Ocular and medical evidence

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death but High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

Reason mentioned by prosecution eye-witnesses for their presence at place of occurrence, which was situated in a different village could not be established

It was not safe to rely upon such evidence

Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence showed that infact prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time

If eye-witnesses had been present at the time of occurrence they should have given correct number of injuries sustained by deceased

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

Even a single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case, is sufficient to acquit accused

Case against accused was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and while giving him benefit of doubt, acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

According to his evidence, some injuries were the marks of burns and electric shocks but none of the prosecution eye-witnesses stated in his evidence that as to how the said injuries were received by deceased

Had the prosecution witnesses been present at the spot at the relevant time then they should have explained the said injuries on the body of the deceased

Notable that no electric wire or any other weapon which could cause burn marks or electric shock marks, had been recovered from the possession of the accused

Noteworthy that Medical Officer had neither mentioned the probable time that elapsed between the injuries and death, as well as, probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem examination in the postmortem report nor he mentioned the said details in his evidence recorded by the trial Court

Said witness frankly conceded during his cross-examination that he normally mentioned the duration between the injuries and death and between death and postmortem examination in the postmortem reports

Under the circumstances, it was not determinable in the case that what was the probable time of occurrence when deceased received injuries on his body

In such circumstances the ocular account of the prosecution did not support the medical evidence

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Cause of death had been opined by the doctor as Asphyxia (lack of the oxygen), but nothing had been mentioned in the report whether the cause of death was suicidal or homicidal

First Information Report showed that co-accused caused iron road on the head of deceased whereas no injury had been mentioned in the medical report on the neck and head of the deceased

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Story narrated by the Police Officials that during patrolling they received spy information that accused was committing murder of his wife by way of strangulation at the canal did not appeal to reason as to how a person would bring his wife on motorcycle to the canal for committing her murder in presence of the Police Officials

Said aspect of the prosecution case did not appeal to reason

Police could not establish that on receipt of spy information he along with subordinate staff went to the place of occurrence, in the normal course police party was not supposed to be present at the place of incident

Police officials had failed to offer cogent, convincing and believable explanation justifying their presence at canal

Police Officials had deposed that they had seen the accused who pulled the lady and threw her into the river but police could not rescue her as no one knew the swimming

Police Official/witness had deposed that they reached at Inspection Path of canal and saw that one person was throwing one female into the canal

Both the Police Officials had deposed that police had received information that the present accused was throttling a female at Inspection Path

Ocular evidence was contradictory to the medical evidence; in the case of strangulation, normally the death occurred instantaneously, but in the present case, the probable time as per Medical Officer that elapsed between death and injury was 1.1/2 hour

Said fact clearly showed that Police Officials had not witnessed the incident, otherwise Police Officials were bound to rescue the deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence.

Record showed that the statements of the ocular witnesses were not in line with each other rather contradicted on material point

Such material contradictions, improvements, omission and discrepancies could not be overlooked

Medical evidence contradicted ocular account

Ocular witnesses stated that 2 or 3 bullets hit the deceased, while the Medico-Legal Certificate disclosed that only one bullet hit the deceased

Circumstances established that there was no solid or concrete evidence against the accused connecting them with the commission of offence

Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly acquitted the accused of the charge

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged that he hit the brother of complainant with a stone on his head, due to which he succumbed to the injuries

In the present case, the medical certificate showed that there was swelling on the right temporal region of scalp of the deceased

Medical Officer stated during cross-examination that there was no skin ruptured which meant that no injuries extended to the body cavity of the deceased and there was only swelling

In the medical certificate, the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned as head injuries and Cardiorespiratory failure

Cause of death of the deceased was doubtful as the medical certificate had also contradicted the ocular evidence of complainant who stated in his report that accused hit the head of deceased repeatedly with a stone

On the other hand, according to medical certificate, the deceased received only one injury i.e. swelling on right temporal region of scalp which also created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

Alleged stone was taken by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence but there was no sign of blood on the said stone

Circumstances established that conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused was against all canons of law

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Time of occurrence was shown to be midnight in between 3-4 April, 2013 in the FIR, while report was lodged on 04.04.2013 at 10.30 a.m.

Post-mortem was conducted by the doctor on 4.4.2013 at 11.00 a.m. and it had been mentioned in the post-mortem report that time between death and post-mortem was within 12-15 hours

Medical Officer admitted during cross-examination that death might have occurred at about 11.00 p.m. or 8.00 of even date

Said witness stated that it was not her personal opinion that death occurred in between 8.00 to 11.00 p.m. of 03.04.2013 but it was the biological changes in the body after the death which suggested the time of death

Medical evidence showed that the time of death was not the same as mentioned in the FIR

Said fact was further strengthened by the statement of Medical Officer, who mentioned time between death and post-mortem as 12-15 hours

So by calculation the time of death come at 11.00 p.m. at night, while at that time husband of the accused lady was with her, as such, in that peculiar situation how accused could murder the deceased lady, thus, the story narrated by complainant was highly doubtful and medical evidence totally negated the prosecution version

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

Appeal against acquittal being devoid of substance was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the accused made fire shot upon deceased, which landed on her back but the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased, had described that injury as exit wound

Material contradiction existed between the ocular and medical evidence

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night, abetment, criminal conspiracy, haraabah, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradiction

Prosecution case was that the accused along with acquitted co-accused duly armed with deadly weapon trespassed into the house of complainant to commit robbery at the instance of acquitted co-accused and during the commission of robbery a witness was murdered

Eye-witnesses stated in their evidence that the deceased was shot in the back whereas the post-mortem report found that the deceased was shot in the chest

Since the deceased was shot from about three feet, there ought to have been blackening surrounding his wounds, yet there was none

Said contradiction would go against the credibility and reliability of the eye-witnesses

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant, while his co-accused tried to commit zina with her

