Contradictory statements

Accused were arrested by the police on 11.10.2020 and the recovery of narcotics was made from the bus in which one accused was allegedly the driver and the other accused was allegedly a passenger wherefrom a huge amount of narcotics was recovered from a secret cavity in the bus

Such narcotics initially remained with official witness who according to the prosecution evidence handed them over to the other official witnesses on the same day where they were allegedly kept in the Malkana

In this respect the prosecution relied on Entry No.47, however such entry did not support the prosecution case in this regard

Furthermore, the Malkhana in charge was not examined by the prosecution to prove the safe custody of the narcotic and as such it was unclear where the narcotic was kept before it was taken for chemical examination on 12.10.2020 and thus based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that the prosecution had not been able to prove safe custody of the narcotic from the time when it was recovered from the accused till the time when the same was sent for chemical examination and as such the chemical report was of no value to the prosecution in proving the recovered narcotic

Even if safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotic had been proven the chemical report was of no evidentiary value as it was not put to the accused persons during the recording of their S.342, Cr.PC statements and as such could not be used to convict them

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object, shajjah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint

Benefit of doubt

Delayed FIR

Contradictory statements

Allegation levelled against the accused persons was that they launched an attack and demolished the house of the complainant and also inflicted injuries to the complainant and his wife

Record showed that not a single independent witness from the vicinity had been produced to verify the fact, moreover, injury form was not available on record and even the statement of the doctor, who examined the injured was also missing

Alleged incident had taken place at midnight whereas, the complainant had lodged the report on the next day at 02:00 pm, and no explanation for such a long delay in lodging the FIR had been brought on record

Even from the record it appeared that there were a number of contradictions between the statements of the complainant and his wife

Prosecution had to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and even a single doubt was sufficient to acquit the accused, whereas, in the case in hand not a single part of the prosecution story was proved beyond the doubt

Courts below had rightly passed the judgments

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that parcel containing the alleged recovered narcotics was produced before the Trial Court, which had different signatures of recovery witness compared to disclosure memo of the accused, recovery memo of the vehicle and recovery memo of alleged contraband material and search memo

Said fact was enough to create serious doubt about the safe custody of the parcel

Furthermore, the Mashir of recovery stated that all the parcels were prepared of white cloth, while he admitted that today no parcel of cloth was produced in the Court, and voluntarily stated that the Investigating Officer would produce the same

Notable that recovery witness in his examination in chief deposed that, on search of the vehicle, 07 packets of contraband material were recovered beneath the driving seat and 13 packets were recovered from the trunk of the car, underneath the spare wheel, which contradicted the contents of the FIR

Complainant, during his cross-examination stated that as per law the police of concerned police station should be taken into confidence prior to initiation of any proceedings

Admittedly, complainant did not get information about the police station in jurisdiction of which occurrence took place

Admittedly, the Investigating Officer did not reach at the place of occurrence

Mohrar stated that the sealed parcels were handed over to him by Investigating Officer which showed that the parcels were brought to ANF Police Station and thereafter handed over to the Mohrar, thus, creating serious doubt in the safe custody of the alleged recovered contraband material, whereas, in the trial, it was essential for the prosecution to establish its case through cogent and convincing evidence

Alleged contraband was seized from the possession of accused and was kept in safe custody in the malkhana at Police Station and thereafter the representative samples were safely transmitted to the Office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis, and it was evident that the needful was not done in its required manner

Sample/contraband so deposited in the Office of Narcotic Testing Laboratory could not be tagged with the seized substance allegedly recovered from possession of the accused in absence of evidence of its safe custody

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Investigating Officer had not produced the register of the Malkhana and no evidence was produced to prove safe transmission of the contraband from the police to the Chemical Examiner

Prosecution case was full of contradictions

Samples taken from each packet was in negligible quantity (01 gram)

Sealing of 28 samples in one parcel was not safe for conviction of the accused

Samples were not separated on the spot of recovery

Recovery from the impounded car was also doubtful

Prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the law

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Complainant had admitted during cross-examination that no identification marks were put on the recovered articles; that total recovered charas was weighed collectively but he was contradicted by another prosecution witness and that the raiding party was accompanied by a lady constable but she was not produced before the Court

Samples were allegedly handed over to the sample-bearer on the very next day of recovery but he stated that he had taken the samples after one and a half month of the day of recovery

Prosecution had failed to prove the chain of custody

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Investigating Officer had not delivered the narcotic substance at the Forensic Laboratory rather he had asserted that the recovered narcotic was sent through docket

Perusal of the report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that the samples were received through Investigating Officer, which fact had negated the statement of the Investigating Officer

Neither the statement of special messenger was recorded nor any witness in this regard was produced who could prove that he delivered the samples of narcotic substance at Forensic Laboratory

No document was available on record which could verify that the samples were sent through insured post, so the mandatory provision of R. 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, had been violated

Accused was acquitted, in circumstances.

