Site plan

Site plan in any case is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to contradict ocular account.

Record told that the accused/appellants, at the time of incident, were present at a distance of 24 feet from the complainant party and the complainant and the eye-witness were at a distance of less than 05 feet from the deceased

It was for the prosecution to establish that when the assailants were present at a shorter distance, duly armed with sophisticated weapons, what precluded them from killing the complainant and the eye-witness as well, despite the fact that the eye-witness was the prime target

Both the complainant and the eye-witness admitted that the accused/appellants fired at them 10/15 fire shots respectively, but they escaped unhurt

When the accused/appellants had the intention to kill the complainant and the eye-witness as well, and when 30 fire shots in all were made on them, then how the witnesses escaped unhurt despite the fact that there was no shelter available to them and they did not opt to take shelter

Site plan further told and it was so admitted by the Investigating Officer that the complainant and the eye-witness, at the time of incident, were present at the place of incident well within the firing range of the accused/appellants, but even then, they did not receive a single firearm injury

Manner in which the fire was made and the distance between the assailants and the complainant party had created dents in the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Although site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence but it reflects the view of crime scene and the same can be used to contradict or disbelieve the eye-witnesses.

Although, site plan can never be considered as substantive piece of evidence but its importance cannot be denied to determine the locations of the incident as well as the position of the witnesses particularly in those matters, where presence or otherwise of the witnesses has been challenged.

Site plan is not a substantial piece of evidence and cannot be given preference over the direct account furnished by the witnesses.

Statement of prosecution witnesses of the ocular account contradictory to the site plan qua the inter-se distance between the accused and the victim

Preference

Statements of prosecution witnesses would have precedence over the site plan in such circumstances

Even otherwise, site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence having no legal sanctity

Purpose behind the preparation of site plan is to explain or give a glimpse of the occurrence in black and white enabling the concerned to appreciate the facts of the case in a more rational way.

Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence to be used to contradict or counter the ocular account and cannot be given preference over the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses .

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

Site plan showed that deceased was shown at down the metalled road and the Investigating Officer recovered blood stained earth from there

If the deceased was riding a motorcycle, then instead of driving on the metalled road, he would have not selected unpaved path to drive on

Situation helped in making an opinion that the deceased was on foot

Investigating Officer stated that on arrival to the spot during spot inspection, he took into possession blood-stained earth, three empties of .30 bore along with a motorcycle belonging to the deceased

In the same breath Investigating Officer stated that he revisited the spot on the next day of the incident and photography was made

Interesting to note that while making snap shots on the following day of occurrence, the motorcycle was shown standing there with the same registration number, left by the deceased

Prosecution was to tell that when Investigating Officer had already taken into possession the motorcycle on the day of incident, then instead of having been parked in the concerned Police Station, who brought it to the spot and for what purpose

Said fact indicated that at the time and on the day of incident the deceased was not riding on a motorcycle

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the marginal witnesses to the site plan had not been produced by the prosecution and as such venue of the spot was not proved to corroborate what has been alleged in the FIR and deposed before the court by eye-witness

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.

Site plan is not substantive piece of evidence but being first reflector of spot as pointed out by eye-witnesses, furnishes view of occurrence to scrutinize evidence tendered at Trial Court by prosecution witnesses.

Allegation against the accused was that he made firing upon complainant and his cousin, due to which, the cousin of complainant died while complainant escaped unhurt

Record revealed that, it was yet to know, as to whether the site plan was prepared on the night of incident or on the following day

Record showed that it was suggested to the Investigating Officer that he visited the spot in the morning on the following day, to which he denied

Complainant stated that it was on his pointation on the night of incident that the site plan was prepared

Investigating Officer again visited the spot at 7:00 a.m. in the morning, but he failed to convince the purpose of his visit when he had already completed the proceedings in the night of incident

Fact that the site plan was not prepared during the night of incident, but early in the morning seemed to be confirmed

Complainant, when denied his second visit, it could safely be held that the site plan was not prepared on the pointation of the complainant, which in turn excluded his presence on the spot

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

No point had been allotted to the house of accused in the site plan, whereas the house of accused and that of the person where bulb was lit had been shown opposite to each other of the thoroughfare

Investigating Officer had not given distance between point, where the bulb was lit, and where the complainant and eye-witness had been shown respectively

Distance between points allotted to accused and witnesses respectively had been shown as 13/14 paces respectively, whereas the distance between the house of the accused and place of occurrence had been mentioned as 35 paces

When the same was added with the distance of complainant and accused i.e. 13/14 paces, that came 48/49 paces (140 feet)

From such a long distance recognition of accused was not possible

Complainant during cross-examination stated that the distance between the spot and that of his house might be 250/300 paces

Neither house of complainant nor such distance had been shown in the site plan by the Investigating Officer, which was prepared at his instance

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case in the mode and manner as alleged

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Eye-witness could not be discredited based on the contents of scaled site plan but if it was proved that the site plan was prepared under his directions, it would attain credibility and could be used by the court for ascertaining the existence or non-existence of any aspect/fact.

