Dishonest improvements
Dishonest improvements legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Dishonest improvements made by a witness in his statement to strengthen the prosecution case casts serious doubt about veracity of his statement and makes the same untrustworthy and unreliable.
Dishonest improve-ments made by a witness in his statement to strengthen the prosecution case casts serious doubt about veracity of his statement and makes the same untrustworthy and unreliable.
Investigating Officer had recorded statements of prosecution witnesses after 23 days of the recovery for which no explanation was given
Prosecution had alleged that the samples were separated from the four slabs which were sealed in parcel Nos. 1 to 4, while the remaining 3980 grams were sealed in parcel No. 5
According to S. 161, Cr.P.C. statement of In-charge Store Room, parcel No. 5 was not handed over to him by the Investigating Officer, while in Court's statement he failed to explain the improvement made by him in his examination-in-chief
Such improvement was duly confronted to him under Art. 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but he and the Investigating Officer had failed to tender any plausible explanation
Accused could not be held guilty for recovery of four kilograms of narcotics
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Complainant's presence at the scene was not in doubt, but the veracity of his statement regarding the accused person's role could be questioned
During cross-examination, the witness changed his earlier stance, stating that the absconding co-accused entered the barber shop first, followed by the accused after five minutes
Accused was unknown to the barber before the incident
Since the barber belonged to a different village and did not know the accused by name, the prosecution should have conducted an identification parade to properly identify the accused
However, no such parade was conducted
Therefore, the testimony of barber could not be considered against the accused
Prosecution's eye-witness account lacked sufficient evidence to establish the accused person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Moreover, considering the presented motive, it was difficult to believe that a person of the accused's age would accompany his two much younger sons to commit such a crime without a strong motive
Prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Witness, who introduced dishonest improvements for strengthening the case, could not be relied upon.
Rash driving or riding on a public way, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-i-amd and common intention
Pre-arrest bail, grant of
Dishonest improvements
Scope
Prosecution case was that accused hit the complainant and his friends with his car while they were on motorcycle as a result of which one of the friends of complainant died on the next day
Other friend of complainant got recorded his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that the accused had intentionally the motorcycle thrice at different points, which was done in furtherance of previous enmity
Complainant, injured and the accused hailed from the same vicinity and there could be no impediment in the way of complainant to identify the accused if he was recognized
Accused had remained unidentified, as a result, FIR was lodged against unknown accused alleging that he had caused injuries to the driver and riders of the motorcycle through rash and negligent driving
Improvements in the case of prosecution were for no other purpose except to tighten the screw of the accused
Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted, in circumstances.
Prosecution case was that accused and co-accused committed murder of brothers and nephew of complainant by pelting stones after having forcibly caught them
Medical evidence showed that the deceased received firearm injuries
First Information Report had alleged that the accused persons pelted stones in result whereof the deceased died on the spot but nothing had been mentioned about any firearm injuries
In order to address that anomaly, the eye-witnesses made improvements in their statements during the trial and stated that the accused made firing upon the deceased
Statement of the eye-witnesses when confronted with the crime report it had been observed that the witnesses dishonestly stated about firearm injury allegedly caused to the deceased and also introduced dishonest improvement just to bring ocular version in line with medical evidence
Change in version of witnesses were not an outcome of frail human memory, rather was made deliberately with a design of bringing their testimony in conformity with medical evidence, thus, the same in no manner, could be brushed aside
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
If such purity was polluted through dishonest improvements, the eye-witness would loss his credibility rendering it not worthy of any credence.
Record showed that after more than four months, complainant took a somersault and filed private complaint in the court by introducing dishonest improvement in the same with respect to seeing the occurrence himself and by his son
In the application, two persons were cited as companions/witnesses but in the complaint they were neither cited as witness nor produced during trial
Statement of the complainant clearly revealed that neither complainant nor other cited witness witnessed the occurrence
Accused were not known to them, therefore, foot trackers were called by the police for tracing out the clue of unknown accused
Eye-witness had not seen the occurrence and he had deposed falsely through dishonest improvements regarding material aspect i.e. seeing the occurrence, therefore neither he was trustful witness nor his testimony could be relied
Ocular account was neither confidence inspiring nor trustworthy/ reliable, therefore, same was discarded
Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt
Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.
Improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of witnesses.
If a witness introduces some sort of dishonest improvement, then his statement does not remain reliable rather same is liable to be thrown away.
