Contradiction in evidence

2022 YLR 1564 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Recovery of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtRecovery witnessesContradiction in evidenceEffect

Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years as an illegal weapon was allegedly recovered from him

Validity

Both witnesses gave contradictory evidence in respect of place of recovery which had created very serious doubt in the case of prosecution

Prosecution was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Even a single circumstance which created reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent man had come in evidence of prosecution, the benefit was to go to accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 PCrLJ 631 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(c) & 15Possession of narcoticsAiding, abetment or association in narcotic offencesAppreciation of evidenceSafe custodyContradiction in evidenceScopeAccused persons were alleged to have been found in possession of charas

Sample-bearer stated that he received three samples on 16-05-2018 from the Moharrir, deposited them in the Forensic Laboratory on the same day whereas report of Forensic Laboratory showed the date of receipt of parcels as 17-05-2018

Prosecution throughout the trial did not question the said entry rather relied upon the report to substantiate that the recovered substance was charas

Prosecution had failed to establish the unbroken chain of transmission of sealed sample parcels to the office of Forensic Laboratory

Appeals against conviction were allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 707 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 436, 506(2), 511, 337-A(iii), 337-H(2) & 337-L(2)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417

Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, criminal intimidation, attempt to commit offence, shajjah­-i-­hashimah, hurt by rash or negligent act, punishment for other hurt

Appeal against acquittal

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Contradiction in evidence

Scope

Allegation of complainant was that the accused persons forcibly entered into his Printing Press, gave beating to him and his son and tried to set on fire his Printing Press

Complainant and his witnesses had contradicted each other

Complainant had stated in the FIR that the accused persons were armed with pistols and had caused fists, kicks and danda blows; whereas his witness stated that the complainant and his son were caused fists, kicks, iron rod and lathis blows by the accused persons

Complainant stated that the accused persons tried to set on fire his Printing Press but he was not supported by his witness

One of the witnesses stated that accused persons fired upon the Printing Press while the other stated that the accused persons made aerial firing

Mashir of the visit of place of incident had denied such visit in his presence so also his signature rather declared such memo. as forged

Investigating officer had not found any injury on the bodies of the complainant and his son nor had he referred them to hospital

Contradictions pointed out by the Trial Court were sufficient to declare that prosecution could not prove its case against the accused persons

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

2019 PCrLJ 1696 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 337-F(ii)Causing badi'ahMedical evidenceContradiction in evidenceScope

Medical report proved that the victim received injury on his left thigh, while the complainant had stated that he received firearm injury on his right thigh

Medico-legal certificate was not in line with the assertion of the complainant

Appeal filed by accused was accepted and the judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 361 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceAccused was not named in F.I.R.Contradiction in evidenceBenefit of doubtOcular evidence of complainant, his brother and nephew besides being contradictory was not confidence inspiring

Complainant during cross-examination could not explain contradiction in F.I.R. and in his deposition regarding presence of accused along with co-accused at the place of alleged incident

Complainant had merely stated that on account of confusion, he could not mention name of accused and his role in alleged crime, while recording F.I.R.

No incriminating material against accused, which could corroborate ocular evidence in that regard, was produced by prosecution

Trial Court failed to record any finding with regard to common intention or connivance of accused with co-accused

Neither any recovery of weapon or empties were effected from the possession of accused, nor any direct evidence or incriminating material was produced

Prosecution could not establish charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Trial Court was not justified to award conviction and sentence to accused, whereas accused was entitled to benefit of doubt

High Court while extending benefit of doubt set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted accused of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.