Nature of injuries

Prosecution witnesses had failed to furnish any explanation as to if the deceased was fired upon by a rifle of 222 bore from a distance of 5.5 feet, how his entrance wound was surrounded by blackened and burnt area

Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C.

Investigating officer did not explain as to how the complainant received information about involvement of accused persons

Draftsman did not show any source of light

Police received information that one dead body was lying in an uninhabited room i.e. the crime scene

No explanation was available on record as to how and by whom the dead body was discovered lying at the crime scene

Motive was not proved by prosecution and reference of witnesses to the relationship between accused persons could not be relied upon

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

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Prosecution through cogent and unimpeachable evidence could not explain beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of tattooing marks

Ocular account deposed by two witnesses was not corroborated by independent evidence rather it contradicted the material particulars

According to one prosecution witness deceased was fired at from a distance of one foot but the rest of evidence contradicted that stance

Presence of three sheep was also shrouded in mystery because their existence had not been established through reliable evidence

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

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Medical report did not coincide with version of complainant and it did not show if any of the deceased sustained injury with sharp cutting weapon

Both deceased besides fire arm injuries had injuries of hard blunt substance, which might have been caused with butt of pistols

Medical evidence was in clear contradiction with ocular evidence to the extent of role assigned to both the accused as well as those who were acquitted

Prosecution case was not strong enough against both the accused and prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against them

Each and every case was to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and both the accused were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed accordingly.