Interested witnesses

Admittedly, the deceased was assaulted by a non-lethal weapon (sota); yet being his real brother, and sitting beside the deceased, the petitioner (complainant) sustained no injury, nor was he able to prevent the assault on the deceased

Contradictions and discrepancies in the ocular account of the eye-witnesses diluted the story of the prosecution, whose case rested on the statement of eye-witnesses, who all were closely related to the deceased

Ocular account of the prosecution's interested witnesses was uncorroborated by the available evidence

No one else was present at the place of occurrence

This creates doubt in their testimony, because both the petitioner and the other eye-witness, resided in different villages, that too, at a considerable distance and their joint arrival at the Dera of the deceased, on foot, in the early morning of the last week of December remained unexplained

Presence of these witnesses at the crime scene was highly doubtful and questionable

As to the other two eyewitnesses, they were also interested witnesses due to their close relationship with the deceased

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was dismissed and leave was refused.

Contention was that the witnesses were near relatives of the deceased and being interested their evidence could not be relied upon

Said contention of prosecution had no force because the eye-witnesses had sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of the occurrence

Where the witnesses fell within the category of natural witnesses and detailed the manner of the incident in a confidence-inspiring manner then the only escape available to the accused was to satisfactorily establish that witnesses were not the witnesses of truth but interested one

Based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased alone was not sufficient to discard the testimony of the complainant and the other eye-witnesses

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that the accused persons and two unknown culprits started firing at the passengers of the passenger van during the course of which the complainant and a passenger sustained bullet injuries, who were shifted to the hospital where injured passenger succumbed to the injuries

Admittedly, enmity, rivalry and ill will existed between the accused and the eye-witnesses who represented two different factions of a political party, who were electioneering for two different candidates in a hotly contested election on the day of the incident

Said eye-witnesses had every reason to falsely implicate the accused especially as their faction of the political party was currently a part of the Government

Said witnesses were all interested witnesses with an axe to grind against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mere relationship of the deceased with a witness was not sufficient to discard his testimony unless the latter fell within the expression of an interested witness

Interested witness was a person who had a motive to falsely implicate another person or in other words had an animus for false charge against an accused.

Accused were charged for snatching mobile phones, gold ornaments and cash from the house of the complainant, on resistance, one of the accused fired with pistol, which hit the brother of complainant who died

Plea of accused that the witnesses were interested witnesses had no legal value for the simple reason that the incident had taken place inside the dwelling and whomsoever was present in the house was a natural witness to the incident, irrespective of the fact that they were closely related to deceased

If the evidence of said witnesses remained un-rebutted then their evidence was to be believed, therefore, defence plea raised by the accused was neither sufficient nor inspiring confidence

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

Trial Court while awarding sentence under S.544(A), Cr.P.C., in case of default of payment of compensation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding two years' imprisonment, whereas the maximum period provided under S.544-A(2), Cr.P.C. was six months

Said period was modified with sentence of six months in case of non-realization of compensation amount

Appeal was dismissed with said modification.

Substitution is a phenomenon of a rare occurrence because even the interested witnesses would not normally allow real culprits for the murder of their relations let off by involving innocent persons.

Mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased was no genuine ground to discard their straight forward and convincing evidence

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Defense could not succeed to prove any consultation, deliberation or premeditation on part of complainant to falsely charge accused in the case

Not possible in ordinary course or even not appealable to prudent mind that actual and real culprit was let off and instead an innocent person was charged

Accused, complainant and deceased were residing in the same house and complainant was a Purdah observing lady, therefore, she had not lodged report promptly

Mere delay in lodging of FIR was never sufficient to believe or disbelieve contents of FIR

Question of guilt or innocence was always required standard of evidence

Promptness or delay had their relevance as a circumstance which otherwise would not have prejudiced liabilities of either sides and that of court to examine such aspect by holding scale of justice tight

Weapon used for commission of offence had to be considered for purpose of an act with intention to cause harm to the body

Intention was primary consideration showing aim and objective of offender

Parties, in the present case, were closely related to each other and no evidence showing serious dispute or enmity was brought on record

No premeditation or anything to show that accused had intention to commit offense of qatl-i-amd

Case of accused person did not fall under S. 302(c), P.P.C. however same was covered under S. 315, P.P.C.

High Court modified judgment passed by the Trial Court and convicted accused under S.316, P.P.C.