Since the role of driving was not attributed to any person, the question of conscious possession of the recovered charas within the meaning of S. 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not arise at all

Prosecution had also failed to inquire about the ownership of the car from which the charas was allegedly recovered

Chemical Examiner's report mentioned the recovered substance as "Hashish Garda," which is a raw form of cannabis resin and could not be used as a narcotic drug, whereas baked charas was used for smoking

Assistant Commissioner allegedly present during the recovery process was not cited as a witness

Prosecution had conducted the entire investigation in an unprofessional manner and had failed to substantiate the accusation against the accused to connect them with the commission of the alleged offence

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant in his cross-examination stated that only some money was recovered from personal possession of the accused while a marginal witness stated that CNIC of accused was also recovered from personal search, in his presence

Contradiction was available in the statements of prosecution witnesses about receiving of information from a spy

Fard-e-bayan was sent through a constable for lodging the FIR but the prosecution did not produce him as a Court witness

One of the marginal witnesses had failed to identify the accused persons before the Trial Court, during his examination-in-chief

Vehicles used for transportation of narcotics were produced before the court but the engine numbers of both the vehicles were found different to those mentioned in the recovery memo

Record revealed that statement of accused was recorded by Investigating Officer 10 days prior to the alleged incident

Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner narrated in the FIR

No doubt, huge quantity of contraband was recovered but recovery of huge quantity was not the only criteria to convict the accused charged with trafficking of contraband unless the indictment was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through confidence inspiring and worth reliable evidence

Appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Complainant had stated during cross-examination that no one from the levies station had come on the spot during recovery and making of parcels and that Tehsildar had come later at the place of recovery whereafter he along with other staff went to police station along with Tehsildar where Assistant Commissioner was already present

Tehsildar (Investigating Officer) contradicted the complainant and stated that after registration of the FIR, he rushed to the place of recovery, prepared site plan, parcels and he was the one who had extracted samples for chemical analysis

Recovery had not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as the testimonies were highly doubtful, contradicting each witness on material points of search, recovery and making of parcels

Sample-bearer was also not produced before the Trial Court

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

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.

Accused along with others was alleged to have murdered the sister of complainant and attempted at the life of complainant

Deceased had received a solitary injury but it had led to a charge against three real brothers

Complainant had introduced a new eye-witness of the incident during spot inspection by the Investigating Officer

Prosecution had yet to explain as to whether in case of .30 bore pistol, blackening was possible, that too, from a distance of 3 to 4 paces

Accused had succeeded in making out a case for bail

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that she was busy in cultivating onions along with her father-in-law and her husband when the accused persons appeared and started firing as a result of which both male members of the complainant's family died at the spot

Occurrence was claimed to have been witnessed by another woman, who had got attracted to the spot on hearing sound of fire shots

Complainant stated in her cross-examination that she had climbed the rooftop of her house after three minutes of the firing and that all the firing had been made in one go

Role of effective firing at the time of lodging FIR was attributed to accused, which was subsequently changed to that of the acquitted co-accused

One of the reasons might be a fact that the accused had been absconding while the co-accused was facing trial

Complainant shifted the effective role of causing death to the accused

Eye-witness, as opposed to the complaint, had stated in her examination-in-chief that she had climbed the rooftop along with the complainant

In the site plan also, both the witnesses were shown at a distance from each other and none of them were shown at the rooftop of their house

No recovery was effected on the indication of accused

Medical evidence was of no help to the case of prosecution in the given circumstances

Prosecution had failed in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against acquitted was allowed, in circumstances.

