Absence of direct evidence

2020 PCrLJN 60 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 109Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceAbetmentAbsence of direct evidenceScopeAccused was alleged to have been the main mischief monger, who played a decisive role in the murderAccused was tried under S. 109, P.P.C. for which the material available on record was insufficient for conviction

No evidence was available against the accused to the extent of abetment or conspiracy for murder and the prosecution failed to collect any evidence against him

Held; accused was charged under S. 109, P.P.C., which was not proved against him as reflected in the impugned judgment

No apparent infirmity was pointed out in the impugned judgment

Appeal against acquittal, being meritless, was dismissed.

2017 PCrLJN 160 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 417(2), 200 & 154Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302Qatl-i-amdSpecial leave to appeal against acquittal, refusal ofAbsence of direct evidenceCircumstantial evidence in form of last-seen evidenceConsolidation of FIR and private complaintPermissibilityMoral certainty as basis of convictionPrinciples

Complainant registered criminal case against respondents for killing his son by strangulating him, but being dissatisfied with investigation, he had also filed private complaint

As accusation and set of accused were same in both FIRs and private complaint, Trial Court after submission of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. consolidated the both

Accused were acquitted after trial

Contention raised by complainant was that dishonest investigation and said consolidation had caused serious prejudice to complainant and resulted in miscarriage of justice, as said consolidation had deprived him of opportunity to impeach credibility of investigating officer through cross-examination

Held, consolidated trial of State case with private complaint, where accusation and set of accused were identical, was not against law

Only distinguishing feature in private complaint and State case was complainant's annoyance with Investigating officer, which had hardly furnished any justification to hand him over to prosecution for cross-examination

¬-Exclusion of various pieces of circumstantial evidence from consideration relied by prosecution was also in accord with settled norms of safe administration of criminal justice

Prosecution case was entirely based on suspicion without positive proof

Mere suspicion could not take place of positive proof

Statements of prosecution witnesses were not plausible

Prosecution had failed to adduce proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Accused could be convicted merely on basis of moral certainty

Application for special leave to appeal against acquittal was dismissed circumstances.