Identification of accused

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also steeling his car and other precious articles from his flat

Record showed that a number of witnesses who were playing cricket outside the flats gave evidence that they had seen a person trying to drive a car which later was established belonged to the deceased and that they took him to hospital for treatment for a hand injury and who dropped them off an hour later after receiving treatment

None of the said witnesses gave any hulia of the accused as being the injured person in the car in very belated S.161 Cr.PC statements, they were not taken before an identification parade to identify the accused as the injured person driving the car and only one of the witnesses were able to identify the accused in court

Said fact heavily broken the linkage of the accused to the stolen car of the deceased which the accused was allegedly driving

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Identification of accused

Scope

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention duly armed with pistols snatched cash and mobile phones from complainant party and ran away, complainant party chased them, they made firing upon complainant party, due to which one person and died

Incident was a day light occurrence and the accused's faces were un-muffled

Robbery from three people would have taken at least 2 to 5 minutes and as such the eye-witness would have got a good look at the accused

Eye-witness again saw the accused in hospital about two hours later for a long while at close range at the hospital and thus he was easily able to identify them as the persons who had robbed them and fired on the deceased, therefore no identification parade was required, even otherwise both the accused were injured and needed medical treatment and as such it was not possible to hold an identification parade immediately after their arrest

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

No doubt the identification on torch light was a weak type of the identification but in the present case the complainant party and the accused were residing in the same village and they knew each other very well

Case of prosecution was that prior to the incident accused had alleged the allegation of Karap against the son of the deceased and also issued threats

Established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at the time of incident accused first gave them hakal and said to the deceased that his son was Karo with his wife and they would not be spared

Cross-examination revealed/clarified that gun shots were fired by the accused from the distance of 30 feet only

Other evidence produced by the prosecution found to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. [Para. 18 of the judgment]

Occurrence took place at about 04:00 a.m. and that fact had not been disputed by both the sides that it was almost dawn that meant the source of natural light was there

Accused was residing in the same area where occurrence took place

Not only in the charge, but also in his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C, accused had given his same address

In the statement of witness, it was mentioned that accused was known to him since childhood

When all were residing in one and the same Mohallah and familiar to each other since childhood, the identification by both the witnesses at the given time was not a difficult task

Circumstances established that accused had been rightly convicted by the Trial Court

Death penalty was converted into imprisonment for life as the same was extreme penalty, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

After formal arrest of the accused, he was continuously appearing before the Trial Court, as such he was fully exposed to the said witnesses to be a person being charged for the murder of deceased, therefore at said belated stage recognition of the accused by the witnesses did not serve the purpose having no beneficial purpose for the prosecution, as such that piece of evidence could not be made basis for conviction and sentence of the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and also causing injuries to the complainant and his other son

Record showed that the eye-witnesses had correctly identified the accused in attacking and beating the complainant and injured son of complainant

Accused persons only claimed that they could not be identified correctly due to the darkness which due to the close proximity of the attack to the eye-witnesses especially the complainant and injured witness who were injured during the attack, which was found to be of no assistance to the accused persons based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case

Based on believing the evidence of the eye-witnesses and their correct identification of the accused persons what other supportive/corroborative material was thereagainst the accused

Keeping in view the legal position that such evidence was only a rule of caution/ prudence in the face of reliable and trustworthy eye-witness evidence especially as in the case there were six eye-witnesses who were found to share such attributes and had correctly identified the accused persons

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Identification of accused

Scope

Record showed that the complainant was present as an eye-witness throughout the incident at the scene arrested all the accused on the spot and recovered fire arms from them

Evidence of complainant accorded with the FIR which was lodged with promptitude and was not significantly improved on

Complainant had no ill will or enmity with any of the accused and had no reason to implicate them in a false case

Evidence of complainant was not dented during a lengthy cross-examination and he gave his evidence in a straight forward manner which was found to be reliable, trust worthy, confidence inspiring and was believable

Complainant recognized all the accused, as those whom he arrested after the encounter in court

Evidence of the complainant was corroborated in all material respects by another Police Officer who was present as an eye-witness throughout the incident at the scene and was mashir of the arrest and recovery made from the accused

Station House Officer was injured by firearm at the scene and his evidence fully corroborated the prosecution case

Said witness/SHO recognized all the accused in court as having taken part in the encounter

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Identification of accused on the electric light, torch light was weak type of identification when the accused was not previously known to the complainant party and the same could not be relied upon in the cases of capital punishment

Such type of identification was to be looked into with other independent supportive evidence.

Darkness by itself did not provide immunity to an offender if the witnesses otherwise succeed to capture/ascertain his identity through available means, conspicuously mentioned in the crime report.