Different versions of four police officials qua separation of samples as well as taking it to the Forensic Laboratory came forward in the prosecution evidence

Samples were received in the Forensic Laboratory after a delay of two days, which was not explained

Samples were handed over to sample bearer by the Moharrir but the later was not examined by the prosecution during trial; as such, the prosecution had withheld its best evidence

Complainant had admitted during cross-examination that there was no special secret cavity in the vehicle except manufactured cavities; which rebutted the version of prosecution qua secret cavities in the vehicle

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

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Accused was found in possession of ten packet of opium weighing 9800 grams and four packets of charas weighing 5000 grams

Whole case property was sealed on the spot and brought back to the police station where, as per the deposition of complainant police official, he kept the case property in safe custody

Complainant then admitted that such entries for recovered case properties were kept in the relevant Register and that he recorded the same, but did not produce it before the Court

Contradicting the complainant, however, Investigating Officer deposed that he received case property for investigation

Investigating Officer also deposed that he did not make an entry of case property in the Register nor did he confirm from the Head Mohrar regarding keeping the entry in Register

Investigating Officer too admitted to not producing the entry from the Register

As per his deposition, Investigating Officer received the case property whereas the complainant of the case deposed that he had kept the same in safe custody

Both the said prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on a crucial aspect of the case and due to their failure by not producing the entry from the Register nor examining the in-charge of said malkhana/Head Muharar, it could not be ascertained whether case property was even kept safe during the intervening period in which it was not sent to the Chemical Examiner

Safe custody from recovery to dispatch to the Chemical Examiner could not be proven especially when the same was delayed by two whole days without the possibility of tampering

In failing to disprove the possibility of tampering and establishing safe custody, recovery of the narcotics could not be used against the accused despite there being a positive Chemical Examiner's report

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that the deceased together with his friends was taken by police party at the instance of a person with whom the deceased was having a dispute over a plot

Deceased was shifted from one police station to another and from there he was shifted to the place of incident where he was killed

Incident as per complainant was witnessed by him in the light of motorcycles

Prosecution witnesses had supported the complainant so far as identity of the accused and others under the light of motorcycles was concerned

Identity of the culprits involved in the incident under the light of motorcycles with specific role even otherwise appeared to be a weak piece of evidence

Complainant had admitted that there were conflicting statements in his application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. and his FIR with regard to the weapon used by the accused

One of the friends of deceased had admitted that he had not seen the accused committing murder of the deceased while the other was not examined by the prosecution for no obvious reason

Presumption which could be drawn for his non-examination would be that he was not going to support the case of prosecution

Seven other persons were acquitted on the same evidence and their acquittal had attained finality

Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt and to such benefit he was entitled

Impugned judgment was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge

Criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Moharrir stated that he had handed over samples to a constable for onward transmission to the Forensic Laboratory while the alleged sample-bearer stated that samples were not handed over to him

Even application for sending the samples to the Forensic Laboratory was not drafted

Apart from the safe custody and safe transmission of the samples, the report of Forensic Laboratory did not bear the test protocols that were applied to carry out the tests

Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, thus, accused was rightly acquitted of the charge

Appeal was dismissed.

No malice or mala fide was apparent on the part of prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused but the way they had contradicted each other was suggestive of the fact that either one or the other was not present on the spot at the relevant time and the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as furnished by the prosecution

Report of Forensic Laboratory was in positive but the same was not reliable for the reason that neither the chain of sending the representative samples to Moharrir from the spot was established nor the report of Forensic Laboratory carried requisite protocols

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court were set aside.

Case record showed that the very chain of events starting from the crime spot to police station regarding the dispatch and safe custody in the police malkhana of representative samples was not proved which deficiency had dented the prosecution case

Case murasila was handed over to a constable wherein there was no mention that the case property and the representative samples were delivered to him for their handing over to Moharrir of police station

Likewise, Moharrir of the police station was not produced as witness to depose that he had kept the representative samples in safe custody before they were dispatched to Forensic Laboratory

Official who had taken the samples to Forensic Laboratory for their chemical analysis had not appeared for the prosecution as its witness

Safe custody of the case property and the representative samples was not proved by the prosecution

Besides there were other contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses which were not taken into consideration by the Trial Court

Prosecution had not proved its case against the accused through any cogent and reliable evidence

Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Accused persons sought post-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under Ss. 365, 365-A & 109, P.P.C., read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Allegation against accused persons was that of abduction for ransom

Incident was reported with unexplained delay of more than two hours

Accused persons were nominated in the crime report

Features of accused were not mentioned in the FIR

Statements of abductee recorded under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. were at variance regarding mode and manner of the occurrence

Recoveries were effected from the accused persons and their physical custody was not required by the investigating agency