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah, mutalahimah, hashimah, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Dishonest improvements
Contradiction in ocular and medical evidence
Acquittal of co-accused persons
Recovery of weapon
Negative report of Forensic Laboratory
Effect
Accused along with others was alleged to have murdered the nephew of complainant and injured others
Complainant and brother of deceased while claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence had stated before the police that the fire shot made by acquitted co-accused had hit on the abdomen of the deceased
Contrary to that, doctor had found the said injury to be an exit wound
Both the eye-witnesses in order to bring the case in line with the medical evidence while making dishonest improvements had stated before the Trial Court that fire shot made by said accused had hit on the back of the deceased, which had shattered their credibility
Two of the injured eye-witnesses had not nominated the accused and co-accused persons
Complainant and the State had not filed any appeal against the acquittal of co-accused persons
Same evidence could not be believed against the accused in absence of the independent corroborative piece of evidence, which was conspicuously missing in the present case
Recovery of pistol on the indication of accused in the presence of negative report of Forensic Laboratory was inconsequential
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
If a witness dishonestly and materially improved upon his earlier statement that improvement rendered the credibility of his statement doubtful.
Eye-witnesses were residents of another district but they had failed to explain the reason of their presence on the scene of occurrence
Eye-witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their statements by narrating the facts which were in exclusive knowledge of the complainant
Statements of eye-witnesses were contradictory to each other regarding the time of the arrival of the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence
Investigating Officer had stated that the mouth of deceased was open whereas the eye-witnesses had narrated otherwise
Conduct of the eye-witnesses was un-natural and did not appeal to a prudent mind
Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah, munaqqilah, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Dishonest improvements
Un-natural conduct
Scope
Accused persons assailed their conviction passed by the Magistrate and upheld by Sessions Judge
Allegation against accused persons was that they waylaid the injured and complainant, however, it was only an attempt and to murder the injured
Presence of complainant on the spot was disbelieved by both the Courts below as there was no occasion for him to be present at the crime scene
Parties were having enmity with each other
Statement of injured was recorded after three days of the occurrence
Injured had made material improvements to bring his evidence in line with medical evidence
Several accused persons were declared to be innocent during investigation
Injured was at the mercy of eleven persons and out of them two were stated to be equipped with firearm weapons
According to Medico Legal Report (MLR) as a whole there were nine injuries on the person of injured and most of those were swelling or contused swelling
Sequence of allegations against each accused showed that it was a dancing show or it was a stage drama where every character was making his performance and leaving the stage
Acquittal of several accused persons had remained unchallenged
Judgments of both the Courts below being unsustainable were set aside and the accused persons were acquitted of the charges
Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.
No reliance can be placed on the testimony of a witness who deliberately introduces improvements in his statement so as to cover the lacunae or to bring his testimony in line with other pieces of evidence.
Accused along with others were alleged to have waylaid the deceased and eye-witnesses, who were closely following the deceased on a motorcycle and fired at the deceased
Complainant and eye-witness were stated to have saved their lives while lying on the ground
Alleged place of occurrence was not the place of witnesses' residence, which was a thoroughfare and, in that eventuality, it was incumbent upon the eye-witnesses to furnish any solid reason in order to establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time
Complainant had not furnished any reason of his presence at the place of occurrence either in the complaint or in his deposition before the trial court
Eye-witnesses while lodging the crime report and making statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. were in unison on the point that the accused persons along with their co-accused (since proclaimed offender) had started firing with their respective weapons upon the deceased but while appearing before the trial court, they had deviated from their earlier stance and had let off the said co-accused from the role of making firing at the deceased
Assailants, as per scaled site plan, were standing at a distance of eight feet from the deceased but according to post-mortem examination report, there was tattooing around an injury on the person of deceased
Medical officer had explained that such tattooing occurred only when the fire shot was made from the range of less than three feet
Constable who had arrived at the scene of occurrence had deposed that crime empties were lying close to each other which led to the conclusion that all the fire shots were made by one person
Evidence of said witness also gave an impression that when he and other police officials reached at the spot, the dead body was lying there which was contrary to the prosecution version
Statement of Investigating Officer led to the conclusion that the complainant was not present at the spot
Post-mortem examination was conducted after a delay of eight hours
Case was replete with several doubts
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah, hashimah, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Dishonest improvements
Delayed statement
Withholding best evidence
Contradiction in ocular and medical evidence
Recovery of commonplace articles
Motive, not proved
Scope
Accused party was alleged to have launched an attack upon the complainant party when they were present in their fields while the accused party blamed the complainant party for attacking them in their house
Prosecution failed in proving the place of occurrence through pointation of blood-stained earth
Eye-witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their depositions
Statement of eye-witness was recorded with an unexplained inordinate delay
Independent eye-witnesses, despite availability, were not produced
Ocular account was in conflict with medical evidence
Soties, allegedly recovered from accused persons, were commonplace articles and were not blood-stained
Motive of the case was shrouded in mystery
Accused persons had not got recorded their statements; had not mentioned the motive and it was difficult to believe that accused party had not reacted, not even in self-defence
Both parties had suppressed their role and showed that the other side was the aggressor and the real culprit
High Court while extending benefit of doubt to the accused persons accepted their appeal.
