Defence evidence

2023 YLRN 59 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Defence evidenceScope

If prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court was not supposed to revert and discuss the defence evidence.

2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtDefence evidenceAccused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing

Though prosecution had not put owner of the hotel in the dock to confirm the factum of receiving fire by the deceased at the hands of accused but said witness appeared in the dock as defence witness and stated that he was present at the place of occurrence and had not seen the accused making fire at the deceased

Said witness had only seen the dead body lying on the ground and the final touch he made that he did not see any of the witnesses at that time and they did not attend his hotel on that day

Though said witness was cross-examined but nothing material was brought on record

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 8 of the judgment]

2023 PCrLJN 87 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Defence evidenceScope

If prosecution's evidence was not believed then there was no need for the Trial Court even to revert to the defence story but to acquit the accused. [Para. 21 of the judgment]

2023 YLR 1048 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340(2)Qatl-i-AmdAppreciation of evidenceGrave and sudden provocationProofDefence evidenceAppreciation of evidenceAccused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-AmdNeither of the defence witnesses even attempted to provide an alibi for accusedDefence witnesses were vague and their narration was sketchy and doubtful

When defence evidence was put in juxtaposition with prosecution case, it was prosecution case that was more convincing and believable

Throughout the trial accused persons never even suggested that they were provoked, to the contrary till the last minute, which was evident from defence witnesses they produced, they pleaded that they were not even present at the scene let alone being involved in the incident in any manner

Only during hearing of appeal that accused persons made a plea on such ground whereas they had been convincing High Court that they had not committed murder

Accused persons wanted to make their case fall within the ambit of "grave and sudden provocation" the burden of proof was on them and not the prosecution

Accused persons did not discharge such burden at trial

Plea raised in appeal was an afterthought

Act of accused persons did not fall within the provisions of S. 302(c), P.P.C.

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 PCrLJN 34 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceDefence evidenceScopeAccused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of nephew of the complainant by lathi blowsRecord showed that two witnesses were produced by the accused in his defence

Both the said defence witnesses gave contradictory evidence and stated that the accused was available with them at the time of incident

Both the defence witnesses gave separate place of availability of the accused at the time of incident, therefore, their evidence was not reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring

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

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

2021 YLRN 128 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assemblyAppreciation of evidenceDefence evidenceScopeAccused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing

Record showed that no defence evidence was cross-examined by the Investigation Officer and eye-witnesses nor the same defence was taken during the investigation stage, therefore evidence of defence witnesses could not be believed and found their evidence as being concocted

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, the death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 1072 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 9 (a) (ix)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 33, 34, 113 &131Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.340 (2)Cheating members of public at largeAppreciation of evidenceAdmitted factsDefence evidencePlea of accused

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for cheating members of public at large and was sentenced to fourteen years of imprisonment along with fine

Accused sought reduction in sentence on the plea that he was just an employee of the companies alleged to have cheated members of public at large

Validity

Admitted facts were not to be proved independently

Statement of accused recorded under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. qualified test of admissibility regarding contents of documents in terms of Art. 35 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Admissibility of evidence was established on record and all allegations were proved against accused as he could not prove his stance of being just an employee of the companies

High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court as charge under S.9(a)(ix) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was established and proved in trial

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 MLD 62 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 265-F(7) & 94Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-ADefence evidenceIssuance of processSummons to produce document or other thingRight of fair trialScope

Accused assailed order of Trial Court whereby his application for summoning the Register maintained for mentioning rent deeds in the police station along with Moharir was dismissed

Validity

Accused, in support of his defence plea, could get process issued for summoning evidence through court

Section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C. provided that court could only refuse to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness for examination or the production of any document or other thing, on the request of accused, if it considered that application was made for the purpose of vexation, delay or defeating the ends of justice

Where such application was not hit by said conditions, then court had to issue the process for summoning of witness or production of any document or other thing

Accused under S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., had to show that evidence sought to be summoned was admissible and had some relevance

Degree of relevance was immaterial for the purpose of exercising powers under S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C.

Piece of evidence having prima facie even the slightest degree of relevance had to be summoned, if it was not otherwise hit by the exceptions mentioned in S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C.

Refusal to issue process for summoning evidence on the application of accused in his defence was unfair in view of Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Impugned order was not only against the express provisions of law i.e. Ss.94 & 265-F(7), Cr.P.C. but was also in direct conflict with Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Appeal was allowed.

2017 YLR 1383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

EvidenceDefence evidenceReliance

Prosecution was to stand on its own legs and it could not derive any benefit from the defence witnesses, if any.

2016 YLR 787 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302 (b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtDefence evidenceScope

Both the accused were convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-amd, one was sentenced to death while the other was awarded imprisonment for life

Validity

Though shopkeepers around venue of occurrence were present at the time of occurrence but none of them was examined

Statement of complainant was not corroborated by any independent impartial witness

None of the persons present at the place of occurrence supported prosecution version

All such deficiencies and infirmities cast serious aspiration on prosecution version

In view of tainted ocular account, mere recovery of weapon of offence on pointing of accused was doubtful in its character and could not be accepted as a corroborative piece of evidence because one tainted piece of evidence could not be used for corroboration of tainted ocular account

Even if defence evidence was not found to be trust worthy, prosecution was still under obligation to prove its case through natural, straightforward, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of unimpeachable character

Prosecution could not earn benefits from weaknesses of defence evidence

Prosecution was bound to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and if any reasonable doubt had arisen from prosecution case, which pricked the judicial mind, benefit of the same was to be extended to accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right

Existence of so many doubts in prosecution case were not needed, rather single reasonable doubt arising from it could crumble the whole edifice of prosecution case

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

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

EvidenceDefence evidenceAffidavits in police filePrincipleMere transfer of such affidavits from police files to judicial record would have not served any useful purpose

If any deponent of such affidavit was produced as defence witness, the affidavit sworn by that person would be detached from police file and placed on judicial file, if such deponent had owned and proved such affidavits.