Contradictions

Alleged by defence that eye-witness had seen appellant mercilessly beating the deceased but observance of single injury on the person of deceased by the Medical Officer was sufficient to belie the ocular account

Such submission was not agreeable for more than one reasons

Firstly, connotation of mercilessly beating did not ipso facto constitute that all the injuries inflicted by the appellant should have been detected by the Medical Officer at the time of post mortem examination of the deceased which was conducted after two months of the occurrence

Deceased while in injured condition remained under treatment for almost two months

There was every probability that during the intervening period minor injuries inflicted by the appellant would have healed, as such merely due to non-observance of other injuries at the time of post mortem examination report of the deceased, it could not be said that the medical evidence was in contradiction to the ocular account

Secondly, it was a matter of common observance that sometimes witnesses exaggerated the statements in desperation of justice and to emphasize on the intensity of their words, therefore, variation if any was not sufficient to grant any premium to the appellant

Thirdly, in the presence of convincing ocular account, single ground of conflict between ocular account and medical evidence could not be made basis for acquittal of an accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

According to the statements of eye-witnesses, the appellant had fired at the deceased 5/6 times, with the bullets hitting the deceased on various parts of his body

Contrary to the statements of said witnesses that the deceased had been hit by 5/6 bullets, Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased observed the presence of as many as fifteen injuries on the dead body of the deceased

In this manner, according to the observations of Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, as many as eight bullets had hit the deceased whereas according to the witnesses the appellant had only been hit 5 to 6 times

In this manner, the witnesses failed to explain the presence of three other injuries on the body of deceased which were observed by Medical Officer

Contradictions in the ocular account of the occurrence, as narrated by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence as furnished by Medical Officer, sounded the death knell for the prosecution case against the appellant

Eye-witnesses were proved not to have deposed truthfully with regard to the appellant

Inconsistency in the ocular account of the occurrence and the medical evidence was of such magnitude that it had resulted in proving that the prosecution witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence and it was for this reason that the flaw cropped up

Contradiction in the ocular account of the occurrence, as narrated by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence as furnished by Medical Officer clearly established that the eye-witnesses miserably failed to prove their presence at the place and time of occurrence

Had the eye-witnesses had seen the occurrence then there did not exist any possibility that they would have fallen into error

In such a case, the ocular account was to be rejected as being contrary to the medical evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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

Appreciation of evidence

Confessional statement of accused

Contradictions

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant

One of the accused persons "H" got recorded her confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate

Appellant "H" in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. stated that the occurrence took place in the cricket ground which did not fall anywhere in the surroundings of the place of occurrence

Furthermore, in the postmortem report, there was no evidence of any firearm injury on the head of the deceased which negated the version of the appellant of firearm injury caused to the deceased with a pistol by appellant "D"

In such state of affairs, the alleged judicial confessional statement purported to be of the appellant "H" besides being involuntary, untrue and unbelievable, had also not been recorded in accordance with the law and was not supported by any independent piece of evidence put forth by the prosecution, thus was of no help to the prosecution, which deserved to be excluded from consideration

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons and causing injuries to a female of complainant party by firing

Record showed that after a delay of six months, the complainant instituted a private complaint in which the role attributed to the appellant was materially altered

In that complaint both the locale and number of injuries were changed, assigning the appellant specific injuries to the left thigh, testicular region, and other parts of the body of deceased

Pictorial diagram prepared by the Medical Officer, exhibited on record, indicated that injury located on the left flank at the back of the deceased was an exit wound

Hence, it was clearly established that the medical evidence was in direct conflict with the ocular account

Where a material contradiction arises between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and such discrepancy cannot be reconciled, the benefit of the doubt must be afforded to the accused

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

All the prosecution witnesses categorically stated during their depositions that neither the clothes of the deceased nor the rope (alleged weapon of offence) bore any bloodstains

Contrarily, the report of the Chemical Examiner explicitly reflected that both the said articles were stained with human blood, thereby creating a material contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstance.

Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention, criminal misconduct

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Contradictions

Prosecution case was that the accused-appellant in collusion with other accused provided fake allotment letter for construction of a cabin to the complainant, after receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 4,50,000/=

Initially complainant had filed complaint against deceased/co-accused and present appellant before Senior Director Estate, Municipal Corporation and directly levelled allegations against appellant while mentioning that he had entered into sale agreement with co-accused deceasedagainst a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- in the year 2007 and thereafter present appellant advised to bear further cost of Rs. 4,00,000/=

Second complaint moved by complainant was addressed to SHO Police Station, which was also at variance with previous contention

First version had been recorded that agreement was taken place with deceased co-accused and appellant against Rs.4,50,000/- and second version stated that after failure in the first agreement appellant demanded Rs.11,00,000/- for allotment order