Motive alleged was that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant and on demand for its return, accused was insulted by deceased

Prosecution's case was that deceased was present at crime scene on his rickshaw

Said rickshaw was not produced by the complainant during investigation

Even its documents were not placed for consideration before the Investigating Officer

Investigating Officer in cross-examination specifically replied that he had not shown any rickshaw in rough site plan

Same position was there in the scaled site plan

Circumstances always played an important role in corroboration to the ocular account, however, it was not the case of prosecution that someone had taken the rickshaw from there, so the question was unanswered that where that rickshaw was

Said fact had also created serious dents in prosecution's story

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 were charged for committing murder of brother, sister and sister-in-law of the complainant by firing and also caused injuries to his mother

Defence objected that the distance mentioned in site plan did not correspond with the distance as mentioned in medical evidence

Site plan is prepared after the incident on the recalling of facts by any of the eye-witnesses or by the complainant, as the case may be, which might have created certain discrepancies as it was very difficult to suggest in such type of incident, in which events had been changed on a spur of moment

When both of the families and a number of people were fighting in open area, therefore, Court had to take the commonality of facts narrated by the eye-witnesses in their statements

Eye-witnesses remained consistent, even the eye-witnesses had not been cross-examined with particularity by the defence witness, which was otherwise suggestive of the fact that incident had been acknowledged and admitted in the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, due to some mitigating factors, death sentence was converted into life imprisonment.

Site plan was not a substantive part of evidence, but being a corroboratory piece of evidence, was confirmatory in nature for lending support to an ocular account of the occurrence

Mere omission to mention the position of eye-witness in a site-plan was not fatal to the prosecution case.

Omission to indicate position of eye-witnesses in the site plan could not lead to inference of such witnesses being not present

Site plan is not substantive piece of evidence, therefore, mere omission to mention the position of eye-witnesses in the site map is not fatal to the prosecution case.

Mere omission of the position of eye-witnesses in the site plan will not taint the prosecution case.

Investigating Officer prepared the site plan on pointation of the witnesses with specific points assigned to either side

Inter-se distance between the complainant, the deceased and the assailants had been given as 40/45 paces and from such a long distance it was hard for the accused to select the target, rather their prime target should have been the complainant

Site plan belied the stance of the complainant

Had the complainant been present he would not have escaped unhurt, as he was within the firing range of the accused

Said aspect of the case dispelled the impression that the accused were interested in killing the deceased, as the motive was with the complainant

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing murder of mother and sister-in-law of the complainant on the instigation of co-accused

Record showed that in the site plan, there were rivulet/water channel and pathway on the northern side of the field where the occurrence took place

In the north side of the said channel there was field in which the maize crop was grown

Houses of accused were situated in the north side of the said field

Movement of the sheep and goats of the accused from their house and reaching to the field of complainant, avoiding the intervening maize field for grazing and thereafter crossing the water channel and path, appeared to be a concocted story

Circumstances established that the prosecution case was full of various inconsistencies of glaring nature which were sufficient to create several reasonable doubts in prudent mind qua the guilt of the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Site plan is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence.

Site plan was never considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor any benefit may be extracted therefrom unless the witnesses were duly confronted with the purported anomaly or discrepancy therein.

Mere omission to mention the position of eye-witnesses in the site plan is not fatal to the prosecution case.

Such being a panoramic view of the crime scene based on the observations of the Investigating Officer could be considered for the purpose of appreciating evidence.

Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which fourteen persons died including two passerby and fifteen were injured

In the present case, admittedly, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by the Investigating Officer in absence of the witnesses of ocular account and that when the draftsman took rough notes from the spot none of the witnesses of ocular account was present there though the complainant was shown available

Record, in circumstances, proved that the site plans were prepared in absence of the eye witnesses and, thus, it could not be taken into account against the prosecution.

Statement of Medical Officer did not find the presence of any blackening on any of the four entry wounds which were to be there if the distance of fire was as short as suggested by the eye-witnesses.

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence.

Scaled site plan was available on record and was a more detailed version of rough site plan prepared by investigating officer

Rough site plan contradicted the facts narrated in complaint as well as the ocular account described by prosecution witnesses

No objection was raised from the side of accused in the context of rough site plan

Un-scaled plan showed place of receiving injuries by deceased and where scuffle took place as distinct,and thus contradicted testimonies of prosecution witnesses where scuffle was shown to have taken place was at a considerable distance the nature of injuries i.e. blackening was also not satisfactorily corroborated

Proof beyond reasonable doubt was to be based on reasons and common sense, which had to be logically based on evidence or lack of evidence

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by extending him benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence, and could not be given preference over straight forward, natural and convincing evidence.

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence, and could not be used to contradict or discard the unchallenged ocular testimony

Only purpose to prepare the site plan, was to appreciate or explain the evidence on the record and could not be given preference over direct evidence of credible witness.

Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence, but corroborative piece of evidence and its non-preparation by no means dilutes the whole version of the prosecution.

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence, it could be used to contradict or discredit the evidence of eye-witness

Site plan being first reflection of the spot would furnish a panoramic view of the occurrence to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses tendered at the trial.

Such evidence can be used to contradict or disbelieve eye-witnesses.

Site plan consist of two portions; one prepared by investigation officer on pointation of eye-witnesses which was reproduction of statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and the other was based on observations of the investigation officer.

Site plan was not a substantive piece of evidence.

Site plan, no doubt was not a substantive piece of evidence, but being the first reflection of the spot indicated or pointed out by the eye-witnesses, would furnish a panoramic view of the occurrence to scrutinize the evidence, tendered at the trial by the prosecution witnesses.

Site plan, no doubt was not a substantive piece of evidence, but being the first reflection of the spot, indicated or pointed out by the eye-witnesses, would furnish a panoramic view of the occurrence to scrutinize the evidence tendered at the trial by the prosecution witnesses.

Site plan was not a substantive document to be used to contradict the ocular account, and could not be given preference over the direct evidence of truthful eye-witness of the occurrence.

Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence in terms of Art.22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.