Matching of empties

2022 YLRN 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd and common intentionAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtChance witnessContradiction in ocular and medical evidenceRecovery of weaponMatching of emptiesScopeAccused persons were alleged to have murdered the son of complainant in front of the gate of his house

Statement of Investigating Officer and scaled site plan revealed that the dead body was present in an open field having wheat crop

Presence of complainant at the spot could not be doubted being inmate of the house but second eye-witness had no reason to visit the complainant's house

Occurrence had taken place at 09:30 a.m. and the dead body had remained present at crime scene for quite sufficient period as the application for registration of case was also drafted and submitted to the Investigating Officer at the crime scene but according to assertion of the Medical Officer, the dead body was received in the hospital at 09:30 a.m.

Eye-witnesses had claimed that the accused persons had fired from a distance of one pace but only one injury was found having burning and tattooing around it and all other injuries did not have the burning blackening and tattooing

Medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution story, rather it contradicted the same

Empties found from the crime scene were not fired from the weapons recovered on the indication of accused persons

Two defence witnesses had deposed that they were the persons who had firstly reached at the place of occurrence, that none of the eye-witnesses were available at the crime scene and that they had called the complainant

Investigating Officer had admitted that one of the defence witnesses was present at the place of occurrence whereas the other had appeared before him to plead innocence of an accused with the same version as narrated before the Trial Court

High Court observed that evidence of defence witnesses was sufficient to create reasonable doubt

Sentences awarded by Trial Court to the accused persons were set aside

Appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

2021 MLD 1541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302Qatl-i-amdBail, refusal ofUnseen occurrenceLast seen evidenceExtra-judicial confessionRecovery of weaponMatching of emptiesScopeAccused sought post-arrest bail in FIR registered under S.302, P.P.C

Although the incident was unseen yet the accused was nominated by the complainant on the basis of statements made by two persons who had seen the deceased with the accused on the date of occurrence

Police had recorded statements of two witnesses who had stated that the accused had admitted his guilt before them

Pistol was recovered from the possession of accused and the same had matched with the empties secured from the place of occurrence

Offence alleged against the accused came within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police

Sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence

Grounds urged by the accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be taken into consideration at bail stage

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 YLR 2748 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-e-amdRecovery of weaponMatching of emptiesPrinciple

Empties recovered from the spot and weapon recovered from accused were kept together at police station, therefore, possibility could not be ruled out that fake empties were prepared from recovered weapon and thereafter the same were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for their comparison with weapon allegedly recovered from the possession of accused

Recovery of weapon from possession of accused and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory were of no help to prosecution in circumstances.