Record showed that the victim in her evidence admitted that she was in contact with the accused/appellant and prior to said incident accused/appellant came there alone

Victim also admitted that one day before the alleged incident, she had seen the naked video from accused but she did not discuss the same to anyone

Victim went alone with accused/appellant without informing to her parents and she also did not make any hue and cry either on the way or from the place of incident against accused

Evidence of Female Medical Officer showed that she found no marks of violence on her body

Female Medical Officer in her evidence stated that sexual intercourse was happened twice in about one week and also suggested for DNA test but Investigating Officer of the case though preserved blood sample for that purpose, but did not send the same, while victim disclosed that on 15.10.2016 rape was committed with her for the first time

Vaginal swab of victim was sent for chemical examination, report of which showed that "human sperm not detected in the said vaginal swab

Circumstances established that there was conflict in between ocular version and medical evidence, which created doubt about the case of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular and medical evidence

Corroboration

Scope

Prosecution case was that the complainant assaulted on WAPDA Employees while they were busy in removing old transformer, due to which one official became injured

Record showed that on the day of incident complainant along with injured and others went to the place of incident in order to perform their official duty being employees of WAPDA to replace transformer for which the accused refused to allow them to substitute the same because of difference in range

Said fact had been categorically deposed by the complainant during his examination-in-chief

Such evidence also found support/corroboration from evidence of injured witness and other witness, who had also corroborated that accused had become annoyed, insulted the employees of WAPDA and pull down the transformer by using operating rod resulting one employee falling down and sustained injuries

Complainant and witnesses had established motive behind the above offence committed by accused

Accused had failed to establish any mala fide or ill-will/enmity on the part of complainant and witnesses to have falsely implicated the accused in the present case

Fact of having sustained injuries by the injured was also corroborated by Medical Officer who had also produced medical certificate along with his final opinion that he had sustained injuries in terms of Ghayr Jaifah Damiah

Such fact was also corroborated by Investigating Officer and mashir of injuries by producing mashirnamas of injuries

On perusal of record it revealed that Trial Court and first appellate court had attended to all the material aspects of the case and had considered each and every important piece of evidence and after their proper appraisal rendered concurrent findings

Accused had failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity and misreading or non-reading of material evidence available on the record to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction of the Court

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Testimony of eye-witnesses revealed that co-accused persons caught hold of the deceased, whereas the accused caused dagger blows to him, meaning thereby that there was no chance to resist

Medical evidence showed deep cut wound on the right and left base of thumb

Meaning thereby that the deceased had tried to catch the dagger due to which his both hands sustained injuries

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused persons tried to take away two bullocks of complainant, when they tried to catch accused persons, they started firing, as a result brother of complainant got injured, and succumbed to the injuries

Record showed that the sole eye-witness produced by the prosecution was the complainant, who was also brother of the deceased

Complainant had claimed that on his screaming, his uncle and another person had also attracted to the place of occurrence, however, the prosecution had failed to produce and examine the said witnesses in support of accusation

Instead of providing support to the ocular account, the medical evidence produced by the prosecution had gone a long way in creating dents in the case of prosecution

Occurrence had taken place at 1:30 a.m. while the examination of the dead body had been conducted by Medical Officer after eleven hours of the death of the deceased giving rise to an inference that the time had been consumed by the complainant party and the local police in cooking up a false story

Astonishingly, firing had been attributed to as many as six persons while the deceased had sustained a single firearm injury

Medico Legal Certificate showed that the dead body of deceased was brought to the hospital by the police authorities that too after eleven hours of the occurrence

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that in the crime report, complainant had specifically nominated the accused for making firing upon deceased

First Information Report was lodged promptly

Name of son of deceased as witness was mentioned in the report, that at the time of occurrence he was with the deceased

Said witness further added that the accused had run away towards road and in the meanwhile a witness also arrived and took the deceased to hospital in a vehicle

Said witness narrated the whole story with regard to the occurrence and had correctly stated the date, time, place and manner in which the occurrence had taken place

Another witness was an eye-witness of the occurrence and stated the same story which was narrated by son of deceased

Said witnesses attributed the role of firing to the accused and gave consistent, natural and straightforward ocular account of the occurrence

Defence subjected them to lengthy cross-examination, but their testimony remained unshaken and un-shattered

Nothing was in cross-examination to show that the accused was falsely implicated in the case

Presence of the said witnesses on the spot was proved

Investigating Officer had recorded statement of the said witnesses soon after the occurrence

Testimony of the eye-witnesses was duly corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothes of the deceased

Medical evidence produced by the prosecution supported and corroborated testimony of the eye-witnesses and no contradiction could be pointed out by the defence

Parties were known to each other previously and the question of mistaken identity of the real culprits did not arise and it was hard to believe that both the witnesses and even the complainant would substitute the real culprits with the accused

No motive had been set up by the prosecution

Absence of the motive would not affect the prosecution case nor would cast any shadow of doubt on the prosecution case

Both the prosecution and defence had suppressed the actual facts, leading to the incident

Possibility could not be ruled out that something must have happened between the parties, which led to the said incident but had not been brought to surface, even otherwise, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that without any strong motive the accused would take such an extreme step of killing the deceased, when there was no enmity

Sentence of death was not compatible with the circumstances of the case, therefore, sentence of imprisonment for life would commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the accused

Conviction of the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was maintained but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modi-fication.

Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the complainant party, which resulted into instantaneous death of deceased on the spot and caused injuries to other members of the complainant party

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by four witnesses including complainant and injured persons

Complainant in his report and the eye-witnesses in their statements attributed a specific role of firing to accused

Injured witness attributed specific role to absconding accused persons of firing and causing injuries to him

Other injured witness attributed specific role of firing to absconding accused and causing injuries to him on his right leg

Another injured witness attributed role of firing to absconding accused persons and for causing injuries to him

According to prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were fourteen in number who made firing upon them

If indiscriminate firing was being made by fourteen persons with automatic rifles, no one could distinguish their role with exactitude as to whose shot hit whom

Medical evidence showed that all the injured witnesses sustained injuries on their backside but surprisingly, all the injured witnesses had attributed the accused with specific role of firing upon the deceased

Three eye-witnesses attributed role of firing to absconding accused and causing injuries to them

In such view of the facts when firing was being made by the accused persons how could it be possible that the complainant as well as the injured prosecution witnesses identified the accused persons and attributed individual role to each of them that too when they were not facing the accused persons

Said aspect of the matter created doubt in a prudent mind with regard to the mode and manner in which the occurrence took place

Injuries on the persons of the above witnesses were also doubtful

Neither complainant stated about the injuries allegedly received by him in his statement before the court as well as in his report nor he stated a single word about injuries of injured witnesses

Injured witness did not state a word about the injuries of complainant and other injured witnesses

Similarly, other injured witness did not state about injuries of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses

Prosecution story as put forth before the Trial Court was hardly believable, in circumstances

Record showed that all the accused were related to each other and were of the same clan

High Court observed that present case was best example of spreading the net wide and implicating maximum male members of the opponent family in order to deter them from pursuing their case

Circumstances established that the conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused was against all canons of law recognized for the safe dispensation of criminal justice

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circum-stances.

Mere assertion that medical evidence was in conflict with oral evidence was not enough rather it was bounded duty of defence to explain as to how and on what ground the medical evidence conflicted with the oral evidence

Unnatural death of the deceased was not disputed by the defence

Analysis of prosecution evidence showed that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant, whereas the co-accused made firing upon the complainant, but he escaped unhurt

In the present case, deceased was shown in sitting position, then the seat of injuries on the person of the deceased did not support the stance of the complainant and there was an open conflict between the medical evidence and ocular account

If in fact the stances so taken were placed in juxtaposition then the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, if the deceased was sitting then his left was exposed to the assailant and in that situation the entry wounds which found its exits on the left side of his body were against the medical evidence and so was the case while walking with his back exposed to the assailant

Witness stated that the accused resorted to indiscriminate firing, if so, then why no more empties were recovered as admittedly, only three empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the spot

Even no bullet marks on the surrounding walls were noticed

Empties were recovered from a considerable distance from the position of the accused that too towards left of the accused which spoke nothing but mala fide on part of the complainant and it strengthened the stance taken by the defence that the complainant was not present at the time when the deceased was done to death

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive behind the incident was stated to be dispute between the parties due to strained relations of accused with his wife

Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by father, brother and sister of the deceased

Complainant reiterated the same version as set forth by him in the initial report and introduced a lot of innovations about mode of occurrence, citing sister of deceased as eyewitness, arrangement of vehicle for shifting the deceased to the hospital coupled with addition of attributing two fire shots to each accused

Complainant in the initial report, had categorically and in unequivocal words mentioned that after receiving fire shot, the deceased succumbed to injury and died at the spot, whereas, according to Medical Officer, probable time elapsed between injury and death was 20 to 25 minutes, in that backdrop, complainant, in order to bring his testimony in line with the medical evidence, by making dishonest improvement in his court statement

Brother of deceased/witness deposed that after receiving injury deceased expired at the spot

Version of the complainant in the initial report about death of the deceased at the spot and that of witness was belied by the medical evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused through cogent and confidence inspiring direct or circumstantial evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he and co-accused made firing upon complainant and his brother, who was hit and died whereas complainant escaped unhurt

Record showed that the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence

Deceased was facing the accused, the seat of injuries and the place of the deceased did not support the stance of the complainant as one injury was from front to back but the others were from left to right

Medical Officer had given the time between death and post-mortem as three/four hours which took the time of death earlier than the one noted

Dead body was identified by the relative and co-villagers, i.e. before the police and before the doctor at the time of post mortem examination

Had the complainant been present at the spot, he would have at least identified the deceased before the police as the Inquest report was already prepared on the spot

Said fact showed that it was a blind murder

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused party duly armed with firearms emerged one after the other and started firing at complainant, as a result of which, he sustained injury

Motive for the offence was previous criminal litigation

Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by two witnesses including complainant

Complainant in his report had mentioned that all the acquitted accused/respondents came to the spot one after the other and started firing

Next sentence of report revealed that complainant had differentiated the role of the accused persons and attributed the role of first fire to accused, which hit him on his right buttock, while the subsequent firing, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his left buttock was attributed to co-accused persons

Evidence furnished by Medical Officer showed that three entry wounds 1 x 1 cm were found on left hip, while entry wound of 3 x 1.5 cm was found in upper aspect of right hip

During cross-examination, the said witness admitted that he had not given the duration of the injuries in his report

Medical Officer had also admitted that no exit wound was found against all the four entry wounds and no spent bullet was extracted from the wounds

Benefit of omission of such material facts from the medical report would definitely be extended to the defence and no reliance could be placed on such report, in circumstances

Obviously, in the event of indiscriminate firing by six persons simultaneously, it was absolutely impossible for a victim to note with exactitude that whose fire hit him on a particular part of his body

Medical evidence showed that the injured complainant was fired at back side in view of the locale of injuries

No one could take notice of firing being made from behind him

Story narrated by the complainant in his report suggested that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by him

Admittedly, the injured was shifted to hospital in a vehicle but neither registration number of the vehicle nor the name of driver was disclosed by the complainant, which created doubts regarding shifting of injured in the manner as alleged in the statements or witnesses

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home charge against the accused persons and order of their acquittal being unexceptionable needed no interference

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Perusal of pictorial diagram clearly suggested that entry wounds could not be caused at such locale by firing of one assailant at a time because their locale was absolutely contrary to each other

Even motor cycle had not been hit

Duration of time mentioned in post-mortem report between death and post-mortem i.e. 6-8 hours also did not tally with the time given by the prosecution through ocular account