Accused were charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant and a lady belonging to accused party due on allegation of illicit relations between the said two deceased
Record showed that according to the oral statement of complainant the number of the accused which were present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence was five out of which three, including the accused were named whereas two accused were stated to be unknown, however, subsequently complainant submitted the application wherein the number of accused was increased from five to six
Eye-witness also admitted during cross-examination that he had mentioned five accused as being present at the place of occurrence
Said addition in the number of accused present at the spot and the roles played by them in the occurrence clearly established that the eye-witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence, otherwise they would not have fallen into error with regard to the number of accused present at the place of occurrence or their roles in the occurrence
Said eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements to their previous statements which were substantial and were made with regard to crucial aspects of the prosecution evidence
By improving their previous statements, eye-witnesses impeached their own credit
Eye-witnesses introduced dishonest, blatant and substantial improvements to their previous statements and were duly confronted with their former statements, hence their credibility stood impeached
Such witnesses could not be relied upon on being proved to have deposed with a slight, intended to mislead the court
Said witnesses had no intrinsic worth and was to be rejected outrightly
Circumstances established that all the pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, in the present case, had been disbelieved and discarded, therefore conviction of the accused could not be upheld
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Held; complainant had not directly witnessed the crime, she was informed by son of the witness in respect of making fire upon her son by the accused
Eye-witness stated that the occurrence had taken place in the main bazar when shops were open but except him, the prosecution did not record statement of any independent witness or nearby shopkeepers
Eye-witness admitted that the deceased was his close relative
Complainant stated that the deceased was murdered due to previous enmity between the parties
Statement of eye-witness, being inimical towards the accused, could not be accepted without independent corroboration and the ocular testimony was in conflict with medical evidence
Investigating officer had reached at the spot prior to registration of FIR, conducted investigation, recorded statement of the only eye-witness, prepared memo of blood-stained earth, memo of recovery of empty shell
Investigating officer had commenced the investigation prior to lodging FIR
First Information Report was corner stone of the case and any doubt arisen with regard to registration of FIR created suspicion in the case of prosecution
Investigating Officer had prepared site plan in the presence of the eye-witness but did not mention as to where the said witness was standing
Site plan was not substantive piece of evidence, yet it showed the presence of witness and it could not be lightly ignored
Complainant, in her court statement, made dishonest improvements that the accused had called the deceased, whereafter, her son went towards him
Police, on arrest of the accused, had recovered mobile and sim but had not collected the Call Data Record of the phone belonging to accused to ascertain whether the accused had called the deceased or not
Mere recovery of mobile had not substantiated the case of prosecution
Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt
Appeal was accepted and the impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances.
Prosecution case was that the accused, along with others and with the help of ex-housemaid (co-accused) of complainant, abducted the victim, obtained ransom and committed rape with her
Victim deposed that the co-accused stood by and watched while the accused persons abducted her
Victim did not specifically mention the name of accused as one of the abductors and the act of co-accused did not prove her to be an accomplice
Prosecution was required to prove that the complainant party had arranged the amount of ransom within a few hours but it did not bring any material on record to that effect
Prosecution witnesses had claimed that they had seen the person receiving the ransom in the street light which was illuminated but no evidence was produced in that regard
Ransom money was not recovered during the investigation
Prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had made the phone call for ransom
Statement of victim was in conflict with that of what she had stated before the police
Trial Court had partly disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses by acquitting two co-accused persons
Vaginal swabs of the victim were sent to the Forensic Laboratory with a delay of six days
Police official, who had taken the swabs to the Forensic Laboratory, was not examined
DNA test report had lost its credibility, in circumstances
Evidence produced by prosecution was highly discrepant and suffered from serious legal infirmities
Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.