Third version of the prosecution came in the FIR that appellant had demanded Rs.4,00,000/- against another canteen, out of which the complainant had paid Rs. 3,00,000/=

However, any of the version had not been confirmed by the complainant when he adduced his evidence standing in the witness box and on the contrary he had not deposed anything against the appellant

Both accused had died and entire case of demand of bribe and handed over fake allotment order was encircling around the deceased/co-accused and the prosecution had failed to prove its case in accordance with law

Trial Court had committed misreading and non-reading of recorded evidence coupled with the fact that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant, in view of lack of any connection with the commission of crime and absence of direct or indirect evidence against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ocular account of the occurrence as furnished by the eye-witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence as furnished by Medical Officer and flawed beyond mending, resulting in disfiguring the complexion of the whole prosecution case beyond reparation and recognition

According to the statements of the witnesses, they had seen the appellant, pressing the neck of the deceased with her hands and kept pressing the same till the deceased died

However, Medical Officer, on examining the dead body of deceased did not observe any marks of violence on the neck of the dead body of the deceased

Had the deceased been throttled in the manner as stated by witnesses then Medical Officer must have observed the evidence of marks of pressure by the thumb and the fingertips, fingertip bruises, linear or crescentic marks produced by the fingernails, abrasions and bruises on the mouth, nose, cheeks, forehead, lower jaw or any other part of the body, however she did not

Oral account of the occurrence, as given by eye-witnesses, could not be said to be in accordance with the medical evidence, rather was proved to be contrary to it

Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

Though victim alleged that the appellant had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him, however Medical Officer did not observe any evidence of such act

Medical Officer on examining victim found no marks of violence on any part of the body of victim at the time of examination

Medical Officer did not observe presence of any laceration, abrasion, contusion on any part of the body especially on elbows, thighs, or backside of victim

Being thrown on hard ground would necessarily have resulted into marks of violence appearing on the body of victim

Said observations of Medical Officer, after examining victim, also negated the statements of the witnesses

Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

When medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence

However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

As per record, Medical Officer did not declare cause of death at the time of postmortem examination rather on 22.09.2022 after about four months on the request of police such lacuna was filled out

No exit wound was mentioned in this case

Entry wound on left temporal side resulted into presence of bullet inside the cranial cavity but Medical Officer was unable to explain the point from where it was extracted and also what was the trajectory because it was a distant fire without blackening around it as per prosecution story

Bullet recovered from the cranial cavity was not sent to Forensic Science Agency for examination, even no X-ray or MRI was produced by the prosecution to prove that bullet was inside the brain

Thus, cause of death and circumstances in which death occurred was also doubtful in the case, which was the reason inquest report was also defective

Overall perusal of medical evidence showed that it stood in contradiction with ocular account, therefore, same could not be relied upon in support of prosecution story

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Medical evidence and oral account

Contradictions

Accused were charged for committing murder of two sons of complainant by firing

According to the deposition of the complainant, he took his injured son to the police station after the incident at about 10:30 or 11:00, and he remained in the police station from 11:00 to 12:00 noon

After that, complainant took his injured son to the RHC Hospital

At the RHC, the Medical Officer referred injured to the DHQ Hospital, due to his critical condition

Complainant reached the emergency of DHQ hospital between 03:30 pm and 04:00 p.m.

Medical Officer checked injured in the emergency of the hospital and declared that son of complainant had died

Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased deposed that the duration between injury and death was within 30 minutes

From the testimony of Police witness, it was revealed that the complainant remained in the police station for hours

As per the version of complainant, keeping in view the critical condition of the injured, the Medical Officer of RHC referred the injured to DHQ hospital and the complainant reached DHQ hospital at Zohar time

Complainant further deposed that they reached DHQ hospital after Zohar time

Zohar timing on 10.02.2018 was 11.52 am whereas Asr timing was 04.06 pm

Postmortem report of deceased had not been challenged by the prosecution, wherein it was mentioned that the duration between injury and death was half an hour

Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses failed to prove when and where deceased took his last breath

What happened between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. on 10.02.2018 was shrouded in mystery

If the complainant, alongwith prosecution witnesses and deceased (then injured), reached DHQ Hospital at Zohar time and as per the opinion of the Medical Officer the duration between the injury and death was 30 minutes, then how the Medical Officer could refer the injured from RHC to DHQ hospital

Complainant, deposed that he had no knowledge of any prescription/entry in the emergency of DHQ hospital, and about any issuance of the death certificate of his deceased son

Thus, medical evidence contradicted the ocular account

Appeal was allowed and appellants were acquitted of the charge.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blows

Complainant deposed that co-accused caught hold of deceased whereas accused present in the Court gave churri blows on right arm and neck of the deceased

