Motive unproved

2020 SCMR 287 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inSentence of death converted into imprisonment for lifeSingle fire shotMotive unprovedCo-accused with similar role acquitted due to compromiseOnly a single fire on the person of deceased was attributed to the accusedAdmittedly the accused did not repeat the fire shot

Specific motive was alleged by the prosecution inasmuch as some time prior to present occurrence, the accused party had taken over the possession of an area of the bus stand and friction between the parties persisted

On account of such friction, the accused side in order to occupy other areas of the bus stand allegedly committed the occurrence

High Court had not given any definite finding qua the motive behind the occurrence

Record did not provide any detail as to when the accused side, on the previous occasion, took possession of an area of the bus stand; whether the complainant side had reported that matter to police; and, what were the other areas of the bus stand, that the accused side allegedly wanted to take possession of

No independent piece of evidence had been produced by the prosecution during trial to substantiate such claim qua motive

Moreover, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory qua rifle recovered from the accused was only to the effect that said weapon was in working condition, as such, the same could not be of much help for the prosecution

Two co-accused persons who were ascribed a similar and active role as the accused during the occurrence, were acquitted on the basis of compromise

All said circumstances justified reduction in the quantum of sentence of the accused from death to imprisonment for life

Conviction of accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained, however his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was disposed of.

2018 SCMR 354 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionReappraisal of evidenceDeath sentence reduced to imprisonment for lifeMitigating circumstancesMotive unprovedMotive set up by the prosecution was quite weak and it had not even been proved

According to the prosecution about 6/7 years prior to the present occurrence the accused party had suspected that deceased had murdered one of their relatives and despite taking of an oath by deceased on the Holy Quran maintaining his innocence in the matter the accused party did not feel satisfied

During the ensuing 6/7 years no untoward incident had taken place between the parties

Alleged motive was only based upon a suspicion which too stood removed through an oath on the Holy Quran taken by the deceased

No independent evidence was available on the record that the grudge against the deceased still continued unabated

Furthermore nothing had been recovered from the custody of accused and although a firearm had allegedly been recovered from the custody of co-accused during the investigation yet the record of the case showed that the crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of co-accused which factor denuded the alleged recovery of its evidentiary worth

According to the prosecution four accused persons including the present accused had effectively fired at the deceased on different parts of his body and the statement made by the concerned doctor showed that no particular injury sustained by the deceased had been declared by the doctor to be fatal

Question as to which of the culprits had caused the fatal injury to the deceased remained unclear

Sentences of death passed against the accused persons were reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

2017 SCMR 1468 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubtMotive unprovedChance and related eye-witnesses

Both the alleged eye-witnesses were very closely related to the deceased inasmuch as one of them was a brother of the deceased and the other an uncle

Both the said eye-witnesses were also chance witnesses as they lived about three miles away from the scene of the crime, and they had advanced no reason whatsoever before the Trial Court explaining as to why they were present at the spot at the relevant time

Such related and chance witnesses who did not explain any particular reason for their availability at the scene of the crime could not readily be believed and this was more so when they did not receive any independent corroboration

Alleged motive for the occurrence was that prior to the incident the deceased-lady had abused and insulted the accused for teasing her

Such alleged motive set up by the prosecution was not proved, and with the failure of the prosecution to prove the same there was no reason left with the accused to do away with the deceased-lady

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of its case were nothing but planted and procured witnesses

Conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2017 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubtCase based on testimony of solitary and chance witnessMotive unprovedDelay in conducting post-mortem examinationAccused was alleged to have murdered his wife and minor children inside his house

Trial Court convicted the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C and sentenced him to death, which sentence was upheld by the High Court

Validity

According to the prosecution the incident in issue had been witnessed by the complainant and two other witnesses

During trial said two witnesses had been given up by the prosecution as having been won over as they had refused to support the prosecution's case against the accused

Solitary eye-witness deposing before the Trial Court was the complainant who was not only the father of accused's wife but was also admittedly a chance witness who had come to the place of occurrence from a district situated more than 200 miles away from the scene of the crime

Stated reason for visit of the complainant to the spot had never been substantiated or established before the Trial Court through any independent evidence

Evidence produced before Trial Court showed that on the day of occurrence complainant was at his place of work in another city

Contents of the FIR lodged by the complainant also showed that he admitted working as a regular employee in another city and he had never claimed that on the day of occurrence he was on leave from work

Motive set up by the prosecution was never established through any independent evidence

Alleged recovery of a hatchet from the possession of accused during the investigation was unbelievable as the said hatchet had statedly been recovered from an open field belonging to somebody else and the investigating officer had conceded before the Trial Court that at the time of its recovery the hatchet was not stained with blood

Medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution for the simple reason that post-mortem examination of the deadbodies had been conducted after more than 17 hours of the alleged occurrence

