Probability of false implication

2026 PCrLJ 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)Possession of unlicensed weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtEnmity provedProbability of false implication

Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C

Perusal of record reflected that during trial in main case, it was admitted by complainant and witness in cross-examination that father of co-accused had already lodged FIR under S.302,P.P.C., against the father of complainant regarding the murder of his son, therefore, appellant and co-accused were falsely implicated in main case which created serious doubt into the veracity of prosecution case

Hence, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the accused and they were acquitted of the charge by Trial Court

In view of such background of standing enmity, false implication of present appellant in the present case by police at the behest of complainant party of main case could not be ruled out

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2024 SCMR 1731 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceDelay in lodging FIR not plausibly explainedProbability of false implicationCo-accused persons acquitted on the same set of evidenceRule of consistency, applicability ofComplainant did not explain the delay in taking the dead body from the scene of the occurrence to the hospital

Besides, the time of death mentioned by the complainant in the FIR is 7.30 a.m., but the FIR was registered after a delay of more than two hours, without any explanation in this behalf, therefore, there was a probability of consultation and deliberations before reporting the matter to the police by the complainant

Under such circumstances, false involvement of the petitioner in the case could not be ruled out

Besides, in the postmortem report, the doctor opined that the cause of death was excessive loss of blood and haemorrhagic shock as a result of four injuries

These injuries were assigned by the complainant jointly to all the accused persons

It was a fact that except the petitioner, rest of the accused were acquitted of the charge by the High Court and one of them by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence

Complainant has ascribed injuries jointly to all the accused and did not single out the petitioner

Under such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold him alone responsible for causing death of the deceased

Role of the petitioner was similar to that of the other co-accused, therefore, he was also entitled for equal treatment, hence, deserved the benefit of doubt

There were also a number of flaws and contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which created doubts in the prosecution story

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into and appeal and allowed, and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was set-aside.

2024 SCMR 1507 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceContradictions in evidence of eye-witnessesMotive not provedIndependent eye-witness withheldProbability of false implication

There were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of both the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence

Alleged motive for the murder of deceased was illicit relations between his wife (appellant "N") and appellant "M"

One of the alleged eye-witnesses did not support the allegation of an illicit relationship between the appellants, nor did he utter a single word regarding this during his examination as a witness

More importantly, during his lifetime, the deceased did not file any complaint with the police against the appellant "M" or take any action against his wife (appellant "N"), for having an illicit relationship with appellant "M"

Nor did appellant "N" file any suit for dissolution of marriage against the deceased, which would be a natural outcome in such a situation

Thus, the allegation of an illicit relationship between the appellants, as levelled by the prosecution, was without merit

Prosecution had an independent eye-witness, however, it did not produce him

Prosecution withheld the best evidence, which undermined the credibility of its account

Furthermore, the alleged occurrence took place in daylight in a populated area; however, no one from the locality came forward to support the story of the prosecution

Star witness of the prosecution acknowledged that the complainant had not given the deceased his share of the inheritance from the property left by their father

Additionally, it was revealed that the deceased's wife i.e. appellant "N" used to pressure her deceased husband to demand his rightful share of the inheritance from the complainant

In this view of the matter, the possibility of false implication of appellants could not be ruled out

Fact that the deceased was being urged by his wife to assert his inheritance rights suggests a potential motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the appellants

Appellant "N" and the deceased had four children, and the elder daughter was 10 to 12 years of age at the time of the occurrence

She was alleged by the appellant "N" to be present at the time of the occurrence

She would have been able to give rational answers to questions posed to her; however, she was not interrogated by the investigating officer in respect of the occurrence

Appeals were allowed, and both the appellants were acquitted of the charge.

