Belated recovery

2020 YLR 1522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdRecovery of weaponBelated recoveryScopeAccused was alleged to have murdered the deceased by inflicting dagger blow

Recovery of dagger at the instance of accused was immaterial because it was effected after about six months of the incident and it was not expected from the accused to keep such weapon because during such period he had ample time to destroy the weapon

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 783 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 164Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceVideo filmProofBelated recoveryEffect

Trial Court relied upon Close Circuit Television (CCTV) film and recovery of weapon and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life

Validity

Mere producing of CCTV video as piece of evidence and its watching in open court was not sufficient to be relied upon unless and until corroborated and proved to be genuine

As a proof of genuineness of such CCTV video, it was incumbent upon prosecution to examine the person who recorded the video to testify the same, which requirement, prosecution failed to fulfil

Prosecution even failed to point out the source of providing CCTV video

Investigating officer who received CCTV video stated in his evidence that he received it from a person who did not want to disclose his name or identity being a man of some surveillance

Investigating officer admitted that nothing was visible and identifiable in the video as such the CCTV was not reliable piece of evidence

Recovery of weapon was effected after 6 months of the incident and 4 days after arrest of accused

Weapon along with empties recovered from place of scene was sent after 4 months and 10 months of respective recoveries to forensic division for examination and no explanation was forthcoming from prosecution as to where the empties and crime weapon remained lying for such a long period

Such evidence had no sanctity and no reliance could be placed on such recovery

Mere recovery of crime weapon was not enough proof to connect accused with commission of offence, when there was no ocular as well as circumstantial evidence

Prosecution failed to establish charge of murder of deceased against accused without any shadow of reasonable doubt

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.