Accused persons were behind the bars since their arrest and their continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair

Case against accused persons was one of further probe within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition was allowed and the accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Kidnapping, wrongful confinement for three or more days, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Contradictory statements

Scope

Prosecution case was that the daughter of complainant aged about 9/10 years went outside the house to purchase some eatable things from shop but an unknown accused abducted her within the view of two prosecution witnesses

Demand of ransom was not proved nor ransom was paid

Both the referred prosecution witnesses had clearly stated that the accused was not involved in the abduction

Non-production of entries of roznamcha regarding the departure of police from one district to another for raiding the house of accused was fatal for the case of prosecution

Prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on material points

Complainant himself had stated that his daughter had come back to the house on her own

Recovery of abductee from the custody and house of accused could not be proved by the prosecution

Letters containing demand of ransom by accused were neither sealed by the police after taking into possession nor immediately sent to the Forensic Laboratory

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

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Place of abduction according to complainant was the abductee's house whereas the abductee had described his residence at another district

Abductee in his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. had alleged that the accused persons had withdrawn certain amount from his account through ATM but no material was collected by the Investigating Officer in that regard

Complainant had alleged that he had received phone call for ransom from the cell number of abductee whereas the abductee had stated that the accused persons had never talked directly to his brother

Such contradictions had brought the case of accused persons within purview of further inquiry

Two of the co-accused persons having identical role were enlarged on pre-arrest bail, as such, the accused persons also deserved the same relief

Petitions for grant of bail were accepted, in circumstances.

Constable stated that he was given samples for onward submission to Forensic Laboratory by the Moharrir whereas Moharrir stated that he had given samples to another constable for onward submission to Forensic Laboratory

Investigating Officer admitted that he had not recorded the statement of Assistant Director ANF who had supervised the raid nor had he cited him as a witness

Investigating Officer had also admitted that accused had no previous record of any involvement in the criminal case, therefore, the prosecution case regarding his previous conduct as known inter-provincial drug-dealer was not supported

Chemical Examiner had admitted in cross-examination that possibility of causing intoxication in the substance was not mentioned and that if 1 gram heroin was mixed in 100 grams of other white colour powder even then the result of the laboratory would have been the same as in the instant report

Report of Chemical Examiner was not the original report which could not have even been tendered in evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Pistol produced in court was with some descriptions which both the witnesses had admitted but the description was not mentioned in the mashirnama of the recovery

Prosecution had failed to establish safe custody of the recovered weapon

Neither Writing Head Constable (WHC) nor any other responsible official (incharge) of the Malkhana was produced before the Court to confirm the deposit of weapon

Place of recovery of weapon did not belong to accused

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Complainant had not stated that a ladder was taken away by the culprits at the time of the incident, but the Investigating Officer had allegedly recovered some ladder on the pointation of one of the accused persons and it was not even produced before the court as the case property

Investigating Officer had deposed that one of the accused persons had got recovered the stolen articles whereas prosecution witness in his examination-in-chief had deposed that the Station House Officer (SHO) had called him and others on phone to come to the police station as the police had recovered some stolen articles

Complainant had identified the accused persons in a solar light but in the mashirnama of inspection of place of occurrence availability of solar light was not mentioned

Complainant had admitted that he had a dispute with the accused persons over harap and money allegedly borrowed by one of them

Material and glaring contradictions, dishonest and deliberate improvements and admissions adverse to the prosecution case made by prosecution witnesses during the trial had rendered the prosecution case doubtful

Trial court had rightly acquitted the accused persons by extending benefit of doubt which did not call for any interference

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant had not produced any witness in support of his claim that huge amount of Rs. 950,000/- was given in cash to the accused for the purpose of business

Statement of complainant before the High Court, his statement in the FIR and his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., were contradictory

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Recovered pistol and live bullets were allegedly sealed at the spot but the complainant had not stated about sealing of the pistol and live bullets in his statement

Complainant and mashir had contradicted each other regarding the distance between the place of incident and police station; regarding the distance between police party and the accused, at the time of his arrest and regarding the time consumed at the place of incident

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the complainant and his brother were fired upon by accused and his father as a result of which a bullet hit the tyre of motorcycle

Fire shot as alleged in the FIR had not hit the complainant, moreover the accused had not repeated the overt act to its extreme; although the complainant and his brother were at the mercy of accused

In view of sufficient time to repeat the firing, whether S. 324, P.P.C., could be invoked or not was question, which could only be resolved by the Trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant evidence to be recorded in that respect

Prima facie a case of further inquiry was made out in favour of accused

FIR was lodged after a delay of 2 hours without any explanation, which created doubt of being deliberated and concocted

Police had released the co-accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. as such rule of consistency applied in the case

Deposition of an eye-witness had contradicted his statement recorded by police during investigation under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

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.