2022 PCrLJ 170 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 147, 149 & 337-L(2)Murderous assaultAd interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation ofNo specific injury attributedProbability of false implication

First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the delay of almost 3 days and no explanation for such inordinate delay had been brought on record

Narration of FIR and evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before High Court showed no specific injury was attributed to the accused rather collective role had been assigned to him

Question as to whether the accused participated in the occurrence in the manner as mentioned in the crime report as well as culpability of the accused were issues, which could best be settled after recording of evidence

Prima facie, the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence and chances of his false implication with deliberation after consultation could not be ruled out

Moreover accused had joined investigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending the accused behind bars

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

2016 SCMR 1593 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 109Qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly and abetmentBail, grant ofFurther inquiryPrevious enmityProbability of false implication

Admittedly both the accused persons were empty-handed during the incident in issue and they had not caused any injury to any person

Accused persons were elders of their co-accused who had fired at the deceased and there was a background of enmity between the parties based upon a previous murder

In such backdrop spreading the net wide by the complainant party so as to falsely entangle the accused persons in the present criminal case appeared to be a possibility which could not safely be ruled out

Investigation of the case had already been finalized, and challan had been submitted

Trial had commenced and statements of many prosecution witnesses had been recorded and, thus, physical custody of the accused persons was no longer required and their continued incarceration was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose

Case against the accused persons called for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused persons were admitted to bail accordingly.

2014 SCMR 749 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 307 & 34Qatl-e-amd, common intentionReappraisal of evidenceIndependent witnesses abandonedContradictions between statements of prosecution witnessesPrevious enmityProbability of false implicationWidened net of implication to rope in more accused personsInjuries not corroborating statements of injured witnessesEffect

Accused and co-accused persons were alleged to have launched an attack on complainant party which resulted in death of two persons and caused injuries to two victims

Trial Court awarded death sentence to two accused persons, while two other accused were sentenced to life imprisonment

Nine co-accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court

High Court acquitted all accused and co-accused persons

Validity

Witnesses whose testimony could have been independent had been abandoned by the prosecution

Real brother of the complainant who was examined as a prosecution witness denied that the occurrence was witnessed by the complainant, and thereby contradicted other prosecution witnesses who stated that complainant had in fact witnessed the occurrence

Contradictions existed between F.I.R. and evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding nature of weapon used by accused persons during the occurrence

According to the F.I.R. as many as seventeen (17) persons were charged but effective shots had been attributed to four, but according to the statements of prosecution witnesses effective shots had been attributed to five accused persons

Allegedly all the assailants were standing close to each other and so were the victims, thus it was humanly impossible to discern who fired the shot and whose shot hit the deceased or the injured particularly in a situation which was reigned by panic and pandemonium

Number of assailants in the circumstances of the case appeared to have been exaggerated

Seemingly most of the accused persons had been charged because of previous enmity

Incident might have been enacted by two of the accused persons because one of the deceased was alleged to have illicit relations with their sister, but other accused and co-accused who had no visible nexus with such part of the story had also been roped in

Acquittal of co-accused persons was not challenged with seriousness either before the High Court or the Supreme Court

Firearm entry wound found on the person of one of the prosecution witnesses caused by a shot fired from a distance of 13 feet was accompanied by blackening, which was not possible beyond 3 feet, especially when it had never been the case of prosecution witnesses that any of the assailants fired from a close or contact range

Prosecution version was full of doubts from whatever angle it was looked at

Judgment of acquittal passed by High Court did not warrant any interference in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2014 PLD 241 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 426Suspension of sentenceGroundsEnmity between partiesProbability of false implication

Existence of enmity between the parties and a possibility of false implication of the accused on the basis of such enmity was a factor which could only be attended to and appreciated by the Appellate Court after a detailed assessment of the evidence at the time of hearing of the main appeal and certainly not at the time of deciding an application seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal

Illustration.