Medical evidence could not tell about identity of the assailants

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Contrary to that, Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, did not observe any blackening present on any of the wounds observed by him

Had the firing at the deceased been made from such a short distance as suggested by the prosecution witnesses then blackening on the wounds must have been observed by the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased

Ocular account was to be rejected as being contrary to the medical evidence, in circumstances

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he and co-accused persons while armed with deadly weapons made firing upon the complainant party, brother of complainant was hit and died

Prosecution version was that the accused made fire shot which hit on the left side of the chest of the person of deceased

Site plan revealed that the distance between accused and deceased was eighty feet

Medical Officer deposed in his evidence that one metallic foreign body was recovered from left chest cavity, so from the careful scrutiny of the medical evidence, it was spelled out that one metallic foreign body was recovered, which showed that fire arm projectile was fired from near contact range on the body of the deceased

Said aspect further contradicted the ocular account creating serious dents on the prosecution version, going to its roots

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of ten years, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Ocular and medical evidence

­Contradictions

Scope

Accused was charged for abducting two minor sons of the complainant and thereafter committed their murders

Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by one witness, who had seen accused and co-accused while throwing two minor boys in the canal

Said witness stated that a girl was also sitting in the car along with accused and co-accused at the time of occurrence-Said witness had admitted during his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police on 22.01.2010

If said witness had witnessed the occurrence of a heinous crime and seen the accused and co-accused while throwing two boys in the canal on 16.11.2009, then as to why he remained mum till 22.01.2010 i.e. for a period of two months and six days from the date of occurrence

Said witness had also stated in his examination-in-chief that on the next day of occurrence, he visited Police Station in connection with personal affair where he identified all the accused persons of that case but even then he did not make statement regarding the above stated fact to the police on the said day and made his statement before the police for the first time on 22.01.2010

No plausible explanation had been given by the said witness for remaining mum for such a long period

Statement of said witness was in conflict with the medical evidence produced by the prosecution in that case

Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of one minor/deceased stated the time that elapsed between the injuries and death as immediate and the time that elapsed between the death and post-mortem examination as six to twelve days; meaning thereby that the death of minor deceased took place between 26.11.2009 to 02.12.2009 whereas according to the statement of witness, deceased was thrown in the canal by accused and co-accused on 16.11.2009 and as such there was difference of ten days regarding the date of death as given by witness and the Medical Officer

Moreover, said witness did not state that he had seen accused and his co-accused while throwing dead bodies of the minors in the canal rather he stated that he had seen the accused and co-accused while throwing two children in the canal

Statement of witness showed that he had seen the accused and co-accused while throwing two children in the canal and not their dead bodies

On the other hand, according to the medical evidence, there were five injuries on the body of minor deceased which were ante mortem and bones under injuries were also found to be fractured, meaning thereby that minor deceased was murdered before throwing his dead body in the canal but witness did not state that the accused and his co-accused threw the dead body of any minor in the canal or the minors were thrown in injured condition in the canal and as such the evidence of said witness was in conflict with the medical evidence of the prosecution

Ocular evidence produced by the prosecution, in circumstances through sole witness was not worthy of reliance

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant murder of the brother of the complainant and also injuring other person by firing

Record showed that the medical evidence was corroborative/ supportive of the eye-witness evidence in terms of the number of injuries received by the deceased and the injured, the place where the injuries were received and the weapon used to inflict those injuries fire-arm

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, mischief by killing or maiming cattle of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees, rash and negligent act, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradictions

Effect

Prosecution case was that the accused party while armed with deadly weapons made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, one member of complainant party was hit and died while three sustained firearm injuries, two goats also died

Accused robbed repeater, other house hold articles and pair of bullocks on the force of weapon

Record showed that there was conflict between ocular account and medical evidence

Complainant and witnesses deposed that accused directly fired with pistol at injured which hit at his lower part of his left leg with intention to commit his qatl, whereas Medical Officer had noticed and certified that injured witness received injuries on lower part of right leg

Deceased received two injuries at the hands of co-accused but none of the witnesses had specifically disclosed the part of body of deceased received injuries whereas Medico-Legal Officer had certified injuries as lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x diameter x cavity deep on right shoulder interiorly and downward as wound of entrance and lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on right side of chest posteriorally

Medico-Legal Officer neither noticed wound of exit at the body of deceased nor he secured any bullet or pellet from the body of deceased while conducting post-mortem

Medico-Legal Officer had given contradictory evidence during his cross-examination recorded at different time during trial of accused persons after their arrest

Medico-Legal Officer deposed that it was a fact that in the certificate of injured he had simply mentioned one injury to have been caused with fire arm but not specified whether it was caused with shotgun or K.K, but same was caused from close distance, whereas in his cross-examination he deposed that on the day of examination of injured there were two injuries on the person of deceased, which were caused by the bullet of revolver

Injuries were caused from distance of more than five feet

No blackening on said one injury, the bullet had crossed chest cavity and liver

Internal details of injuries were not shown in his Medico-Legal Certificate

Medical certificates did not show the use of weapon for injuring the said persons

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical Officer, who examined the complainant, found her gate normal, neither mark of any violence on any part of her body, no any abnormality was detected on her breast

On examination of genital tract, perineum was healthy, no section or blood was present, no abnormality was detected on valva

Human sperm was detected in external vaginal swap and not in internal vaginal swab

Mere detection of human sperm did not prove that such sperm were of the accused, unless and until DNA test was conducted or at least semen matching was undertaken, which was not done in the case

Circumstances established that prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused party with common intention, on being instigated by co-accused inflicted blade blows of pickaxe on complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died whereas complainant and four others were injured

Record showed that it was the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons were armed with hatchets and they caused hatchet blows to all the injured witnesses

Whereas, the Medical Officer who examined the injured persons in his evidence stated that three persons received the injuries from hard and blunt substance which made the entire case of prosecution as doubtful