House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah, hashimah, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Dishonest improvements
Delayed statement
Recovery of commonplace articles
Acquittal of co-accused having similar role
Scope
Prosecution case was that the complainant party was present in their house when the accused party trespassed into their house and attacked them
Complainant had deviated from her cross-version and had introduced new facts in her examination-in-chief
One of the eye-witnesses had stated that she had joined investigation after two/three months of the incident
Statement of another eye-witness under S.161, Cr.P.C. was recorded after four/five days of the incident
Sotas allegedly recovered from the accused were commonplace articles and were not blood-stained
Complainant had nominated nine persons in the cross-version but the trial court had acquitted five of them on the same evidence on which it had convicted the accused persons
Trial court could not have done so as there was no independent corroboration
Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond doubt
Appeal was allowed.
Accused, at the time of incident, was about 13 years old and was physically weak but the complainant and eye-witness did not chase him nor raised hue and cry to get hold of him
Complainant admitted that if they had tried they could have apprehended the accused
Doctor, who examined the victim, did not observe any mark of violence on his body
Report of Chemical Examiner revealed that swabs taken from the victim's body were not stained with semen
Doctor opined that no penetration had taken place
Site plan showed that the place of occurrence was an open place and situated on a thoroughfare street with surrounding houses on one side
Occurrence could have been seen by a number of persons, who were residing in the nearby houses but none appeared before the court
Close relative of the complainant appeared in defence and categorically denied that any such occurrence had ever taken place
Impugned judgment was neither illegal nor any misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out that called for interference
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
Complainant reached at the place of occurrence at 2:00 pm, but the FIR was lodged at 6:00 pm and the dead body was shifted to the hospital for medical examination at 6:30 pm
Contents of fard-e-bayan were silent about the weapon used in the crime, but in his court statement complainant dishonestly improved and stated that firing was made with TT pistol
Complainant had stated that murder was committed at the behest and instigation of co-accused and for such purpose two muffle faced persons brought the accused at the place of occurrence, however, the court statement of complainant was silent in such behalf
Complainant had not witnessed the crime directly, thus, his statement was not helpful to the case of prosecution
Complainant had recieved information about the occurrence at 12:00 pm, but the sole eye-witness of the occurrence contradicted the case of prosecution and stated that the occurrence had taken place at 12:30 pm
Eye-witness had appeared before the Investigating officer on the following day of occurrence for recording his statement
Appeal was accepted, in circumstances.
Complainant had stated before investigating officer that the fire shot hit the deceased on the right side of the temporal region whereas while appearing as witness he had not mentioned as to where the fire shot hit the deceased
Second eye-witness had also improved his version in the same way and had not mentioned any side where the alleged fire shot hit the deceased
Doctor had observed the wound on the left side of the head and not on the right
Held; improvements in the statements of witnesses were not only dishonest but were proved to be incorrect.
Complainant admitted during cross-examination that he got registered the case against two accused persons and that he considered the sacks of wheat as accused persons
Statement of complainant led to the irresistible conclusion that the witnesses had not seen anything at the crime scene
Two other eye-witnesses had also fell into the same mistake due to lack of light at the crime scene
No source of light was mentioned by the witnesses while recording their statements before Investigating Officer and before Trial Court
Investigating Officer did not take into possession any article so as to prove that sufficient light was present at the place of occurrence
Complainant and the eye-witness were not permanent residents of the place of occurrence rather they resided at a distance of about 3/4 kilometers
Complainant had stated that he ran an agency for the sale of wheat and cotton at the place of occurrence, which was the reason for his presence on the crime scene
Investigating officer took only one cot into possession which belonged to the deceased but did not take into possession any cot being used by complainant and the eye-witness
Investigating officer did not collect documentary evidence to prove that any agency was established at the crime scene
Investigating officer failed to take into possession any wheat sacks which were statedly available at the crime scene
Post-mortem was conducted after six hours of the occurrence, still none of the witnesses identified the dead body of the deceased in the hospital
Eye-witnesses were not present near the place of occurrence as per inquest report
Appeal was accepted and conviction and sentence awarded by trial court was set aside
Murder reference was answered in the negative.