2014 YLR 2284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 201, 202, 148, 149

Qatl-e-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, intentional omission to give information of offence by a person bound to inform, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Probability of false implication

No independent witnesses

Different versions of the same occurrence

Rule of consistency

Effect

Dead body of deceased-lady was found from the house of the accused, who was her real uncle

Two sisters of deceased were already residing with the accused

Deceased had allegedly also received firearm injuries but no one from the locality neighbourhood came forward to depose about the occurrence, thus there was no independent witness

Inimical terms between the parties were admitted, hence false implication of accused could not be ruled out

Three versions of the occurrence were put forward, one by the accused side, one by the complainant side and one by the investigation officer

Question as to which version was correct was to be answered by the Trial Court

Co-accused had already been released on bail, and she was alleged the same role as the accused

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2013 YLR 2746 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 148 &149Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assemblyBail, grant ofFurther inquiryProbability of false implicationIdentification of accused in light of bulb doubtfulRule of consistencyAccused and his four brothers (i.e. co-accused persons) allegedly fired at the complainant and his father

Complainant allegedly identified accused in the light of bulb at the relevant time but neither in the site plan was there any mention of said bulb on the spot nor the same had been taken into possession by the investigating officer

Although accused and his four brothers allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant and his father, who were at their mercy, but the complainant received only one firearm injury on his right leg and the father escaped unhurt

Such circumstances called for further inquiry particularly when the possibility of false implication of accused and his brothers in view of tendency of people to throw a wide net of implication could not be ruled out

Brothers of accused had already been released on bail

Accused was also granted bail in circumstances.

2013 MLD 843 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149/109Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetmentBail, grant ofFurther inquiryGeneral/collective allegationNon-attribution of any specific injuryEnmity between parties admittedProbability of false implicationEffect

Accused and co-accused persons allegedly launched an attack on the complainant party, which resulted in death of complainant's son

Although F.I.R. was promptly lodged but no specific or particular injury on the person of the deceased had been attributed to accused

Only general and collective allegation of causing fire shot injuries had been levelled against accused

Successive investigations revealed that accused did not cause any injury to the deceased and he was only present at the spot without any weapon

Enmity between parties was admitted

Involvement of accused on account of malice and afterthought of the complainant party could not be ruled put

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

2013 YLR 1241 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)Possession of narcoticBail, grant ofBorder line caseProbability of false implicationDelay in sending samples for examinationEffectPolice allegedly apprehended accused while on patrol duty and found him in possession of 1250 grams of charas

During investigation 1250 grams of charas was sent to chemical examiner for report but chemical examiner received only 1200 grams

Such discrepancy of 50 grams had not been explained by the prosecution

Prima facie, it was yet to be determined at trial, whether offence fell under S. 9(b) or 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Present case was a border-line case

All prosecution witnesses were police officials, thus there was no question of accused tampering with the evidence

Contraband material was sent to the office of chemical examiner six days after registration of the case

Constitutional petition had also been filed against police officials by a relative of the accused

False implication of accused could not be ruled out

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2013 MLD 1645 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34Qatl-e-amd, common intentionBail, grant ofWeapon not used during occurrencePrevious enmityProbability of false implicationNon-association of independent witness during arrestEffect

Accused was allegedly holding a hatchet in his hand during the occurrence in which deceased was killed by firing made by a co-accused

Although name of accused transpired in the F.I.R. but he did not use his hatchet at the time of incident

No independent witness was associated as mashir during arrest of accused

Accused was in jail for a period of more than one year

Enmity between parties was admitted, therefore, false implication of accused could not be ruled out

No sufficient grounds existed for holding that accused had committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2013 MLD 1145 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498 & 498-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 114, 504 & 506

Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, abettor present when offence committed, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation

Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Accused persons related inter se

Enmity between parties admitted

Probability of false implication

Effect

Accused persons were alleged to have caused lathi blows to the complainant party during the occurrence

Accused persons were brothers inter-se

Offence alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Enmity between the parties was admitted in the F.I.R.

Large number of persons were involved in the case

Mala fide was apparent on the record

Prima facie, false implication of accused persons could not be ruled out

Accused persons were students and in case they were remanded to jail, not only their studies would suffer but they would also have to face humiliation and unjustified harassment

Abscondence of accused persons for a short period was not sufficient to disentitle them from concession of bail, when otherwise they were entitled for bail

Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed in circumstances.