Daylight occurrence

2023 SCMR 795 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidencePre-meditated murderPromptly lodged FIRDaylight occurrenceIndependent witnessesMedical evidence corroborating ocular accountMotive provedPositive report of Forensic Science LaboratoryConfession of guilt before MagistrateIn the present case, the crime report was lodged in the Casualty Ward of DHQ Hospital within an hour of the occurrence

Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7 kilometers whereas the distance between Police Station and DHQ Hospital, was 7.7 kilometers

Thus, it could be safely said that FIR was lodged with promptitude

Promptness of FIR, prima facie, showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation

Occurrence took place in the broad day light and the parties were known to each, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification

Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and two court bailiffs

Said bailiffs of the Family Court were independent witnesses who went to the house of the accused in compliance with a decree passed by the Family Court

Witnesses of ocular account were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record

Said witnesses had given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence

Counsel for the accused could not point out any reason as to why the complainant had falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had brutally murdered her father and uncle

Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon

Said witnesses had reasonably explained the circumstances of their going to the house of the accused i.e. they went there to take the dowry articles pursuant to a decree issued by the Family Court

Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased is concerned

Neither the defence seriously disputed the motive part of the prosecution story nor the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on such aspect of the matter

In such circumstances, the prosecution had successfully proved the motive against the accused

Investigating Officer had collected four crime empties from the place of occurrence and accused was arrested on the same day after couple of hours of the occurrence along with the weapon of offence

Although, the weapon of offence and the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory together on but as the accused was arrested on the same day, therefore, the same was of no help to him

According to the positive report of FSL, the empties were found fired from the weapon recovered from the accused

Accused confessed to his guilt before the Magistrate and the proper procedure was followed for such purpose

When the accused was confronted with such confessional statement while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. he did not deny the same but stated that the same was extracted by the Police by using force with connivance of complainant party and the same was not recorded under the requirements of law

However, such assertion was just an afterthought

Evidence available on record clearly suggested that the accused did not inform the Judicial Magistrate about the alleged coercion at the time of making his judicial confession, and also did not place on record any evidence to show that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards him and forced him to confess his crime

Even otherwise, if the confessional statement of the accused was excluded from consideration, there was sufficient material available on the record in the shape of unbiased and unimpeachable ocular account supported by medical evidence, motive and recovery to sustain conviction of the accused

Pursuant to the outcome of proceedings carried out in a Family Court, the accused knew that the complainant was coming to the house to take her dowry articles

Accused was duly armed with a pistol and consequent events reflected his mindset

Such evidence was sufficient to indicate premeditation of accused, therefore, he did not deserve any leniency in the death sentence awarded to him

Appeal was dismissed and death sentence awarded to accused was upheld.

2015 SCMR 1326 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 148, 149, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii) & 392Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7Sectarian killings, acts of terrorismReappraisal of evidenceHeinous crimePromptly lodged FIRNatural eye-witnessesDaylight occurrenceNo probability of false implicationMedical evidence corroborating ocular account

Accused and co-accused allegedly murdered 10 persons belonging to a religious sect, and to avoid their arrest they also killed two police officials

Trial Court sentenced accused and co-accused to death, which sentence was upheld by the High Court

Validity

Present case was a classic case of sectarianism

Accused and co-accused were specifically named in the FIRs, which were promptly lodged, thus, the same excluded the chances of any deliberation or false implication

Eye-witnesses were natural witnesses as they were present at the spot to attend a religious gathering

Eye-witnesses narrated the story in a natural manner and they remained consistent on all major particulars of the case

Present occurrence was daylight occurrence and no question of mistaken identity arose

One of the eye-witnesses had also received injuries and his brother was one of the deceased

In such circumstances, it did not appeal to mind that the said eye-witness would falsely implicated the accused and co-accused without any previous enmity and let off the real culprits

Nothing could be brought on record to prove that the witnesses had any previous enmity or ill-will to falsely implicate the accused and co-accused in the present case

Although no one from the general public had appeared to make a statement, but it was generally noted that people in cases like the present one normally hesitated to appear and become a witness due to fear and reprisal

Medical evidence also fully supported the ocular account so far as the nature and locale of injuries were concerned

Weapon of offence recovered from the accused and co-accused and the empties which were taken into possession from the place of occurrence were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was positive

Overwhelming evidence was available on record against accused and co-accused which clearly connected them with the commission of crime

Accused and co-accused had committed a heinous crime and they did not deserve any leniency

Supreme Court observed that sectarian issue in Pakistan was a major destabilizing factor in the country's political, social, religious and security order; that sectarian conflict in Pakistan had caused unrest, disorder and violence in society, and resulted into thousands of deaths from suicide attacks, bomb blasts, assassinations and other terrorist acts; that abscess of sectarianism could be stopped by adopting strategies such as by removing from textbooks, reading material and syllabi taught in different educational institutions all such material which promoted hatred and biases on the basis of religion, sect, sex, ethnicity and culture

Supreme Court further observed that the media, both print and electronic, must be instructed to do responsible reporting on sectarian matters, and that violent sectarian organizations must be banned

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2013 YLR 2046 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assemblyBail, refusal ofCase of cross-version F.I.Rs.Direct implication in F.I.R. for the offenceDaylight occurrenceAbscondence of accusedEffect

Accused and co-accused persons allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party which resulted in death of one person

Plea of accused that a cross case had also been registered against the complainant party, and all the accused in the cross case had been released on bail, therefore same relief should also be given to him

Validity

Accused was directly charged in the F.I.R. for firing upon the complainant party

As per investigation report, accused absconded after the incident and remained absconder for a sufficient period of time

Occurrence took place in broad-daylight

Ocular evidence, post-mortem report of deceased and other material available on record supported version of complainant

Mere filing of cross-case against each other could not be considered a good ground for release of accused on bail, unless an element of genuineness was present

Time and place of occurrence in both (F.I.Rs.) were different

Case against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.