Complainant alleged that he received information that his brother visited the house of sister of accused, at about 02:00 a.m. as he had friendly terms with her; that the accused along with co-accused saw the deceased with his sister in her room, apprehended him, tied his hands, took him to the fields and committed his murder

First Information Report was lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay

Complainant had not disclosed the source of information regarding the occurrence in his report

Sister of accused in her statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. had charged the accused whereas in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., she had resiled from her earlier stance by exonerating the accused from the commission of offence, which made the case of accused that of further inquiry

Call data which was necessary evidence to show contact between the deceased and sister of accused was not placed on record

No doubt, pistol was recovered on the pointation of accused but the same was admittedly in the ownership of absconding co-accused who happened to be the father of accused

Evidentiary value of such piece of evidence could better be determined in the case of the co-accused

Accused was of tender age which too tilted the scale in his favour

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner's witness had stated that it was winter season when talb-i-muwathibat was made whereas petitioner had deposed that it was summer season

Petitioner's witness had further stated that he had signed only one notice of talb-i-ishhad whereas there were total eight vendees

Findings of the Trial Court revealed that both the petitioner and respondents had got equal rights in the suit property and the said findings were not challenged by either of them

Photocopies of notices were not appended with the petition, which was one of the requirements of first proviso to S.115, C.P.C.

Record was silent about the acknowledgement-due cards as nothing to this effect was said or placed on file

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Material contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses which created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

Evidence of prosecution when placed in juxtaposition to the defence stance coupled with statement of court witness showed that possibility of false implication could not be ruled out

Report of Forensic Laboratory though was in affirmative but neither any protocol was mentioned in the report nor any test was referred to on the basis whereof the Chemical Examiner had concluded that the samples sent for examination contained charas

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Crime report was registered on the statement of deceased (injured at that time) who stated that he was going on a motorcycle to drop his daughter to Madrassa; that he was intercepted by accused along with others; that the accused gave kassi blow on his head whereas, the co-accused gave multiple club blows and that the incident had occurred in the backdrop of a previous grudge

Contents of FIR described that the alleged incident had taken place on 25-02-2012 whereas medical officer stated that he had attended the complainant on 24-02-2012

Daughter of complainant while narrating the incident stated that the accused persons pushed them as they were boarded on a motorcycle resultantly, they fell on the ground but such aspect of the case was not described in the FIR

Daughter of the complainant was not medically examined

Injuries attributed to co-accused persons were duly observed by the medical officer on the person of complainant but since the prosecution evidence was disbelieved to the extent of acquitted co-accused persons by the Trial Court, therefore, the same could not be relied upon without having independent and strong corroboratory evidence

Second eye-witness had not plausibly explained his presence at the place of occurrence

Prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the incident

Weapon recovered from the possession of accused was not blood-stained

Wilful absconsion of accused was not proved through evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he along with three others snatched a certain amount of sum from the employees of a bus service on gunpoint and also took away their car

No recovery was effected from the accused

All the co-accused persons including those placed at a higher rung had been released on bail, hence the accused was entitled for grant of bail on the principle of consistency

Statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the mode and manner of occurrence were contradictory

Investigation had been completed

Fair and speedy trial was one of the fundamental rights of the accused, no moral and legal compulsion existed to keep the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period which amounted to punishment without trial

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

Eye-witnesses had contradicted each other regarding the manner in which the incident was committed and regarding the time of death of the deceased

Conduct of the witnesses was unnatural as they remained calm and did not resist or make hue and cry

Eye-witness had stated that the firing was made from a distance 2/3 feet while the medical officer had stated that the distance was 10/15 feet

Bloodstained earth and blood stained clothes were received in Forensic Laboratory after more than 45 days and it was not disclosed as to where were these articles kept and in whose custody

False implication of accused could not be ruled out, in circumstances

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

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Witnesses had contradicted each other regarding the mode of stopping the vehicle; the part of vehicle from which the narcotic was recovered; the possession of case property and the person who had sealed the parcels

