Defective identification parade

2019 YLR 1663 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17(3)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 170, 342 & 457Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417Haraaba, impersonating government official, illegal confinement and house trespassAppeal against acquittalAppreciation of evidenceDual innocence, presumption ofDefective identification paradeUnexplained delay in FIRDelay of three days in lodging of FIR without any plausible or justifiable explanation

Accused were nominated without disclosing any source, showing as to how complainant came to know about names of culprits

Complainant did not state as to who informed him and how the names of culprits were known to him

Allegedly, accused persons had pretended to be army soldiers but complainant never stated to have approached army officials of the area confirm otherwise of particulars of accused

Complainant allegedly had identified gold ornaments such as necklace and an ear ring and certain artificial ornaments as looted property but details of artificial ornaments did not figure in memo of identification

Complainant had not reported that his artificial ornaments were taken away by accused as such identifying artificial ornaments, subsequently did not improve case of prosecution rather diminished evidentiary value of entire identification proceedings

Federal Shariat Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Trial Court as it was passed on logical and legal reasons and did not suffer from any perversity, illegality, misreading and non-reading of evidence

Acquittal of accused was maintained as evidence on record that held accused guilty was insufficient and after earning acquittal, presumption of dual innocence came into play

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLR 1181 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 396 & 302Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murderReappraisal of evidenceDelay in FIRDefective identification paradeAccused were convicted under S.396, P.P.C. as tazir and sentenced to life imprisonmentValidity

Record showed that there was a delay of more than 8 hours in lodging of FIR by complainant and the explanation that such delay was due to taking the injured to hospital was not convincing as there was nothing on record to indicate that complainant had rushed the injured victim to the hospital for treatment

Such delay in FIR made prosecution case doubtful

Accused were not nominated in the FIR but according to a prosecution witness; he identified the accused by their body structure and eyes

Such description of accused and their structure was not mentioned in FIR as well as statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and in absence of said descriptions in the FIR as well as statements, the identification of accused persons during identification parade to be the same persons who committed the offence was not believable

Said identification parade was not conducted in accordance with prescribed rules as the identification parade form showed that names of all persons, who were present as dummies during identification parade, along with parentage and address had not been mentioned and said identification parade was not carried out under supervision of concerned Magistrate and according to prosecution, such identification parade was carried under the concerned SHO and another witness; and the said persons were not examined by the prosecution in support of its case; and therefore the identification parade was defective and unworthy of reliance

Contention that accused during investigation had led police to pointation of place of incident was not valid and could not be relied on as the same was inadmissible since place of occurrence was already in knowledge of police and mere such disclosure before police was not admissible unless new facts were discovered in pursuance of such disclosure

Non-securing of blood-stained earth from exact place of incident cast further doubt in prosecution story

Evidence led by prosecution against accused persons was not reliable and it could be concluded from available evidence that the incident did not take place in manner narrated by prosecution witnesses

Convictions of accused were set aside and accused were acquitted of the charge

Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.