Eye-witness deposed that when accused made churri blows upon neck and right arm of deceased till such period co-accused caught hold of deceased and thereafter, both of them fled away

Medical Officer observed four injuries on the back of deceased

Medical Officer opined that four injuries collectively and two injuries were enough to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature and such two injuries were on the back of the chest of deceased

Medical Officer deposed that no injury was caused from the front side to the deceased

It was not possible that if co-accused was holding the deceased, then the appellant could have inflicted the injuries on his back

Medical Officer stated explicitly that the injuries were not inflicted from the front; relatively the same were caused from the back

Such fact created doubt about the genuineness of the version given by the complainant and eye-witness

Thus, the prosecution version was contradicted by medical evidence, which affected the core of the prosecution's case and rendered the witness's testimony liable to be discredited

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home a charge against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing injuries to his other brother by firing

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and injured

Accused had been burdened with the responsibility of making fire shots with his pistol, which landed on left arm and armpit of deceased but while appearing before the Ttrial Court, complainant and injured had attributed only one pistol shot to accused

Moreover, according to the statement of eyewitnesses, fire shot made by accused had hit on left arm and armpit of deceased whereas, according to the postmortem report of deceased and statement of Medical Officer, entry wound was on the outer top right shoulder of the deceased

Similarly, Medical Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that in the whole postmortem report, it was not mentioned that entry wound was received by the deceased on his armpit

Thus, the ocular account was not in unison with the medical evidence, making the prosecution case further doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular account and medical evidence

Contradictions

Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by strangulation for looting purpose

Complainant of the case reiterated the contents of his fard-e-bayan

If the statement of complainant was presumed to be true, then it would contradict the medical evidence

Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem of deceased, opined in his cross-examination that duration between death and post-mortem of deceased was about 12-hours, then under such circumstances question arose that if on fateful day, on knocking the door by the complainant, no response was received and on the following day, again no response was received, it meant that the victim was already dead, so how the duration between the death and post-mortem was about 12-hours

Statement of complainant revealed that the mouth of deceased was bleeding, but Medical Officer negated such fact by stating that the eyes and mouth of deceased were closed and no discharge from nose and mouth was observed

Admittedly, the medical evidence was not in consonance with the ocular testimony

Complainant in his examination in chief stated that the doors and windows of the office were broken, but to the contrary the statement of said witness contained in his fard-e-bayan as well as his Court statement were silent in such behalf

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant narrated almost same story as mentioned in the FIR, however, he added that they identified the accused in the light of a bulb lit at that moment

Stance of the complainant was that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was ahead of them, who was fired at by the accused from front, but his deposition was totally in conflict with the medical evidence because the concerned Medical Officer noted a lacerated wound over scalp, an entry wound on the back of head with its exit on left side of nose with visible brain matter

If the accused had fired upon the deceased from front side, surely all the bullets should have landed on front of the deceased, which was not the case here

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Medical evidence for the prosecution was materialized through postmortem of deceased which was conducted by Medical Officer at 12.00 noon on 02.02.2018 with a delay of five hours

Record showed that bullet entered from left side of rib cage and exited from right side of the rib cage without its exit from the back, otherwise Medical Officer must have mentioned the further exit of bullet from the back side as she had mentioned while showing its entry inlet

Thus, there was contradiction in medical evidence as bullet entered from the left side of chest whereas prosecution claimed it as a fire shot on the front of chest

Another touchy aspect in medical evidence was the size of entry wound which was bigger than the exit wound and it was not possible in ordinary circumstances but presence of tattooing could produce such type of effect if the fire was made with palleted weapon

So, there was serious conflict in medical and ocular account which showed that occurrence was not committed in the manner as being claimed by the prosecution

Such contradiction was fatal to the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

As per contents of the application, on the basis of which formal FIR was lodged, fire shot made by accused landed on the right side of the waist of deceased whereas both the eye-witnesses stated that the fire shot made by accused landed on the right side of the back of deceased

According to the evidence of Medical Officer, who initially medically examined deceased in injured condition, there was one injury on the back of the chest of the deceased and in his cross-examination he stated that he could not specify the nature of the said injury as to whether the same was an entry or exit wound

On the other hand, according to the statement of Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination and as per pictorial diagrams, there was no injury on the waist or on the back side of the waist of deceased and there was only one injury on his right upper back region which was skin deep

Co-accused was assigned the role of making a fire shot on the right leg of deceased

Although Medical Officer noted injury on the right knee of deceased, in his cross-examination he also stated regarding the said injury that he could not specify whether said injury was an entry wound or exit wound, though he specifically mentioned that three injuries were entry wounds

As per evidence of Medical Officer, there were perforated wounds on the posterior aspect of the right shoulder of deceased

Another entry wound on the chest of the deceased was found

Said injuries were also noted in the postmortem examination report of the deceased by Medical Officer but the said injuries were not attributed to any of the accused in this case