Medical Officer who in his examination-in-chief deposed that he started the post-mortem examination of the deceased at 3:30 pm and finished it at 4:45 pm on the same day

However, there was no deceased in the name of "H", but "H" was an injured who as per medical certificate received three injuries

Said contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the improvements made by them during the trial were major in nature which cut the roots of the prosecution case and made it doubtful

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udv, Shajjah-i-ammah, abetment, criminal intimidation, rioting, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradictions

Effect

Prosecution case was that the complainant party assaulted on the complainant party, due to which son of complainant sustained injuries

Version of the prosecution in the FIR was that three accused caused sharp side hatchet blows on the head of injured, whereas in his deposition complainant, father of injured, had deposed that three accused caused injuries on the back side of head of the injured with back side of axe, whereas the other accused caused injuries on the back of injured

Uncle of injured/witness had deposed that three accused had caused straight injuries of hatchets upon head of injured with intention to murder him

Other three accused caused lathi injuries upon other parts of body

Medical evidence revealed that injured had sustained injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapon

Injured, who was minor, had arrived at Rural Health Centre at 8.00 p.m., where Additional Medical Superintendent found only three injuries on the person of injured caused by sharp cutting weapon

Said contradictions were fatal to the prosecution case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses were noticed, which had not only demolished the entire case of the prosecution but also shattered the entire fabric of the testimony of prosecution witnesses being unsafe to rely upon

Complainant in his evidence had stated that co-accused was armed with K.K. rifle while other co-accused and accused were carrying rifles and shot gun and they fired at deceased from a distance of 73-74 feet and they were at a distance of about 33-34 feet from the deceased

On the other hand, eye-witness had stated that the accused were at a distance of 40-41 feet from the deceased while other eye-witness had stated that accused fired at deceased from a distance of 41 feet and they were 32-33 feet away from the deceased

Complainant in his cross-examination had stated that accused and two co-accused fired single shot

Eye-witness had stated in his cross-examination that accused armed with Kalashnikov fired single shot while accused armed with rifles made repeated shots

Other eye-witness had stated that accused armed with Kalashnikov repeated 3-4 shots

Complainant had deposed that deceased had sustained injuries at left side of his abdomen, left side of thigh, two injuries on his back, one on knee of left leg, right side of buttock and right side of hip

On the other hand, the eye-witnesses had given different version with regard to injuries sustained by the deceased

Injuries ascribed to the deceased by Medical Officer were six in number showing through passed exit except one injury on interior part of right leg thigh through passed from right side

According to Medical Officer all the injuries were caused by same bore of weapon, which negated the case of the prosecution, as according to the prosecution the injuries were caused by Kalashnikov and rifle

Ocular account was not in line with the medical evidence, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradictions

Scope

Allegations against the accused were that they in prosecution of their common object fired gun shots on father of complainant, who died on the spot

Motive behind the alleged incident stated in the FIR was dispute over irrigation of water between the parties

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by son and brother of deceased

Said witnesses stated that two accused fired shots at the left arm of the deceased

If so, then there must have been at least two firearm injuries being entry wounds on left arm of the deceased

Said piece of evidence of the said prosecution witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which suggested only one injury on the upper and lateral side of left upper arm of the deceased

No evidence had been brought on record as to who in fact caused said injury which had been attributed to two accused persons

Medical Officer in his cross-examination had not ruled out the possibility of causing injuries to deceased with single weapon by one shot

Circumstances suggested that it was fundamental defect in the prosecution case/evidence and unless reasonably explained it was sufficient to discredit the same

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant during cross-examination stated that the deceased was fired from a distance of about six inches, whereas according to the post-mortem report there was no blackening and charring at the site of injuries

Post-mortem report issued by the doctor also suggested some doubts about its authenticity as the incident took place on 28-05-2003 and the post-mortem report showed it's date as 28-04-2003, thus, the evidence of the complainant was disbelieved

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property, lurking house trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt or assault or wrongful restraint

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradictions

Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant during robbery

Record showed that the Medical Officer, who examined the dead body, provisionally gave her opinion i.e. "Cause of death was due to suffocation (compression on neck)"

Both were entirely different things and after receiving the Chemical Examiner's report the cause of death finally reported by the Medical Officer was Asphyxia/suffocation

Record transpired that Medical Officer deposed that after examining the dead body of deceased, she arrived at the conclusion that the cause of death was suffocation

Death alleged by the prosecution was compression on neck by fingers

Cause of death as alleged by the prosecution was strangulation which was not sufficiently proved either by the post-mortem report or by the statement of the Medical Officer

Perusal of statement of Medical Officer revealed that she had not stated anywhere in her statement that the cause of death was due to strangulation

Marked difference existed between the strangulation as alleged by the prosecution and suffocation as described by the Medical Officer

Opinion formed by the Medical Officer did not corroborate the version taken by the prosecution which made the case doubtful

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt

Impugned order of conviction was not maintainable

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of brother of the complainant and also injured his cousin by firing

Prosecution had alleged that injured witness received fire arm injuries on his person which established his presence at the venue of occurrence

Medical Officer did not observe any firearm injuries on the person of said witness

Prudent mind would not accept that a person who received injuries would go to the doctor for treatment after lapse of seven days

Alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2017 and Medical Officer had stated that he examined the injured on the next date

No explanation on behalf of the prosecution had been furnished as to whether when allegedly the deceased received injuries by means of firearm he was shifted to any hospital on the same date or else

No medical or other documentary evidence available on record to show that the deceased was examined on the same day

Medical evidence also contradicted the ocular evidence

Medical Officer only mentioned in his medical certificate about gunshot injuries but on the other hand the eye-witnesses had deposed in their statements that the deceased was beaten with sticks at first

Said contradiction casted reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Evidence of the said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing beneficial had come out on record in favour of the accused