No doubt, the eye-witness was closely related to the accused and there was possibility of his identification by the eye-witness through his voice, however, there was no evidence on the record to prove that prior to the occurrence the accused had either talked to the deceased nor with the eye-witness, therefore, her claim with regard to identification of the accused in the mentioned circumstances did not inspire confidence

Prosecution evidence mentioned that the deceased had enmities and disputes with other people in the area

Keeping in view the time as well as mode and manner of the occurrence, identification of the accused by the eye-witness was doubtful

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant

Record showed that the FIR was lodged with promptitude and the accused had been nominated with specific role

Occurrence took place at night time but according to the statements of witnesses the accused were open-faces, therefore, the accused being already known to the prosecution witnesses was clearly identified in the light of electric bulb lit at that time besides the light of motorcycle, therefore, the identification of the accused with specific role in the FIR could not be doubted

Two witnesses available at the site also identified and recognized the accused

Perusal of the statements of witnesses revealed that there was no contradiction, dishonest improvement or material omission to justify the discarding of their statements

Defence had not been able to bring on record either any contradiction nullifying the impact of the statements or dishonest improvements justifying any interference for false booking of the accused

Identification of the accused with the specific role stood established beyond any reasonable doubt in the given circumstances of the case

Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Identification of the accused through light of torch was a weak type of source and was unsafe to be relied upon.

Source of identification of accused through light of the torch is always regarded as weak in nature.

First Information Report showed that all the accused persons were muffled faces and the deceased brother of the complainant scuffled with one of them while the remaining two were guarding the complaining party and restrained them under the show of weapons

Muffling of accused was opened during resistance

Record showed that it was clearly mentioned in FIR and deposition of prosecution witnesses that the resistance was offered by deceased only, as such the face of only one accused could be seen, who scuffled with deceased and caused his murder, however, the complainant and witness identified two persons as culprits, which itself created serious doubt about the identification

Accused had stated that the complainant party was residing nearby their house and they were already known to them

Said fact was the fatal blow to the prosecution regarding test identification parade and casted doubt upon the entire prosecution case

Record transpired that medical evidence was in line with the ocular account in respect of the seat of injury to the deceased

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon

Appreciation of evidence-Identification of accused

Accused was charged that he and co-accused persons while armed with weapons kidnapped the complainant party for extorting money, snatched their cash, mobile, licensed pistol and injured them

Evidence of the complainant showed that the accused and his co-accused drove to his house where they forcibly entered the house in search of valuables; complainant's son who was about 15 years old and was studying for his examinations at that time, who was living at the house and was not a chance witness, was an eye-witness to robbery

Accused and co-accused duly armed when entered the house witness got a good look at the accused under light for a substantial period of time at close quarters and as such was able to easily identify him as one of the robbers who had entered his house, which he did a few days later at an identification parade with a specific role

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and as such appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Identification of accused at night time, under headlights of passerby vehicle and search light that too from the distance of 100 yards, appeared to be weak type of evidence.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, and police encounter

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Contradiction between ocular and medical evidence

Weapon of offence, not recovered

Effect

Identification of accused

Source of knowledge, disclosure of

Accused persons were alleged to have fired at police during an encounter

Prosecution failed to prove that accused persons had intention to commit murder of the police party for the reasons that as per prosecution, the accused persons had no intention to kill any of the police officials but they wanted to get their companion released and that accused persons were allegedly armed with rocket launchers and KKs, guns and rifles but they caused butt blows to one of the police officials

As per prosecution, three accused persons caused butt blows to a police official but the evidence of Medical Officer revealed that the injured had sustained one lacerated wound

Prosecution evidence consisted of police personnel only and none from the village was examined during investigation or trial, though the place of incident was situated near shops and houses; police party had proceeded towards the place of incident on advance information

Police had allegedly recovered empties from the place of incident, but since no weapons were recovered from the accused persons, it could not be said that they had made firing

Accused persons were armed with automatic and semi-automatic weapons and the encounter continued for 20 minutes between them but none from either side sustained any firearm injury in the incident nor the police mobiles were hit by the bullets and nor any mark of bullet was seen at walls of the houses or shops at the place of incident

Accused persons were said to be identified by the police officials, who had disclosed the names of the accused persons with parentage and addresses but none of the said witnesses explained as to how he knew the accused persons prior to the incident, hence non-production of source/ previous connection on record created serious doubt about the identification of accused persons

Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and appellants were acquitted of the charge.

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Source of identification of accused through light of the torch was a weak type of source and unsafe to be relied upon.

Case of prosecution was not free from doubt in circumstances.

Prosecution witnesses and assailants were from the same village and the same vicinity and were known to each other, therefore, there could be no difficulty in identifying the assailants in such state of light

Prosecution witnesses were related to deceased but it alone would not make their testimony incredible when they had no interest or motive to falsely implicate the accused

Time of report coincided with that of postmortem examination of deceased according to entries made in respective documents but the same could not furnish justification for discarding testimony of prosecution witnesses as neither time of report nor that of conducting postmortem examination was written with mathematical exactitude

Recovery of ten empties from the spot would not have any adverse bearing on the testimony of prosecution witnesses when shot turning effective, according to medical evidence, was one

Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and that he had rightly been convicted

Reasons recorded by Trial Court and High Court for awarding imprisonment for life were also correct and tenable, therefore, Supreme Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused

Appeal was dismissed.

Whole prosecution evidence was silent on such issue and not a single witness uttered a word as to how he came to identify accused or with regard to the effect as to the source of identification

Prosecution witnesses stated that prior to the time of raid they did not know accused and had not met him, rather he was stranger to accused

Mukhber/spy was not present at the spot at the time of raid

Truck alleged to have been recovered was not in working condition and there was no evidence to link accused with the truck in any manner

Prosecution failed to prove the charge against accused and High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.