Moreover, there were a total of three (or seven injuries) on the right leg of deceased whereas according to the evidence of witnesses only one fire shot with pistol .30 bore was made by co-accused on the right leg of deceased

Prosecution eye-witnesses had not mentioned two injuries on the chest and two injuries (or six injuries) on the right leg of deceased which were noted in the postmortem report of the deceased and pictorial diagram

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution story was negated by the postmortem report wherein three injuries in the shape of bruises were found on the neck of deceased but Medical Officer had stated in her cross-examination that hyoid bone was not broken and ribs as well as cartilages were not damaged

Although cause of death was manual strangulation (throttling) leading to asphyxia, nonetheless, it did not appear to have occurred in the manner suggested in the crime report

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

However, other injuries were referred by Medical Officer as entry wounds; one on back at scapular region and other on right side of abdomen in mid auxiliary line

If the accused had fired from the position as shown in the site plan then there could hardly be any chance to receive the injury on the flank with exit wound on the belly or at scapular region on the back with exit on the chest

Prosecution story had many holes to fill in; like if the deceased was sitting on the motorcycle when he received injury, then blood must have been dropped on said motor cycle but it had not been taken into possession and even some other injuries on the body due to falling from motorcycle were expected but they were missing

Medical Officer was cross-examined on such aspect by the prosecution that in order to extend favour to the prosecution he had changed the nature of injuries which was denied by him and so much so complainant or prosecution had not challenged postmortem report or opinion of Medical Officer at any stage during the investigation

Such contradiction in ocular and medical evidence led to the conclusion that witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Prosecution case was that the accused persons equipped with knives attacked upon complainant party, due to which one died and another sustained injuries

Record showed that the medical evidence belied the ocular account furnished by the alleged eye-witnesses

Medical Officer stated that the deceased expired approximately three hours before arrival, but contrary to it, all the witnesses deposed that they reached the hospital in 20/25 minutes, after the alleged occurrence, which negated the prosecution version and the presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence

Presence of injured eye-witness of the case, could not be possibly doubted at the place of occurrence, however question was, whether he shared with the Court, the whole truth

Not necessary that the injured witness had spoken the whole truth and it could not be relied upon unless corroborated

Said witness deposed that he also received sharp injury on his left part of the body while the Medical Officer produced his medical certificate showing incised wound of about ½ centimeter on right part of his body

Said fact created doubt in the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, common intention, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Medical evidence and ocular account

Contradictions

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing and also committed murder of wife of one of the accused on the pretext of honour

Complainant in her examination-in-chief had attributed two effective fire shots upon deceased to accused, while other accused was assigned only one fire shot thereby causing injury on the right side of chest of the deceased

According to medical report of deceased, the Medical Officer had observed three inlet wounds all of 1/2 inch in size

Version of prosecution was that accused was armed with 30-bore pistol while other accused had fired at the deceased with 9 MM pistol

Definitely, fire shots with two pistols of different bores would have caused entry wounds of different dimensions on the deceased but the situation in the present case was different

Medical Officer stated that similar characteristics of wounds suggested firing from one and the same weapon

Thus, the entry wounds of same size on the dead body of deceased suggested that it was a one man job but the charge was exaggerated by complainant by implicating two persons in the case

Furthermore, it could not be determined from the evidence on record that which one of the two accused had killed the deceased

Lady Medical Officer had reported two entry wounds both of 1.5 cm in size which did not tally with the size of inlet wounds on the dead body of lady deceased

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Physical signs observed on the dead body were such to suggest decomposition well beyond the point of time of last seen as alleged by the prosecution and discovery of the corpse

Physical state in which the dead body was found by the Medical Examiner was inconsistent with the last seen evidence theory i.e. 49 hours before the autopsy

Time of death of deceased was much earlier than what was alleged by the prosecution witnesses of last seen

As per prosecution version, the accused committed murder of sister of the complainant through strangulation and in that respect, witnesses deposed that when dead body of deceased was recovered, they noticed ligature mark around her neck, but Medical Officer who conducted postmortem of the said deceased deposed that no ligature mark was present around the neck and no ligature mark could be identified on neck due to advance stage of putrification

Said facts clearly negated the prosecution theory of last seen, hence such piece of evidence was not believable and could not be relied upon to uphold the conviction of accused

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Both the witnesses of ocular account had mentioned the time of occurrence as 12:00 noon but said deposition was not at all supported by the medical evidence

According to Medical Officer, injured, then deceased was brought at THQ Hospital at 11:15 am through his brother

Said deposition simply knocked the bottom out of whole prosecution story provided by the witnesses of ocular account as per whom occurrence took place at 12:00 noon