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Record showed that the deceased and the witnesses were involved in criminal cases including abduction of ladies and that position was frankly conceded by the Investigating Officer rather he admitted that the deceased was a criminal and a thief

Admitted joint enmities of deceased and witnesses with others and criminal association of witnesses with the deceased confirmed their status of interested and chance witnesses

Evidence of such witnesses had no worth to rely thereupon.

Motive behind the occurrence as alleged by the complainant was that some eight (8) years back, father of accused/appellant was killed, for which the deceased was charged

Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and real brother of the deceased

Said two witnesses were examined before the trial court, but both of them were in contrast with each other, as one of the witness stated that soon after the occurrence, the women folk including the children from the house of the deceased attracted to the spot, whereas the other stated that no one else attracted to the spot and kept complete silence regarding the attraction of the women and children from the house

Both the witnesses made conscious attempt to make their availability appealable and both of them pointed their houses to be situated in the close proximity but one of the witnesses stated that the houses were at a distance of 500/600 yards, whereas the other stated that it was some 250/200 feet from the place of the occurrence

Witnesses did not remain consistent on material aspects of the case, and even they went poles apart in respect of the mode, manner and the time of occurrence

Prosecution with time went on with constant improvements and both the witnesses never ever remained consistent and stuck to the previous stance

Mala fide was evident from record that the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence was not established as the shops they claimed at the place of occurrence were neither pointed out nor shown in the site-plan, when it was prepared on pointation of the prosecution witnesses

Circumstances suggested that neither the said witnesses were present on the spot nor the dead body was collected and brought to the hospital by them

Witnesses were held to be chance and interested witnesses with the sole purpose to implicate the appellants for a blind murder

Record transpired that the distance between the assailant had been shown as 10 paces from the cot where the deceased was initially sitting and 10 to 12 paces when the deceased after running received second round of firing

Two of the injuries were having blackening and said factor further negated the stance of the witnesses in respect of the distances mentioned therein

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Inference could be drawn that intervening period was consumed in fabricating prosecution story after preliminary investigation

No justification existed for conducting postmortem examination on next day instead of conducting it on the same night when dead body of deceased was received in hospital

Chance witness was one who in normal course was not supposed to be present on crime spot unless he could offer cogent, convincing and believable explanation justifying his presence there

Both witnesses showed no work or definitive purpose to visit crime spot therefore, their presence on crime spot was not believable and their testimony was liable to be rejected

Many loopholes/lacunas were observed which not only made presence of eye-witnesses doubtful at crime spot at relevant time but also raised an eyebrow on story of prosecution

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of charge as prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing illicit weapons

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Interested witnesses

Reliance

Scope

Prosecution case was that, a police contingent headed by SHO was in hot pursuit for the arrest of the accused from a hotel

Accused, on seeing police, in order to create fear, terror and harassment amongst general public made firing, due to which a Head Constable was hit and died at the spot, accused fled away

On the same day, on receiving secret information, that the accused had taken shelter in an abandoned otak of their uncle, police party reached there

On seeing the police party, the accused made straight firing with intention to kill them and police party retaliated in defence and apprehended the accused with weapons

In the present case, all police witnesses were subordinate to the complainant and therefore interested in the outcome of the case, it would not be appropriate to accept the evidence of their eye-witnesses as gospel truth

Material contradictions existed in their evidence and no independent person had been examined by the prosecution to lend some corroboration to their evidence

Reliance on testimony of such witnesses was declined.

None of ocular witnesses attributed any injury to accused persons and all prosecution witnesses admitted that accused persons were empty handed

All ocular witnesses were close relatives despite as per witnesses that independent persons were also present on the spot

Although it was not necessary for prosecution to record statements of independent witnesses but to avoid false implication and safe administration of justice prosecution was to have recorded statements of independent witnesses

Entire prosecution would have established fact that accused persons were present at relevant time and mere presence at spot itself was not a connect to crime

Occurrence was not premeditated and suddenly took place but prosecution failed to establish through incriminating evidence with regard to common intention of accused persons to commit murder of deceased

High Court declined to interfere in order of acquittal passed by Trial Court as same was neither arbitrary nor contrary to evidence brought on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant claimed that his brother while grazing goats disappeared, he searched for him, but could not succeed and that through Balochi Hal-o-Awal he came to know that accused along with co-accused persons had committed the murder of his brother and had buried his dead body at an unknown place

Validity

Complainant's statement reflected that it was based on hearsay evidence

Complainant had not directly witnessed the crime

Complainant had failed to report the matter to police of disappearance of his brother