Delay in conducting post-mortem examination of the deadbodies indicated that time had been consumed by the complainant party and the police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution

Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Accused was acquitted of the charge of murder by extending the benefit of doubt to him

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 SCMR 210 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceDeath sentence reduced to life imprisonmentMotive unprovedTime period spent in death cell more than period of life imprisonmentAccused was sentenced to death for killing the deceased over a petty quarrel

Evidence available on record did establish that accused had fired at the deceased, however, no one had witnessed the incident of quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to the murder, thus, motive remained unproved

Furthermore accused had been in death cell for a period which was more than a sentence for life imprisonment

Supreme Court after observing that combination of said two factors attracted the principle laid down in the cases of Hassan and others v. The State and others (PLD 2013 SC 793), Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCMR 1582) and Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu and others v. The State (2014 SCMR 1034), maintained conviction of accused but reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment

Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

2015 SCMR 1142 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceMotive unprovedCase of marriage without consent

Motive set up by the prosecution was that deceased had married daudgher of co-accused without his consent, therefore, five to six years after the marriage, deceased was allegedly murdered on the instigation of the co-accused

Prosecution had not alleged that daughter of co-accused was abducted or she had eloped with the deceased 5/6 years prior to the occurrence

Motive set up by the prosecution was not only sketchy, shaky and feeble but also not believable because during the long period of 5/6 years no unpleasant incident took place between the parties and no criminal case was registered

According to the motive set up by prosecution revenge should have been taken at the very beginning (of the marriage)

After the deceased and his wife were blessed with a son and a daughter, it did not seem plausible, as to why co-accused decided to ruin the life of his own daughter at such belated stage, rendering his grandchildren orphans and his daughter a widow

Wife of deceased was also withheld from the court and she was not cited as a witness to substantiate the motive set up by the prosecution

Motive in the present case was not established in a fair and legal manner

Appeal was allowed accordingly and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder.

2013 SCMR 782 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-e-amdReappraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inConversion of death sentence into imprisonment for lifeMotive unprovedAccused acting under the influence of co-accused (i.e. his father)Non-attribution of fatal injuriesEffectAccused and co-accused persons allegedly killed the deceased by inflicting knife blows upon him

Alleged motive for the occurrence was a quarrel/altercation between the parties which took place few months prior to the occurrence

Trial Court convicted accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death

High Court maintained conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court

Validity

Motive was not proved by any evidence and one of the prosecution witnesses admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know the reason which led to the quarrel between the parties few months prior to the occurrence

Evidence suggested that at the time of the occurrence accused was young man of 21 years of age who acted under the influence of his co-accused father, who raised the lalkara that deceased should be killed, whereafter accused and other co-accused launched the attack

None of the fatal injuries were attributed to the accused

Prosecution case was found to be false qua two co-accused persons, who were acquitted

Sentence of death awarded to accused was converted into life imprisonment in circumstances

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 1300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtConcocted storyMotive unprovedMedical evidence contradicting ocular accountDelay in recording F.I.R.Delay in conducting post-mortem of deceasedRelated and unnatural witnessesEffect

Complainant alleged that 5 to 6 days prior to the occurrence accused and deceased had a quarrel; that on the day of the occurrence accused came to the house of deceased, while armed, and took him away on the pretext of attending a marriage, whereafter prosecution witnesses followed the accused and saw him firing at the deceased

Trial Court convicted accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death

Validity

According to the complainant accused and deceased had quarrelled prior to the incident, then it was not understandable why the deceased accompanied the accused, who was allegedly armed at the time, and even the witnesses did not bother to stop him

Assuming that relations between accused and deceased had become cordial and dispute between them had been patched up, then there was no need for prosecution witnesses to follow the accused

Eye-witnesses followed the accused and allegedly watched him murder the deceased whereafter they immediately came back to inform the complainant, but no one considered it appropriate to inform the police and rather chose to search for the dead body of deceased

Complainant alleged that they searched for deceased's body the whole night, however site plan showed that place of alleged occurrence, which was seen by the prosecution witnesses, and the place from where dead body was recovered, were not far apart, therefore, complainant must have located the body within a short span of time

Since F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 12 hours, it was clear that dead body was found by the complainant without much delay, whereafter the whole story was concocted and reported to the police

Post-mortem was conducted 22 hours after the incident, without any explanation for such delay

One of the injuries on the deceased was blackish and according to the doctor the same was a result of fire made from close range, whereas prosecution story indicated that firing was made from a distance of 144 feet

Even otherwise F.I.R. was registered after recovery of dead body and as such seat of injuries was in the knowledge of the complainant so the medical evidence was of no help to the prosecution case

No crime empties were found at or around the place of occurrence

All prosecution witnesses were closely related and not independent or unconcerned witnesses

Possibility of occurrence being unseen could not be ruled out

Prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

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