Victim had narrated the whole story with regard to the occurrence

Statement of the victim was in line with his earlier statement

Said witness was cross-examined at sufficient length but nothing fruitful had come out on record in favour of the defence

Both the complainant and victim remained consistence and firm in their deposition

Said witnesses accurately uttered the date, time and manner in which the accused committed sodomy with the victim

Ocular testimony produced by the prosecution was direct in nature and the same remained unshaken, consistent, confidence inspiring on all material counts

Medical evidence reflected that victim had been sexually assaulted

Medical evidence had remained unshaken and unchallenged

Medical certificate of accused showed that he was potent and able for sexual intercourse

Both the ocular and medical evidence were in line with each other

Admittedly, the victim was a minor, but nothing on record showing that he was tutored by his elder

Statement of the victim had fully been corroborated by the circumstantial witnesses and medical evidence

Accused had failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence and major contradictions in the statements of witnesses or any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference

Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed.

Record showed that mother of one of the deceased lady had brought on record the past relations of the deceased with accused

Medical Officer who examined the dead bodies of the victims had opined the cause of death as suffocation and strangulation while the private parts of both the deceased showed that they were subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and raped from both sides

Medical Officer who carried out the medical examination of the accused had opined that the accused was potent and able to perform act of zina

Besides, the semen samples of the accused were also taken and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination along with the shalwar, qameez and chaddar of deceased as well as a piece of cloth

Forensic Science Laboratory issued report and opined that the said articles excluding the chaddar of deceased were stained with human sperm

Multiple bruises on the persons of both the deceased would reflect not only their sexual assault and brutal murder, but also their attempt to rescue themselves from the clutches of the culprits

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the accused

Three accused persons including the accused had been booked in the crime

Except the accused, the remaining accused persons were absconding, hence their pleas were yet to come on record

One of the deceased had kept illicit relations with the accused and absconding accused out of her free will and consent, therefore, awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted

While upholding the conviction of accused under Ss. 376(2) & 302, P.P.C., his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification.

Prosecution case was that the accused persons smashed 36 panels of complainant party and accused made firing upon the brother of the complainant, due to which he died

Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by three witnesses including complainant

Record was totally silent in respect of shifting of dead body to hospital or the Levies' station as none of the eyewitnesses stated anything in that regard

Complainant stated that ten minutes after the occurrence, they left the place of occurrence and went to Levies' station

Witness stated during cross-examination that when they reached the place of occurrence no private persons were accompanying them, meaning thereby that complainant and other eyewitnesses left the dead body of the deceased at the spot alone

Conduct of complainant and eyewitnesses suggested that at the time of occurrence they were not present at the spot

If they were present on the spot at the relevant time they must have taken the dead body either to hospital or to Levies' station, which admittedly they did not do

Witnesses stated that they remained at Levies' station till 12.00 p.m., and thereafter went to their houses and the dead body of the deceased was lying at Levies' station and on the next morning they came to the Levies' station and took the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post-mortem

Leaving the dead body of deceased at Levies' station for the whole night for no justifiable reason did not appeal to the prudent mind

Record transpired that the dead body of the deceased was examined with delay of seventeen hours, which had given rise to inference that the incident was not reported as stated by the prosecution

Allegedly, deceased received injuries on his right thigh and on his head, due to which he succumbed to the injuries

Contrarily, medical certificate of deceased showed that deceased received incised wounds at temporal region with depressed skull and at left occipital region

Medical report also showed that deceased received firearm injuries on his right medial thigh

Complainant, in order to bring the case of the prosecution in line with post-mortem report, recorded his supplementary statement, wherein he stated that the accused also attacked upon the deceased with knives and gave blows on his head and further stated that absconding accused attacked upon the deceased with sticks

Said aspect of the matter cast serious doubt in prosecution's case

Complainant was brother and witnesses were cousins of the deceased

None of the witnesses received even a single injury and they went unhurt to the Levies' station when they were totally at the mercy of accused

Inference could be that the incident did not take place in the mode and manner as it was alleged

Complainant and witnesses did not make any efforts to save the deceased

Witnesses neither caught hold of the accused, who were almost equal in number nor did they make any effort to hit them

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

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

Complainant in his initial report, had stated that the accused were chasing the deceased and when reached the place of occurrence they opened fire at the deceased, resultantly, he got hit and died on the spot

If his initial report was taken qua the injuries on the body of the deceased, the entry should have been on the backside of the deceased

As per the autopsy report, the entry wounds were present on the front side of the deceased, meaning thereby, that the deceased was fired upon from front side and not from the back side

Complainant, during his examination-in-chief, had stated that, when he reached to the spot of occurrence, the deceased turned towards the accused, however, that account had never been disclosed by him either in the initial report or during his 161 Cr.P.C. statement

Such stance of the complainant termed to be improvement to make his case in accordance with the post-mortem report

Medical evidence did not support the version of the complainant as disclosed in his initial report

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in limine.

Prosecution case was that the accused party made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party, uncle of the complainant got hit and died

Record showed that some of the injuries were caused from the back, the dimension of the injuries told nothing but that it was the job of a single person

Complainant stated that both the deceased and the accused were standing at the time of firing but to the contrary the doctor stated that the direction of injuries was from down to upward

All the entry wounds were having blackening around, that too did not support what the witnesses stated, and it was confirmed that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that said witness had dishonestly improved his statement so as to bring it in line with the prosecution case

Site plan revealed that witness and complainant were at a distance of 8 to 10 feet from the two deceased and at a distance of 14 to 16 feet from the accused

Witness stated that during the first episode the accused emerged in their front and opened fire at them, as a result, one brother got hit and died at the spot

Medical evidence contradicted the said statement of witness because as per post-mortem report, said deceased had sustained firearm entry wound on left side of his neck having corresponding exit on his face; in such situation, the deceased should have received the fire arm entry wound from front to back