Had occurrence in this case taken place at 12:00 noon as claimed by the witnesses of ocular account, there could have been no question that injured was brought before Medical Officer at 11:15 a.m., i.e., 45 minutes prior to occurrence

Medical Officer was indeed an independent witness and the stance taken by him could not be doubted particularly when he was under oath

Even if a wrong fact was deposed by said witness, same could have been corrected and rectified either through re-examination or even getting said witness declared as hostile to that extent but nothing of that sort was done at trial

According to Investigating Officer, complainant appeared before him at Police Station and produced application and after lodging formal FIR, he prepared injury statement of injured, then deceased, and deputed a Police Constable for getting him medically examined

If injury statement was prepared after registration of FIR at 12:50 p.m., presence of injured at THQ Hospital even at 11:55 a.m. was beyond one's comprehension and reacted against the truthfulness of contents of complaint and even the evidence of witnesses of ocular account qua the time of occurrence

As per the contents of complaint, deceased also sustained injuries on various parts of his head, claimed to have been caused by accused persons with butts of pistol, however, no injury whatsoever on head of deceased was noticed by Investigating Officer in injury statement

Similarly, as per complaint, complainant also sustained pistol butt blows on various parts of his body but no Medico-Legal Certificate was obtained to show the injuries

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

Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing hurt, rash and negligent act, itlaf-i-salahiyat-i-udw, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Ocular account and medical evidence

Contradictions

Accused were charged that they entered into the shop of complainant and made firing, due to which the complainant and a witness were hit and got injured

Prosecution's story in FIR was quite specific that an accused made a fire with 12-bore gun that hit on the legs of complainant

In addition thereto it was also alleged that complainant received injuries with the pistols butt and iron rod

Complainant was medically examined on the same day and surprisingly in his Medico-Legal Report although the Medical Officer observed ten injuries but none of those was the result of firearm

Medical Officer even in Court was firm in his opinion that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapons

In cross-examination the Medical Officer without any reservation responded that the injuries sustained by the injured could be sustained by falling on hard surface

In FIR it was alleged that two accused made firing and the fires hit on the mouth of injured

Same Medical Officer at the same time had also medically examined injured and issued Medico-Legal Report

According to Medical Officer injury No.1 was an entry wound on the lips whereas injury No.2 was an exit

Injury No.3 was loss of central incisor upper soft tissue whereas injury No.4 was swelling on centre of the nose, so it was not difficult to understand that apparently injuries Nos.2 to 4 were ultimate outcome of injury No.1

Medical Officer while facing the test of cross questioning about injuries No. 3 and 4 also replied that possibility could not be ruled out that injury No. 4 could be the result of falling or striking on hard/blunt surface

Injury No. 3 could also be the result of striking with blunt weapon

Thus, it could be finally held that there was only one firearm injury on the person of injured

Complainant neither at the stage of investigation nor during the process of trial made any attempt to challenge the opinions of Medical Officer with regard to kinds of weapon and even no request was made to the trial Court to declare the Medical Officer as hostile or seeking permission for his re-examination which meant that the prosecution had not disputed the opinions formed by the Medical Officer

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that accused allegedly kidnapped the minor son of complainant, committed unnatural offence and then murdered him

As per prosecution case, accused made judicial confession before Judicial Magistrate

Notably there were material contradictions in the prosecution case between the judicial confession made by the accused in the Court and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the prosecution witnesses

According to the judicial confession, the accused stated that he attempted to commit sodomy with minor deceased, whereas, as per statements of the witnesses of extra-judicial confession, the accused stated that he committed sodomy with the minor and thereafter, committed his murder

Further according to the statement made by the accused in his judicial confession, the mouth of the deceased was blocked by him with his hands due to which he died, whereas, according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses of extra-judicial confession, neck of the deceased was strangulated by the accused, whereas, according to the statement of witness, the accused, after strangulating the neck of minor deceased, drowned him in a water tub due to which he died but complainant did not state so in his statement recorded by the Trial Court and no such fact was mentioned by the accused in his judicial confession that after pressing the neck of minor deceased, he drowned him in a water tub

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that accused allegedly kidnapped the minor son of complainant, committed unnatural offence and then murdered him

In the judicial confession of the accused, it had been stated by the accused that after five days of the occurrence, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on his pointation

On the other hand, according to the prosecution case, the dead body of minor deceased was recovered on 02.10.2015, as stated by complainant, as well as by Investigating Officer and they did not state that the dead body was recovered on the pointation of the accused rather the accused had been implicated in the case through supplementary statement of the complainant on 30.03.2016, i.e., after more than six months of the occurrence

As per prosecution's own case, the dead body of minor was recovered on 02.10.2015, Investigating Officer

None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointation of the accused

Further no specific date or year of the occurrence had been mentioned in the judicial confession of the accused

