before the court

Chain of events was broken from the very beginning, which went to the roots of the case

Testimony of complainant was not corroborated by any independent evidence

Biometric verification of the SIM (Subscriber Identification Module), belonging to deceased and allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, was not produced

Trial court had dealt with each and every aspect of the case and the findings it rendered were based on proper appreciation of evidence, which being unexceptional could not be interfered with

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Confession was recorded with a delay of four days after arrest with no plausible explanation and such delayed confession could not be made basis for recording conviction on a capital charge

Longer the custody of accused, weaker the evidentiary value of confession

Conclusions drawn by trial court were not borne out of the evidence, therefore, the conviction was not sustainable

Criminal appeal was allowed.

Complainant alleged that his son aged 10 years was taken by his uncle to a festival; uncle became drowsy; accused and other arranged for his sleep; took his son with them and committed his murder

Complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident as such his evidence could not be relied upon

Prosecution witness/uncle of the deceased had not supported the case of prosecution by stating that he had not seen anyone killing the deceased

First Information Report of the incident lodged by the complainant was disposed of under 'A' class by the police

Direct complaint was filed by complainant with a delay of seven months

Statements of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent on some points

Conviction of one set of accused and acquittal of other set of accused, on the basis of same evidence could not be approved

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

First Information Report was lodged against father and brother of the deceased lady (petitioner) for committing her murder by leveling indecent allegations

Incident as stated in the FIR was an unseen one and no direct role had been assigned to the petitioner

Admittedly, there was delay of 02 days in registration of FIR and it was not possible for the petitioner, who after committing murder kept the weapon of offence (pistol) in safe custody

Record showed that recovered pistol and one empty, (which was recovered from the place of incident) had not been sent to Ballistic Expert for examination

Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., were recorded after about one month of the incident without any plausible explanation, which showed that they were not eye-witnesses of the incident

Co-accused having already been granted bail, therefore, petitioner lady was also entitled to bail

Petitioner was granted post-arrest bail in the main case as well as in the connected one.

Accused persons (police officials) were alleged to have committed the murder of the son of complainant in a fake encounter

FIR was lodged with a delay of about 16 days and prima facie no plausible explanation was given by the complainant

Accused persons had, after receiving spy information, reached at the place of wardat on seeing them dacoits had started firing; during the exchange of firing one person lost his life

Trial Court had yet to determine as to whether deceased died from the firing of police or from the firing of his own companion

No eye-witness of the commission of murder was available as the incident was unseen

Case was thoroughly investigated by JIT (Joint Investigation Team) and it had recommended the disposal of case under 'B' class

Challan had been submitted, hence the accused persons were not required for further investigation by the police

Case against accused persons called for further inquiry as envisaged by S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused persons were admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

After registration of FIR and post-mortem of the deceased, Superintendent of Police, disclosed the name of accused who had allegedly committed the murder

Eye-witness, who deposed about place of occurrence, had not seen the accused while firing at the deceased

Prosecution witness, who claimed to have identified accused in Police Station, admitted that he was detained in Police Station for one or two days for interrogation/inquiry and he was not produced in any court of law

Said witness stated that the identification memo, did not contain his signature, date and the signature of other private witnesses of the identification proceedings and admitted that during the identification parade, he was in Police custody

Credibility of the witnesses and their presence at the crime scene, seemed doubtful

Statements of both the said witnesses were contradictory in nature

No corroborative piece of evidence, was available on record, which could connect accused with the commission of the alleged crime

Judgments of both the courts below were the result of non-reading and mis-reading of the prosecution evidence and material on record

Petition for leave to appeal, was converted into appeal and was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to accused, were set aside

Accused, was acquitted from all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Where the fact as to how the deceased was murdered and his dead body was thrown in the field of standing wheat crop, was not explained by the prosecution, no evidence of "Wajj Takkar" came on record and none of the prosecution witnesses had expressed suspicion against the accused during search of deceased, accused, was acquitted by setting aside his conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing dis-appearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Rule of consistency

Applicability

Unseen occurrence

FIR based on mere suspicion

Accused persons were alleged to have killed son of complainant by strangulating and causing head injury

Co-accused had already been released on post arrest bail, and application for cancellation of same had been dismissed

Said co-accused had been charged with the exactly same role which had been attributed to the accused

Alleged occurrence was admittedly unseen

Complainant had not disclosed either his source of information or basis of his satisfaction about involvement of accused in commission of offence

Complainant had charged accused on mere suspicion

Nothing incriminating had been recovered from possession of accused

Accused had not made confessional statement despite remaining in police custody

Pointation of scene of occurrence by accused, which was already known to police, would hardly be valid reason for refusal of bail to accused, when they were even otherwise entitled to concession of bail under rule of consistency

Investigation of case was complete and complete Challan had been submitted

Accused had been behind bar since after their arrest and were no more required for purpose of investigation

Bail application was accepted accordingly.

Allegation against accused was that he beat his deceased-wife brutally, which resulted in internal injuries and her pregnancy was also aborted

Trial Court acquitted the accused

Validity

Alleged occurrence was unseen and there was no eye-witness of the occurrence

Prosecution witnesses were closely related with the complainant and the deceased

Said witnesses were interested and inimical witnesses inter se towards the accused and tried to improve their version by making dishonest improvements

Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material points

Allegation against accused of causing internal injuries to his deceased-wife was not proved as she was not examined in support of the prosecution case

Cause of death of deceased negated the ocular account

Medical evidence showed that deceased had history of abdomen pain, vomiting with blood and diarrhea, and cause of her death was determined as failure of kidney as well as multiple infection in the blood

Evidence of Lady Medical Officer revealed that no external abrasion, bruises or wound was found on the body of deceased except scratching of hair on the center of her scalp, and that she was severally anemic

Hair of deceased that had been allegedly scratched off from her scalp were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, so they were of no consequence

Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Son of deceased, who was also the complainant of the case, did not charge the accused in the F.I.R. but only charged her subsequently in his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, which was recorded after five days of the recovery of the dead body

Authenticity, veracity and evidentiary value of such statement was yet to be seen by the Trial Court

Complainant gave no source of his information regarding involvement of accused in the offence and he was also not an eye-witness of the occurrence

Since there was no eye-witness of the occurrence, and accusation against accused was general and no specific role had been assigned to her, thus prosecution had not placed any incriminating material, which could suggest that there were reasonable grounds for believing that accused was connected with the offence

Grounds existed for further probe into guilt of accused

Accused was a female and she was also entitled for bail under first proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Accused and co-accused persons were alleged to have murdered the deceased, whose body was found lying on the bank of a canal

No one was charged in the F.I.R. and occurrence was unseen

Accused was subsequently nominated in the case but there was nothing on record which could connect him with the offence

Although reference was made to the mobile data collected from mobile belonging to accused to connect him with the offence, but in the absence of any text of the said data, accused could not be said to be involved in the commission of the offence

Involvement of accused in the commission of the offence called for further probe

Accused was released on bail accordingly.