Complainant's statement was not helpful for the case of prosecution

Both eye-witnesses had failed to maintain the exact date, month and year of the occurrence; had remained mum for two years despite having relations with the complainant party and belonging to the same tribe

Statement of second eye-witness was silent regarding burial of the dead body

Both eye-witnesses had unanimously admitted that complainant had brought Holy Quran and had enquired about his brother to which they had informed the complainant about the murder and burial of his brother

Complainant's source of knowledge that both eye-witnesses had secrets of his missing brother was not disclosed

Eye-witnesses were close relatives of the complainant party, thus for a prudent mind it was difficult to presume that neither they had resisted the occurrence nor the culprits had harmed them to become witnesses of the occurrence

Conduct of witnesses created reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at the place of occurrence or witnessing the crime with their open eyes

Police surgeon did not take into possession the bone marrow of the dead body for DNA test to establish that the exhumed dead body was not of someone else, but of the brother of complainant

Prosecution failed to establish that either the missing brother of the complainant was murdered or that he was buried at the place pointed out by the second eye-witness

Nomination of accused persons after two years of the occurrence was based on presumptions

False implication of accused person could not be ruled out of consideration

Accused was entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt as a matter of right

Appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside.

Interested witness was not the one who was relative or friend but the one who had motive to falsely implicate accused.

Role of audience played by four witnesses letting the culprits to murder deceased and to escape unhurt was enough to create doubt in the case of prosecution

Complainant was eye-witness of occurrence and was brother of deceased while remaining eye-witnesses were father and two paternal uncles of deceased but their presence had become doubtful as none of them accompanied the deceased (then injured), to the hospital

Evidence of interested and related witnesses lacked independent corroboration in material aspects

No recovery of crime weapon was effected from the possession of accused

High Court extending benefit of doubt to accused acquitted him while setting aside conviction and sentence awarded to him by Trial Court.

Defence contended that only the interested witnesses were produced and the case of prosecution lacked independent corroboration

Testimony of witness could not be disbelieved solely on the ground of being related to the complainant

Court had to see the truthfulness and credibility of such witness

Eye-witnesses were brother and cousins of the deceased; it did not appeal to the logic, in circumstances that the real blood relations would let free the culprits, who had committed the murder of the deceased and involve innocent persons due to some previous dispute

No question for mistaken identity was possible

Mere relationship of witness with any of the parties would not dub him as an interested witness.

Prosecution case was that accused refused to allow his wife to go with her parents but parents took their daughter without the permission of accused, which caused annoyance to accused and he murdered the parents of his wife

Defence had alleged that both the eye-witnesses were sons of deceased persons, therefore, reliance could not be placed on their testimony

Validity

Mere relationship or close association of prosecution witnesses with the deceased in the absence of established hostility, animosity or any other motive to depose falsely would not be sufficient to hold them to be "interested witnesses"

Evidence of closely related persons could not be discarded on the ground of relationship.

Qatl-i-amd, negligent act as to endanger human life, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Interested witnesses

Testimony of closely related witnesses

Reliance

Scope

Defence objected that complainant was mother and grandmother of deceased persons, eye-witness was son of complainant and real brother of deceased and other eye-witness was son-in-law of complainant

Said witnesses were closely related to the deceased as such they were interested witnesses and inimical towards the accused-appellants, hence their evidence could not be relied upon without independent corroboration

Presence of said witnesses at the time and place of incident was not doubtful

Complainant and prosecution witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and their evidence was trustworthy and confidence inspiring

Mere relationship of witnesses was no ground to disbelieve and discard their evidence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Person being a caste-fellow of deceased would not necessarily/essentially in all circumstances, label such person to be an interested witness

Mere relationship of witnesses with deceased was no ground to discredit their evidence if it was proved that same was straightforward, fair and confidence inspiring.

Mere relationship of witnesses inter se with the deceased was not enough to term them to be interested witnesses.

Accused alleged that prosecution witnesses were interested, inimical and were dead enemies of his family and for that reasons, he was falsely involved in the case

Validity

Prosecution witnesses categorically denied such fact and contended that it was an afterthought

Accused had to produce evidence to substantiate his version but he did not produce any evidence in such context, as such defence version could not be believed

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Eye-witnesses of the occurrence were inmates of the house and could not be said to be interested and related witnesses for the simple reason that incident had taken place inside the house

No corroboration from independent and unimpeachable character was required in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.