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Though, complainant claimed himself as resident of house of occurrence as well as an eye-witness, yet close scrutiny of the record revealed that complainant in his statement and also during statement before the Court stated that accused fired consecutive shots with pistol upon his sister, which hit her on the bicep of left arm, front side of abdomen, left rib and right bicep but as per Post-mortem Examination Report, no entry wound on front of abdomen and no entry wound on left rib of the deceased was found

If eye-witnesses had themselves opted to narrate exact locale of the entry wounds in their statements and same was not confirmed by medical evidence, then no one else but prosecution had to suffer

So, ocular version deposed by complainant had not been supported/confirmed in stricto sensu by medical evidence

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Medical evidence ran contrary to the prosecution's case as according to the written application for registration of FIR submitted by complainant, his deceased son received two injuries at right thigh, two injuries at his chest and one injury at the abdomen and similarly three injuries on back

However, no injury was found existent at abdomen whereas injuries on chest as well as one injury on right thigh were exit wounds and said fact had been described by the Medical Officer

In that way, there was a material contradiction between the statements of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence

Thus, it was not safe to rely upon the statements of the eye-witnesses, in the peculiar circumstances of the case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence ran contrary to the prosecution's case, as according to complainant and mother of deceased, the accused made straight fire shot hitting deceased at her right cheek thereafter, he made repeated fire shots hitting at different parts of her body

Both the said witnesses failed to describe the specific seat of injuries except one injury and according to the medical evidence (post mortem report) the only specific injury described by the eye-witnesses on the right cheek of the deceased (injury No.2) was an exit wound

Moreover, Woman Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, during her cross-examination, had stated that direction of injury No. 1 was lower side to upward

Track/direction of injury Nos. 5 & 6 was also from downward to upward

Said glaring contradictions between the ocular version and the medical evidence had sufficiently established that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time

In such circumstances, the prosecution version with regard to ocular account seemed to be tainted, not confidence inspiring and result of due deliberations as well as consultations, hence the same could not be given any legal credence

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party

Prosecution story was that the accused made fire shot upon deceased from the roof of a house, while standing at balcony, whereas the deceased was standing on the ground

Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased during his cross-examination stated that entry and exit wound were on the same level of body and fire hitting the deceased had straight passed away

Keeping in view the situation, it was not possible that if a fire was made from upward to downward then the injury could be straight

Material contradiction existed between the ocular and medical evidence

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.

Contradic-tions minor in nature and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to affect the prosecution case and the conviction of the accused were of no consequence.

Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused in furtherance of common intention made firing upon the friends of the complainant, due to which one was died and other was injured

Did not attract a prudent mind that the victim who had received three bullets, two in his neck and one on his back, was in a position to stand up and see people who were firing and running away

Man injured in the back and neck could stand up was unbelievable

Not only the said circumstances rendered the evidence of the witness unfit and unreliable but the failure of the witness himself and the prosecution to produce any medical certificate confirming injuries, if any, to the injured witness rendered the entire incident and his injury unbelievable

Conviction and sentence of the accused could not be upheld, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Allegations against the accused were that he along with his co-accused duly armed with daggers in furtherance of their common intention stabbed dagger blows to deceased and committed his murder

Medical evidence showed that 23 injuries were caused to the deceased whereas as per "danishtnama" 18 injuries were found on the body of deceased

Such contradiction was fatal to the prosecution case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Cause of death had been opined by the doctor as Asphyxia (lack of the oxygen), but nothing had been mentioned in the report whether the cause of death was suicidal or homicidal

First Information Report showed that co-accused caused iron road on the head of deceased whereas no injury had been mentioned in the medical report on the neck and head of the deceased

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Story narrated by the Police Officials that during patrolling they received spy information that accused was committing murder of his wife by way of strangulation at the canal did not appeal to reason as to how a person would bring his wife on motorcycle to the canal for committing her murder in presence of the Police Officials

Said aspect of the prosecution case did not appeal to reason

Police could not establish that on receipt of spy information he along with subordinate staff went to the place of occurrence, in the normal course police party was not supposed to be present at the place of incident

Police officials had failed to offer cogent, convincing and believable explanation justifying their presence at canal

Police Officials had deposed that they had seen the accused who pulled the lady and threw her into the river but police could not rescue her as no one knew the swimming

Police Official/witness had deposed that they reached at Inspection Path of canal and saw that one person was throwing one female into the canal

Both the Police Officials had deposed that police had received information that the present accused was throttling a female at Inspection Path

Ocular evidence was contradictory to the medical evidence; in the case of strangulation, normally the death occurred instantaneously, but in the present case, the probable time as per Medical Officer that elapsed between death and injury was 1.1/2 hour

Said fact clearly showed that Police Officials had not witnessed the incident, otherwise Police Officials were bound to rescue the deceased

