Prosecution case was doubtful

2016 YLR 2833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtProsecution case was doubtfulCrime was not reported to the Police at the time claimed in the FIRAutospy on the dead body of the deceased was concluded after delay of nineteen hours

Possibility, could not be ruled out that the murder of the deceased remained un-witnessed, and time was consumed by Local Police in procuring and planting witnesses, and cooking up a story for the prosecution

Prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt

Presence of witnesses of ocular account, was not free from doubt

Complainant, was sitting in front seat of car, with her deceased husband while son of the deceased was sitting on rear seat of the car

As many as seven firearm injuries were caused to deceased, but complainant as well as son of the deceased, did not receive a scratch during the occurrence

No specific purpose/ occasion of shopping for which five persons were going together, was disclosed, either in the FIR or before the Trial Court

Reason of mere shopping, without disclosing the eve thereof, did not inspire confidence

First Information Report showed that step son of deceased was also sitting in the same car, but there was no mention of his presence in the FIR that he was injured during the occurrence

According to visual site plan, step son of the deceased was also injured in the same incident

Prosecution, though had given-up step son of the deceased, being won over by accused persons, but suppression of injuries on him in the FIR, would create serious dents qua the credibility/veracity of the prosecution version

No weapon was recovered at the instance of co-accused, and he was found innocent during the successive investigations, whereas alleged recovery of a pistol at the instance of accused, did not advance the case of prosecution; as according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory the empties, allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence, had not been fired through the pistol allegedly recovered at the instance of accused

Vehicle/car, wherein deceased was allegedly killed; and the witnesses of ocular account were boarding at the time of occurrence, which was an important piece of evidence, was not taken into possession by the Police during the course of investigation

Previous enmity existed between the parties

Motive was a double edged weapon in case of admitted enmity

Very strong and independent corroboration was required to believe the ocular account which was lacking in the case

Prosecution case being doubtful in nature, accused persons, were entitled to benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but as of right

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court, were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charge framed against them, and were set at liberty, in circumstances.