Complainant stated that he had first sealed the parcels then prepared the recovery memo and thereafter drafted murasila meaning thereby that FIR was not chalked out at that time, thus, the entry of FIR number on the parcels at the spot led to the conclusion that recovery was not made in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution

Conviction could neither be approved nor upheld on the basis of shaky evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he was driving the vehicle wherein secret cavities were specially designed for concealment of narcotics and police recovered 150 packets containing charas, which turned out to be 150 kg

Each prosecution witness had contradicted each other on various points

Seizing Officer had stated that case property was lying in between the driver's seat and the rear body portion of the vehicle

Marginal witness to the recovery memo had stated that the contraband was recovered from rear portion of the vehicle and that the cavity was not behind the driver's seat

Seizing officer had stated that at the time of nakabandi they had no official vehicle whereas a prosecution witness had contradicted such stance

Seizing officer had revealed that he had used his own scale to weigh the material whereas marginal witness had stated that the scale was procured from a nearby shop

Witnesses had contradicted each other to the effect that search was conducted on the information of informer

Seizing officer had shown his inability to tell as to whether there was any writing over the case property or not but the case property had writing on it

Investigating Officer had stated that no shop was available in the vicinity therefore, he had not shown the same in the site plan

Seizing officer had admitted that during search he had not taken into possession driving licence, keys of the vehicle or any other document showing ownership of the vehicle by the accused

Accused was not challaned for driving without licence

Prosecution had not tried to ascertain about the owner of the vehicle

Seizing officer had stated that the charas and case property was handed over to the Investigating Officer on the spot whereas Investigating Officer had contradicted such stance

Prosecution witness had stated that the parcels, vehicle and the case property were handed over to him by the complainant in the police station however, no receipt or abstract from the Register was brought on record

Constable, who was shown in the Forensic Science Laboratory report to have brought the samples, was not examined by the prosecution

Samples of the recovered stuff were received by the Laboratory after three days of its recovery, however, the prosecution witnesses did not bring on record the trail of samples suggesting that during this period the same was kept in safe custody

Trial Court had not analyzed the prosecution evidence in its true perspective

High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

Copy of FIR, along with other documents, was not sent to the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased

Circumstances suggested that till the time of post-mortem examination, FIR was not in existence

Doctor had opined that the duration between injury and death was half an hour whereas the eye-witnesses stated that the deceased succumbed at the spot

Testimony of related witnesses being not in accordance with medical evidence was sufficient to disbelieve their testimony

Several contradictions existed in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses

Prosecution had failed to bring home charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was accepted.

Prosecution case against accused was that he abducted the daughter of complainant when she reached near his house; took her to his house; tore her clothes with intention to commit rape but the mother of victim while passing through the street saw the victim being abducted; which attracted two persons and the accused fled away from the spot

Admittedly, complainant party had enmity with the accused

No medico legal examination of the victim was produced which could have shown marks of dragging or violence on her body

Victim, although deaf and dumb, was not produced in the witness box

Statements of eye-witnesses were contradictory

Accused, despite being empty handed, was not apprehended by the complainant party even though it consisted of three adult members

Torn 'qameez' of the victim was produced before the police after seventeen days of the occurrence

Admittedly, accused and his brother lived in the house where the occurrence took place and it was not probable that the accused would attempt to commit rape where his family and family of his brother was living

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

Appeal against conviction, was allowed, in circumstances.

Keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Failure to seal case property

Contradictory statements

Chain of custody

Scope

Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of an explosive device

Explosive device, after it was defused, was put back into a sack, however, nothing was available on record to show that it was sealed

Nothing was available on record to show that the investigating officer had took the device to the Civil Defence Office for drawing samples of the explosive substances and that samples were sealed

Investigating Officer and Moharrar had contradicted each other as both had claimed that they had given the samples to the sample-bearer for transmission to Forensic Laboratory

Chain of custody was broken, therefore, forensic report had lost its credibility

Conviction of accused could not be sustained

Appeal was allowed.