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the statements of the ocular witnesses were not in line with each other rather contradicted on material point

Such material contradictions, improvements, omission and discrepancies could not be overlooked

Medical evidence contradicted ocular account

Ocular witnesses stated that 2 or 3 bullets hit the deceased, while the Medico-Legal Certificate disclosed that only one bullet hit the deceased

Circumstances established that there was no solid or concrete evidence against the accused connecting them with the commission of offence

Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly acquitted the accused of the charge

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Medical evidence had given a big lie to the ocular account furnished by the eyewitnesses inasmuch as per Death Certificate

Besides the gunshot on the back side of the head near ear, 5 more pellets injuries had been found on the left hand of deceased which had not been explained by the eye-witnesses

According to the prosecution witnesses, accused, after placing his gun (Kalashnikov) on the temple of deceased made firing

Neither any exit wound nor any blackening was observed by the Medical Officer at the time of examination

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 that he hit the brother of complainant with a stone on his head, due to which he succumbed to the injuries

In the present case, the medical certificate showed that there was swelling on the right temporal region of scalp of the deceased

Medical Officer stated during cross-examination that there was no skin ruptured which meant that no injuries extended to the body cavity of the deceased and there was only swelling

In the medical certificate, the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned as head injuries and Cardiorespiratory failure

Cause of death of the deceased was doubtful as the medical certificate had also contradicted the ocular evidence of complainant who stated in his report that accused hit the head of deceased repeatedly with a stone

On the other hand, according to medical certificate, the deceased received only one injury i.e. swelling on right temporal region of scalp which also created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

Alleged stone was taken by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence but there was no sign of blood on the said stone

Circumstances established that conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused was against all canons of law

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Keeping in view the serious conditions of both the victims, it was not possible for them to cover a distance of 17/18 paces and let assume that they were in a position to move and they did so, then there must have been some trail of blood from point where they were hit and fallen whereafter receiving firearm injuries they had reached which was not the present case

Site plan did not corroborate the facts as narrated in the FIR

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved the case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Time of occurrence was shown to be midnight in between 3-4 April, 2013 in the FIR, while report was lodged on 04.04.2013 at 10.30 a.m.

Post-mortem was conducted by the doctor on 4.4.2013 at 11.00 a.m. and it had been mentioned in the post-mortem report that time between death and post-mortem was within 12-15 hours

Medical Officer admitted during cross-examination that death might have occurred at about 11.00 p.m. or 8.00 of even date

Said witness stated that it was not her personal opinion that death occurred in between 8.00 to 11.00 p.m. of 03.04.2013 but it was the biological changes in the body after the death which suggested the time of death

Medical evidence showed that the time of death was not the same as mentioned in the FIR

Said fact was further strengthened by the statement of Medical Officer, who mentioned time between death and post-mortem as 12-15 hours

So by calculation the time of death come at 11.00 p.m. at night, while at that time husband of the accused lady was with her, as such, in that peculiar situation how accused could murder the deceased lady, thus, the story narrated by complainant was highly doubtful and medical evidence totally negated the prosecution version

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

Appeal against acquittal being devoid of substance was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant

Claim of the prosecution was that the moment deceased entered the door of the kitchen/room, accused fired at him, therefore, direction of injury should be from downward to upward, but in the present case, position was otherwise i.e. vice-versa

Perusal of statement of Medical Officer showed that in the present case, injury was from upward to downward, therefore, medical evidence had not supported the ocular account, rather negated the same

Medical evidence and post-mortem report had also not been put to the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., therefore, could not be used against him

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove charge 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, in circumstances.

Record showed that the accused made fire shot upon deceased, which landed on her back but the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased, had described that injury as exit wound

Material contradiction existed between the ocular and medical evidence

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.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the wife of complainant and injuring the complainant by firing, who died later

Site plan of the place of occurrence showed that point No. 1 was the place where the lady deceased was alleged to be present and sustained firearm injury at the hands of accused, whereas, point No.3 was the place from were accused made fire shot upon lady deceased

Distance from point No.1 to point No.3 had been mentioned as fifteen feet, whereas, Women Medical Officer had noted blackening on one injury on the body of lady deceased, which was allegedly attributed to co-accused, thus, ocular account furnished by the eye-witness was not synchronized with the medical evidence which clearly contradicted the statements of the eye-witness

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing murder of seven years old daughter of her brother/complainant by inflicting iron pipe blow

Medical Officer during examination of the dead body found only one injury i.e., an abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm

As per prosecution case, the injury was caused with iron blow pipe but the Medical Officer in her cross-examination deposed that possibility of receiving the injury by fall could not be ruled out