Witness and complainant, during the first episode had not received any injury despite the fact that they were in the direct firing range of the accused

Neither complainant in his report nor witness had disclosed about the weapon of offence used by the accused in the commission of offence

If the eye-witnesses were present at the spot with the deceased at the time of occurrence, they would have specifically disclosed about the bore of the weapon

Distance between the first place of occurrence and the second crime spot was about one kilometre

Chasing of witness and complainant by the accused upto one kilo metre seemed quite beyond the comprehension of a prudent mind, particularly when the accused were having firearms

Circumstances and facts of the case showed that while going from first spot of occurrence to the second spot of occurrence, one had to pass through village abadi and field

Said witness deposed that so many persons were present at the time when they were running from one spot to the other but he could not tell their names as by then they were in hurry and fear

No independent witness had been examined by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the statement of said eye-witness

Witnesses would not opt to run from the spot leaving the dead body of their deceased brother and if they tried to save themselves, then at least they had the option to take shelter in any house of the abadi falling in between the two crime spot

Witness deposed that his sleeves and hands were smeared with the blood of deceased and he had shown the same to the Investigating Officer, however, Investigating Officer had not stated any thing in that regard

If, in the second episode, the accused were chasing second deceased, the deceased should have received the firearm entry wound from back to front but autopsy of the deceased contradicted the statement of witness

Deceased had received single firearm entry wound on left side of ear with charring marks

Distance between deceased and accused in the second episode had been shown as 10 to 12 feet and from such distance charring marks could not be caused, particularly, when the weapon of offence was 30-bore pistol

Medical evidence produced by the prosecution was forcefully pleaded to support and corroborate the testimony of the purported eye-witness by the prosecution but the same was quite contrary to the ocular account of the purported eye-witnesses

Circumstances suggested that witness being brother of two deceased was not present at the spots at the time of occurrence rather his presence was procured within one hour and forty minutes of the occurrence which also caused delay in lodging the FIR

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, in circumstances

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

Motive for the crime was stated to be an altercation took place between deceased and accused 2/3 days prior to the occurrence

Complainant showed herself and her deceased son along with her second son at home when at the knock of the accused at her door, the deceased went out, who was caught hold of by the accused and dragged to the hujra

Complainant followed them and at the same time she called the eye-witness, who also followed to the hujra

Accused, took the deceased dragging in front of the hujra, and fired, which led to his death

Eye-witness had improved his court statement and said that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the deceased and accused were scuffling with each other which continued for five minutes in their presence

Complainant stated that when the two reached chasing the accused fired at the deceased

Post-mortem report had shown only one entry and exit wound but nowhere it was mentioned that the deceased had any marks of violence or bruises on his body

Complainant came after the deceased but her other son did not follow rather felt himself comfortable at home

Site plan was prepared on the pointation of the complainant and the eye-witness but nowhere the houses of the two were shown

Complainant tried to justify that she informed the eye-witness through telephone which was hushed by the eye-witness as he stated nothing about such aspect

No Call Data Record or mobile phone was given to the police

Circumstances suggested that the witnesses were interested and chance witnesses

If the stance of complainant that at the time of firing the accused/appellant was holding the deceased was correct then the distance would come to inches and in such a situation the barrel would touch the body of the deceased then the injury would have the charring marks

So the ocular account of the complainant even on that aspect of the case held no ground and it labelled the complainant and witnesses as untrustworthy

Medical evidence was, in conflict with the ocular account

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

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

Prosecution case was that the accused/appellants gave hatchet blows at the neck, face and head of the deceased, whereas the proclaimed offender caught hold of the deceased from his legs

Motive behind the occurrence was previous quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two witnesses including complainant

Said witnesses, while deposing in the court, had claimed that they had seen the occurrence in the torch light from a distance of 8 Karam i.e. 44 feet

Distance between the eye-witnesses and the assailants was duly established from scaled site plan

Assembly of all the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence, during the dead hours of night, who were neither related to each other nor had a common business, appeared to be doubtful

Over anxious photographic account of the occurrence by the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis, the weapon of offence, number and locale of injuries allegedly caused by the appellants to the deceased, witnessed from a distance of about 44-feet, appeared to be a self-harming maneuvered, improbable and preposterous when the occurrence had taken place in a 'Khaal' surrounded by sugarcane fields from both sides

During the month of December, the sugarcane crop stood tall in the fields and created a blur in the smooth and uninterrupted vision of a person out of the crop and moreso, in the small alley surrounded by thick and tall sugarcane crop, which was not acceptable

Inquest report indicated that the mouth of the deceased was found open at that time meaning thereby that the dead body remained unattended which was brought to the hospital for conducting post mortem examination under the surveillance of Police Official and identified by official witness and not by a private person

Neither the complainant nor any other prosecution witness had accompanied the Police Officials escorting the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for post-mortem examination nor they had identified the same at that time

Medical Officer had stated that although he received the dead body of the deceased at 03:30 a.m. but he had to wait for the police documents for conducting the post-mortem examination and on request of police he conducted the post-mortem of deceased after about 12 hours of the occurrence

Unexplained delay of 12-hours in conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased pointed out a real possibility that the time had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in order to procure and plant the eye witnesses after cooking up a false story for the prosecution

Nothing could have been brought on record during the course of investigation about the previous quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased

Said facts clearly established that the claim of the prosecution's witnesses regarding having seen the occurrence was nothing but a pretention

Circumstances established that present case was replete with doubts

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

Victim had been wearing the same shalwar without washing herself immediately after the act, thus, it was quite possible that her clothes were stained with semen

Victim and prosecution witnesses did not have any motive to make a false accusation against the accused, with the charge of rape at the risk of victim's and family honour

Besides, there was no time or occasion to manipulate semen stains on victim's clothes

Clothes of victim were sent for Chemical Analysis and DNA by Lady Medical Officer

Report of the Chemical Examiner showed that her clothes were stained with semen

Semen found on victim's clothes and shalwar of accused was of the group of accused

Observation by Lady Medical Officer during medico-legal examination of victim clearly made out that the victim had been subjected to rape as stated by the victim

Lady Medical Officer stated in her statement that victim was wearing red and yellow qameez shalwar and white printed dopatta, which were blood stained

Multiple reddish abrasions present in pre-hymeneal area, hymen ruptured, posterior fresh, bleeding present were observed

After short span of the incident, medical examination of the victim and accused was conducted and DNA report was positive

Medical evidence had corroborated the evidence of the victim

Testimony of victim was cogent and credible not only due to her social background but also due to the fact that her version had been clearly corroborated by the other materials

Appeal was dismissed.

Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused persons committed murder of son of complainant and his wife by cutting their throats

Motive behind the occurrence was over solemnization of love marriage with deceased lady by the deceased

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by a sole witness

Said sole eye-witness of the occurrence was not resident of place of occurrence and was a chance witness

Said witness was admittedly an employee in army but he could not produce any record to prove that he was on leave at the time of occurrence

Non-production of said record went against the prosecution

Allegedly, said witness was tied by the accused persons with ropes and cloth was put into his mouth but even a single scratch or bruise or signs of ropes on his body had neither been claimed by him nor any proof in that regard in the form of injury statement or Medico-Legal Certificate had been produced by the prosecution

Said witness stated that accused also cut the private organs of both the deceased but post-mortem reports of both the deceased and statement of Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination, did not reveal such fact

Injury available at left eyebrow of deceased and injuries available at forehead and right side of the eye of lady deceased had not been explained by the said witness

Witness stated that dead body of lady deceased was lying in the courtyard but his said version had been negated by the site plan of place of occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer

Site plan prepared by the patwari showed that deadbody of lady deceased was in the room

Record was silent as to why accused persons, who were six in number, left alive sole eye-witness to become witness against them in the case punishable with death sentence, particularly, when accused persons committed murder of his brother and sister-in-law

Ocular account furnished by the eye-witness was neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring nor truthful nor reliable, as such, same was disbelieved

Prosecution witnesses had not been believed to the extent of co-accused persons having been acquitted, the same could not be believed to the extent of both the convicts

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants, in circumstances

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

Prosecution case was that the accused party set the hedge of complainant on fire surrounded the land and also made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, brother of complainant was hit and died while witness sustained injuries

Motive behind the incident was dispute over land

In the present case, presence of the complainant at the time of incident was highly doubtful for the reasons that evidence of complainant and injured was contradicted to each other on material particulars of the case

Complainant had deposed that absconding accused fired from his pistol which hit to the deceased and injured also fell down but on the same point, injured had deposed that respondent/ accused fired from his gun

Complainant in his cross-examination had replied that accused fired at the injured and deceased from the distance of 45/50 paces but Medical Officer in his cross-examination had replied that fires were made from the distance of twenty yards

Injured alleged that he sustained one fire arm injury but Medical Officer in the cross-examination had replied that injured had sustained two shots

Evidence of injured witness, in such circumstances was not trust worthy and confidence inspiring

No one had seen any of the accused while setting on fire the hedge, though they had claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident

Said facts suggested that ocular evidence was contradictory to the medical evidence

Complainant had not been able to point out any serious flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Complainant in the FIR stated that accused inflicted two hatchet blows upon the head of deceased and one blow upon her left hand whereas, as per Medical Officer who conducted post mortem of the deceased the deceased had only two injuries, one over right arm and the other over temporal region of skull

Appeal against conviction was allowed and accused was acquitted.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his public duty, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Ocular and medical evidence

Contradictions

Effect

Prosecution case was that accused were riding on motorcycle in suspicious manner, police signalled them to stop, but they both started firing upon the police party with intention to kill them

In the present case, the complainant during his cross-examination stated that accused sustained bullet injury on back side of his left leg, which was in diametrical conflict with the position taken by him in his crime report as well as in the memo of arrest and recovery wherein the injury was shown to be received by accused at his right foot

Confusion was further compounded by the statement of Medico Legal Officer, who vide his report, noted that the injury was caused to the accused at his right leg at its lower third

Official witness/ASI in FIR had mentioned that from the place of incident, injured accused was directly shifted to hospital through ambulance, whereas, he in his evidence stated that no ambulance was called at the place of incident and the accused were first brought at the police station and thereafter, injured accused was shifted to hospital for medical treatment

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for ransom, robbery, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon

Appreciation of evidence-Ocular and medical evidence-Corroboration

Accused was charged that he and co

accused persons while armed with weapons kidnapped the complainant party for extorting money, snatched their cash, mobile, licensed pistol and injured them

Record showed that accused was named in the FIR with a specific role

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and two injured witnesses

Said eye-witnesses were in the car for a considerable period of time at close quarters with the accused where they would have got a good look at the accused and thus, there was no need of an identification parade and they would have been able to correctly identify the accused

One of the eye-witnesses correctly picked out the accused at an identification parade a few days later giving him a specific role

Evidence of the eye-witnesses concerning their kidnapping and the attempted murder of injured witness corroborated each other in all material respects

Eye-witnesses were not related to the complainant and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused

Said witnesses were not chance witnesses, they were not shattered during lengthy cross-examination and as such their evidence was believable and they had correctly identified the accused as one of the persons who hi-jacked the complainants car, kidnapped them, robbed them and attempted to murder the injured witness by shooting him in the abdomen

Eye-witnesses were found to be fully corroborative, reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring

Medical Officer was corroborative of the fact that injured witness received a firearm injury in his abdomen

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as such appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of complainant, gave beating to the inmates, issued threats of dire consequences and robbed different articles

Ocular account had not been corroborated by the medical evidence, as nothing had been shown to have been recovered by the police or produced during investigation, which might connect them with the alleged offence

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against present accused, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.