Complainant deposed that he, on hearing the noise, along with two witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying on the cot in injured condition and the accused was beating son (witness) and daughter-in-law (witness) of deceased with danda
Accused thereafter gave danda blow on the head of deceased
Injured witnesses gave contradictory statements to that of complainant as they did not state in their examination-in-chief that the complainant was present on the spot
Daughter-in-law had also not mentioned that the accused caused any injury to her or to the son
Both the said witnesses (son and daughter-in-law) stated before Trial Court that the accused caused head injuries to the deceased with danda but no such injuries were observed by the medical officer
Presence of complainant and given up witnesses at the place of occurrence was doubtful because had they been present on the spot, they would have caught hold of the accused, who admittedly was an aged person of about 53/54 years and was not armed with any fire-arm to ward off the witnesses
Incident allegedly took place at 2:00 am in the night and it was not brought on record as to how the eye-witnesses identified the accused because no source of light was mentioned by the prosecution
Both the witnesses made dishonest improvements in order to strengthen the prosecution case, they were confronted with their previous statements and the improvements were duly brought on record
Witnesses, who had accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence, were not produced before the Trial Court and were given up being wonover by the accused side
Prosecution withheld best available evidence and inference could be drawn that had those witnesses been produced before the Trial Court, they would not have supported the prosecution case
Prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt
Appeal was allowed, convictions and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside.
When a witness improves his/her statement to strengthen the prosecution case, the moment it is concluded that the improvement has been made deliberately and with mala fide intention, the testimony of such witness does not remain reliable.
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Jurah Damiah, Jurah Ghayr Jaifah Damiah, Jurah Badiah and rioting armed with deadly weapon
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Dishonest improvements
Motive, failure to prove
Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court on multiple charges and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, extending to imprisonment for life
Prosecution witnesses had made dishonest improvements in order to prove their presence as well as presence of accused persons and motive for the occurrence
Improvements were of such magnitude which materially affected the case and created serious doubt regarding truthfulness of witnesses
Not safe to rely upon such evidence in which such material improvements before Trial Court were made in order to make evidence acceptable
No motive was proved for committing the offence as alleged by prosecution
Documentary evidence available on record indicated that version of complainant given in FIR and later on through evidence, nullified the prosecution evidence
Prosecution witnesses improved their statements which were confronted with their earlier statements made during investigation therefore, it could be concluded that the incident did not occur on what had been stated but on something else which was suppressed by prosecution witnesses
Prosecution nominated ten accused and three unknown persons to have participated in the occurrence out of which nine nominated accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court
Appeal against acquitted accused persons had already been dismissed by High Court
All nominated and unknown three persons were attributed role of indiscriminate firing and no specific injury was attributed to anyone towards injured prosecution witness and the same role was attributed to acquitted accused persons
One injured prosecution witness pointed out various places in connection with the occurrence but he did not mention that where he received the injuries and by whom
Conviction under S.337-F(i), P.P.C., for causing injury to prosecution witness read with S.149, P.P.C., could not be maintained
Prosecution failed to produce guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt
High Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded by Trial Court to all accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, every member of unlawful guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object, mutalahimah
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Principles
Delay in postmortem
Effect
Dishonest improvements
Effect
Delay of 20 to 24 hours in postmortem examination coupled with medical examination of injured witness without any Police docket cast serious doubt about registration of F.I.R. at given time
Where assailants were unknown, Police delayed registration of F.I.R. to prepare papers required for conducting postmortem on dead body, show presence of witnesses and complainant at the spot and fabricate prosecution story after preliminary inquiry, consultation and legal advice
Presence of witnesses at place of occurrence at relevant time was doubtful
Postmortem report showed that deceased had not died immediately after suffering injuries
Had witnesses been present at the scene, they would have removed the injured to hospital
Opened eyes and mouth of deceased showed that deceased were not attended by any near and dear one for considerable period of time
Name of the Police Official who removed the injured to hospital was not known to the Investigating Officer or Medical Officer
Investigating Officer admitted that injured was medically examined without Police docket or any application
Witnesses explained their presence on the place of occurrence by stating that they were returning from 'Majlis' but they could not disclose the name of the person who had held the 'Majlis'
Medical evidence contradicted ocular account as to direction of firing
Deceased and injured allegedly received injuries while they were riding motorcycle but the motorcycle was not damaged
Injuries on the person of witness could not stamp his statement with truth
Injured witness denied his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. because he had stated in that statement that the injured and deceased were on foot and assailants were unknown
No specification of weapons and attribution of injuries was given in said statement
Dishonest improvements were made by said injured witness; statement of such witness could not be relied upon
Medical evidence could confirm ocular evidence with regard to the seat and nature of injury, kind of weapon used in occurrence, but such evidence would not itself identify the accused
Recoveries of firearms had become inconsequential due to non-availability of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory
Motive was double edged weapon which cut both ways
Motive for commission of crime could also be reason for false implication of accused
False implication could not be ruled out
Prosecution could not prove its case beyond shadow of doubt
Prosecution could not take benefit of weaknesses of defence case
Single circumstance creating doubt in prosecution case was sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused
Accused was acquitted.
Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit robbery or dacoity, when armed with deadly weapon, acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Appreciation of evidence
Dishonest improvements
Effect
Corroboration
Scope/principle
Deceased's mother alleged that accused nourished/harboured grudge against deceased because deceased wanted to register criminal case against accused who had attempted to commit theft of calf owned by deceased's mother
Motive of grudge of accused was not introduced/attributed at the time of statement made by complainant to the Investigating Officer on the spot
No criminal case having been registered by complainant or deceased against accused for said attempt to commit theft, question of grudge (motive) could not arise
"Takwa" allegedly carried by deceased had been recovered from place of occurrence showing that he fully participated in commission of offence during which he lost his life
Neither complainant identified the accused on the spot nor he knew their names; and he did not even allege to have noticed/seen features of the accused persons
Out of two persons who reached the spot during the occurrence, one was not produced before court as witness while the other made dishonest improvements in his statement before Police in order to show that he had identified the accused; and had he identified the accused, he would have named the accused in his statement before Police
Other witnesses also made dishonest improvements so their testimony was liable to be discarded
F.I.R. did not mention that two persons who reached the spot during the occurrence had identified the accused
Deceased's mother did mention name of the accused but she reached the spot subsequent to the occurrence
Prosecution failed to establish that witnesses had identified the accused
Entire story implicating the accused was fabricated
Ocular account of occurrence having been disbelieved, evidence of recoveries which was only of corroborative value, could not be made basis of conviction
Appeal was accepted and accused was acquitted.
Qatl-i-amd, acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment
Appreciation of evidence
Benefit of doubt
Motive
Significance
Dishonest improvements
Effect
Medical evidence
Scope
FIR was lodged by delay of 2 hours and 40 minutes though Police Station was at a distance of 5 kilometers from place of occurrence
Unexplained delay of 16 hours in post-mortem examination showed that FIR was not registered at the time mentioned therein and same was registered after due deliberations and consultations
Complainant got recorded his supplementary statement wherein he changed the role (of firing at deceased) to accused
Complainant took three divergent stands on the three different occasions to falsely entangle the accused in the case
Conduct of complainant was sufficient to disbelieve his evidence and conclusively determine that neither he was present at the scene of crime at relevant time nor had he seen the occurrence
Evidence of a witness who made dishonest improvements in order to bring his testimony in line with ocular account lost its credibility
Medical evidence did not support ocular account
Trial Court could not hold the accused responsible for murder of deceased while acquitting co-accused on the basis of same set of evidence especially when co-accused were attributed the role of causing firearm injuries on vital parts of deceased
Evidence of witnesses of abetment did not appeal to prudent mind as accused were not likely to hatch conspiracy to murder by speaking aloud in open place
Medical evidence would be used only for confirmation of ocular evidence regarding seat of injury, time of occurrence and weapon of offence, etc. but medical evidence itself would not constitute any corroboration for proving culpability of accused persons
No independent witness was produced to prove motive
Motive was a double edged weapon
Motive to commit offence could also be reason for complainant and witnesses to falsely implicate the accused
Delay of several months in sending crime empty and weapon of offence to Forensic Science Laboratory remained unexplained
No evidence was available to show as to when, where and in whose presence accused had allegedly received Rs.4000 for murder of deceased
Allegation of murder of deceased by accused for Rs.4000 did not appeal to prudent mind
Recovery of Rs.4000 was of no consequence as same was introduced to strengthen prosecution case
Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt
Single circumstance creating doubt was sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to accused not as a matter of grace but of right
Acquitting ten guilty persons was better than convicting single innocent person
Accused were acquitted
In view of divergent stances of complainant against co-accused acquitted by Trial Court, appeals against their acquittal were dismissed
Double presumption of innocence was attached to the findings/judgment of acquittal and very strong and exceptional evidence was required to convert acquittal into conviction.
"Dishonest improvements", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952842
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Dishonest improvements"
2018 S C M R 772
MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2016 Y L R 1166
SHER AZAM KHAN — Appellant Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2012 M L D 255
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2023 P Cr
ABU BAKAR — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2012 Y L R 1152
AZMAT ALI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Lahore2021 P Cr
MUHAMMAD ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Balochistan (Sibi Bench)2025 M L D 1658
Fayyaz Ahmad and others — Petitioners Versus The STate and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2022 Y L R 1762
MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)2025 Y L R 141
Jameel Ahmed — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent
Court: Balochistan (Turbat Bench)