Pattern of injury in the case was swelling on the right side of head with clinical fracture of right temporal, frontal and occipital bones about 2 cm from the right ear pinnae, which showed that right, front and back side of skull was involved in the injury which obviously could not be caused with an iron blow pipe used domestically to flame the fire

Such type of injury was regarded as coup or counter coup injury

Injury observed by the Medical Officer during post-mortem was subjacent to the area of impact and not perfectly opposite to it, thus, it could be regarded as coup injury and not a counter coup, but confusion persisted that an injury with iron blow pipe could cause a simultaneous fracture of temporal, frontal and occipital bones, obviously not

If injury was caused by fall then there must be a counter coup injury which was missing in the case

However, it was probably due to the reason that bones of child of that age were soft and elastical and injuries usually caused greenstick fractures, thus, there must be depressed fracture in the case but Medical Officer observed otherwise

Injury probably was sustained when head struck against a hard surface, i.e., by fall, yet from a considerable height

Investigating Officer didn't appear as witness to prove that there was hard surface at the place of occurrence

Hitting of blow pipe with force could not cause 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm injury, therefore, medical evidence contradicted the ocular which made the story of prosecution doubtful

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home guilt of the accused to the hilt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by the brother/ complainant and behnoi of the deceased being eye-witnesses

Both the eye-witnesses were not natural witnesses

Though, they claimed that they had seen the incident but had failed to explain one injury which was on the medial aspect of right thigh as it was exit wound

Both the eye-witnesses in their statements recorded during trial, had described that two injuries were sustained by the deceased by making dishonest improvements to bring the case of prosecution in line with the medical evidence

Said witnesses had specifically attributed that fire shots made by the accused landed on the right side below belly and near thigh joint of the deceased

Eye-witnesses lifted/shifted the deceased through Rescue 1122 and, thus, their clothes might have stained with blood but neither any such clothes were taken into possession nor produced during the investigation

Medical Officer held the autopsy and observed three injuries including two entry wounds and the other was exit of injury

During the cross-examination, the Medical Officer admitted that he observed no corresponding holes on the clothes of the deceased

Had he seen any hole, he would have definitely mentioned the same in post-mortem examination report

Statement of said witness further reflected that it was possible that fire shots strike the body of the deceased in naked condition

Medical evidence, therefore, contradicted the ocular account

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the daughter of the complainant by firing

According to the prosecution case, only one fire shot made by the accused landed on the right thigh of deceased but according to the medical evidence there was also an incised wound measuring 4 cm x 1.7 cm on the lower part of left leg and bone under the said injury was also exposed

Said injury had not been explained by any of the prosecution's witnesses

Circumstances established that the prosecution had 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, in circumstances.

Record showed that in the site plan one of the deceased received fire shot injuries from a distance of 05 karams; other deceased received firearm injuries from a distance of 06 karams; another deceased received fire shots from a distance of 8 karams, yet the medical evidence belied the prosecution version

Senior Medical Officer, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased persons, while appearing as witness noted blackening on the injuries sustained by the deceased persons

Blackening occurred when a shot was fired from a distance of 6 to 12 inches and vanished if the distance was more than three feet

Medical evidence being in direct conflict with the ocular evidence, it was also not safe to rely on the statements of the eye-witnesses, in circumstances

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In cross-examination, said Medical Officer admitted that blackening was caused as a result of fire shot when the victim was at a three feet distance from the assailant

Complainant facing the challenge of cross-questioning categorically replied that the distance between his father and assailant was 2½ karams when his father received the fire shot

Admittedly, 2½ karams meant fourteen feet

In scaled site plan the distance between deceased and accused had been mentioned as three karams at the time of firing. which was not disputed as 16.5 feet

Serious contrast existed in medical and ocular account of the case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

According to the witness of last seen evidence, they along with the deceased visited the house of accused, whereas, Medical Officer who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased, during cross-examination deposed that possibility could not be ruled out that as per condition of the deceased the time between death and post mortem might be five to seven days

If the opinion of Medical Officer was taken into consideration then the deceased was already done to death prior to the date when said witness had lastly seen him in the company of the accused

Keeping in view the said factors, the last seen evidence adduced by the prosecution was nothing but a cosmetic baseline manufactured by the prosecution just to knit the net around the neck of the accused after recovery of the dead body of deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had 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.

Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy of the dead-body of deceased, noted four firearm injuries on the person of deceased including two entry wounds on head near left ear and back of right side of chest

Medical Officer also noted two exit wounds on back and right side of head as well as on front and left side of the chest below left nipple

Admittedly, injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem-examination-report had not been explained by the complainant in the FIR

Two eye-witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court improved the prosecution story qua injury on ribs allegedly sustained by accused

Ocular account was in direct conflict with the medical evidence and that the evidence furnished by the said three eye-witnesses was shaky in nature and could not be relied upon for maintaining the conviction/sentence of the accused

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.