Accused, during investigation, led the police party to his residential room and got recovered 40 packets of charas weighing 50 kilograms

Complainant did not state in his deposition about the place where he had kept parcels of samples and the remaining case property

Mere oral statements of police officials as to recovery of charas weighing 50 kilograms did not discharge heavy burden of responsibility, which was laid on the prosecution

Moharrar deposed that he gave 40 parcels of samples to the sample-bearer for transmission to Forensic Laboratory but the sample-bearer deposed that he received 80 parcels

Prosecution could not prove safe custody of the parcels of samples drawn from the allegedly recovered substance through material and cogent evidence

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Eye-witnesses had claimed to have reached at the spot after having been informed and they claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40/50 feet

Eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased

One of the eye-witnesses resided at a distance of 7/8 kilometers from the place of occurrence whereas the other was permanent resident of another district

Eye-witnesses had raised no hue and cry

Statements of witnesses were at variance on some aspects

One of the eye-witnesses claimed that his statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer at the crime scene whereas the other deposed that he was examined in the hospital

Investigation Officer admitted during the investigation that he took the blood stained earth into possession but there was soiling in the street

Motorbike of the deceased was not taken into possession during the investigation

No document whatsoever, showed the admission of deceased in hospital, his stay in ICU ward and then his examination under the order of the Magistrate itself was a circumstance which was sufficient to raise an eyebrow

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

Criminal appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence of the accused recorded by the learned Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Complainant, a Sub-Inspector of police, complained that he received a report that the accused, who ran a mobile shop, was spreading hate and jehadi material among the public

Complainant testified that he seized several articles from the shop of accused vide recovery memo but he was completely silent about what he did with them

Statement of Investigating Officer admitting receipt of case property from complainant was insufficient to provide the missing link and complete the chain of custody, as the complainant had not said so

Investigating Officer deposed that he raided the shop of accused for investigation at 9:45 a.m.; that he returned to the Headquarters at about 12:00 noon/1:00 p.m. and that he had sealed the CPU (Central Processing Unit) at the site

Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that the operating system of the CPU was last logged on at 5:47:29 p.m., which clearly indicated tampering with the CPU after its seizure

Prosecution had not brought any evidence on record to prove that the accused had a criminal history or was a member of any proscribed organization or was otherwise supporting or promoting the cause of any such body

Heavy onus rested on the prosecution to explain as to what motivated the accused to possess and disseminate the hate and jehadi material

Prosecution evidence was not free from doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused, during interrogation of another case, was alleged to have disclosed about the charas concealed near his house which was recovered accordingly

Complainant had deposed that he had recovered the charas; prepared two sealed parcels and handed them over to the Investigating Officer, who had reached on the spot

Investigating Officer had confirmed receipt of case property from the complainant and its entrustment to the Moharrar for safe custody

Recovery witness had deposed that the complainant had handed over the sample to a constable for its transmission to the police station

Moharrar had deposed that the Investigating Officer had handed him over two sealed parcels of charas

Complainant had recovered the charas from the territorial jurisdiction of another police station but it was not understandable as to why the Moharrar had entrusted the sample to the complainant instead of an official of the police station wherein FIR was registered

Constable through whom complaint was sent to the police station for registration of FIR was not examined by the prosecution but he was a material witness

Prosecution had failed to establish safe custody of the case property and safe transmission of the sample to the Forensic Laboratory

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that he was informed on phone, when his brother and nephew were in a marriage ceremony, that his brother-in-law/accused had not permitted his sister to attend the marriage ceremony and had also beaten her

Complainant's brother and nephew returned back to the house of accused and stayed there in the night and at 2:00 a.m., they saw on electric light that the accused being armed with hatchet caused sharp side hatchet blow to his sister on her face while she was sleeping; her brother and nephew made hakkals but the accused succeeded to run away along with hatchet

Nephew of complainant deposed that after attending the marriage ceremony his maternal uncle had gone to the house of accused while he had stayed in the marriage ceremony, whereas complainant's brother deposed the same facts but he contradicted the evidence of the nephew and stated that he and the nephew both had stayed in the house of accused

Deceased had four sons and two daughters and they were present in the house at the time of incident, however, they were not examined by the prosecution

Investigating officer had also failed to record the statement of the children of deceased though some of them were major

Children of deceased should have been examined by the prosecution but the prosecution had purposely avoided to produce such important witnesses, which went against the prosecution case and supported the defense plea

Motive as stated by the complainant and witnesses was not established as the complainant had admitted the love and affection of the accused with his wife

Prosecution had also failed to explain about the delay in lodging of FIR

Eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they could not establish that there was a marriage ceremony which they had attended

Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt

High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that his son aged 10 years was taken by his uncle to a festival; uncle became drowsy; accused and other arranged for his sleep; took his son with them and committed his murder

Complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident as such his evidence could not be relied upon

Prosecution witness/uncle of the deceased had not supported the case of prosecution by stating that he had not seen anyone killing the deceased

First Information Report of the incident lodged by the complainant was disposed of under 'A' class by the police

Direct complaint was filed by complainant with a delay of seven months

Statements of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent on some points

Conviction of one set of accused and acquittal of other set of accused, on the basis of same evidence could not be approved

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, wrongful confinement, common object, act of terrorism, kidnapping for ransom, going armed without licence

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Non-association of independent witnesses

Contradictory statements

Failure to conduct identification parade

Effect

Prosecution case was that the prosecution witnesses/abductees were taken by accused to some unknown place for ransom

Complainant/police official had come to know through spy information that the abductees were detained by the accused persons

Relatives of the abductees had not reported their abduction to the police

Complainant should have associated independent person to witness arrest of the culprits and recovery of the abductees

Person who had taken the abductees to an unknown place was also got released by police along with the abductees but the Investigating Officer had arrayed him as an accused

Two of the abductees had stated that one of the accused persons was not among the culprits, therefore, recovery of weapon from such accused appeared to be doubtful

Accused persons were not subjected to identification by the complainant and the alleged abductees

No ransom was paid

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

Impugned judgment was set aside and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge

Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Haraabah, act of terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common object, unlicensed possession of arms

Power of court to acquit accused at any stage

Appeal against acquittal

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Contradictory statements

Withholding best evidence

Scope

Accused persons were alleged to have looted the passengers and fired at the police party

Trial Court, after recording the evidence of all material prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. arriving at the conclusion that there existed no probability of accused being convicted, therefore, State counsel conceded that the remaining prosecution witnesses who were also police officials, would not improve the prosecution's case to the extent of probability of the accused being convicted

Prosecution story rested upon the evidence of the DPO (District Police Officer) concerned, on whose presence and instructions the alleged encounter was conducted, but he was not examined as a witness

Prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence as there were sufficient inconsistencies and contradictions among the depositions of prosecution witnesses, which created reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Complainant stated that eight pieces of "charas", weighing 190 grams were recovered from the accused, out of which a single piece of 10 grams was sent for chemical examination and mashirnama was prepared by him in sunlight

During cross-examination complainant stated that he sent two pieces of charas for examination, and one of the mashir stated that the mashirnama was prepared by using the light from the headlight of the Police vehicle

Held, that "charas" was sent for chemical examination with a delay of 8 days and no plausible explanation was presented for such delay and in such circumstances no sanctity could be attached to a positive report from the chemical examiner

Charas was not kept at a safe place, chance of tampering/foisting of the case property could not be ruled out

Accused was arrested from the road but no private person of the locality was associated as mashir during the raid and if the private persons were involved during the raid, then chances/plea of false implication could have been negated

High Court observed that court should ensure that proceedings of recovery and seizure in narcotics cases should be made in transparent manner so as to protect citizens from high handedness of Police and to save them from the agony of uncalled for trials

Material contradictions existed in the prosecution case, and prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused was acquitted and appeal was allowed accordingly.

Samples of narcotic were sent to medical examiner with an unexplained delay of seven days and prosecution witness confirmed the fact that during that period the recovered 'charas' was kept in 'malkhana' at the Police Station but without any entry of the same in the record

As per chemical examiner's report nine semi soft and greenish brown samples were sent but on the other hand during trial instead of nine, thirty one samples were presented before the Trial Court and according to the complainant the recovered 'charas' was dark brown in colour

Complainant admitted that samples were not separated from some of the slabs which were produced at the trial, and further admitted that model, number of recovered mobile phone and denomination of currency notes were not mentioned in FIR or the memo of recovery nor was it sealed at the spot

Complainant admitted that "roznamcha" entry did not mention that investigation kit was with him, and he was unaware of the fact as to how many signatures of mashirs were obtained at the place of incident

Prosecution witness deposed that 'charas' was lying in black bag but a blue bag was produced during trial

Held, that factum of said unexplained delay of seven days and non-maintaining of such entry had made the case of prosecution highly doubtful

Glaring contradictions and material discrepancies in statements of prosecution witnesses were fatal to the case of prosecution, and consequently, prosecution case, in such circumstances suffered from reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and appellant was acquitted, in circumstances.