Identity of Accused
Identity of Accused legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the deceased by firing who was working as mason at that time
Incident was a broad daylight occurrence and because of previous acquaintance of the parties question of misidentification did not arise
Admittedly, the sister of the accused had married the deceased
In the incident it would not have been difficult for the complainant party to identify the present accused
Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused, however, the sentence of death awarded to the accused was altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court, in circumstances, by maintaining the conviction
Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification.
Questionnaire and certificate did not contain anything regarding the identity of accused like CNIC, identification marks or description of physical appearance
No identification parade was conducted in the presence of witnesses in order to confirm that the person making confession was actually the one who was roped in the case or anyone else
Confession, in circumstances was, held to have lost its evidentiary value and legal efficacy.
Identification even during course of trial, if appeared to be confidence inspiring and there appeared no reasons for false implication, mere non-holding of identification parade was not fatal.
Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced principal accused to death while co-accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life
Validity
Invitation by hostile in-laws for a visit that too at an odd hour of night in the month of February sounded preposterous
Obliging promptitude to accept such call without soliciting purpose thereof was no less mind boggling
Family could have postponed the visit to a more convenient point of time under safer environment and with appropriate precautions
Prosecution case from its inception was far from being confidence inspiring
Occurrence was a night time affair in a chilled winter night, question of identity of assailants was another dilemma confronting prosecution
Site plan showed that electric bulb was illuminated in courtyard but none was taken into custody
Draftsman admitted that he himself did not see any bulb and merely mentioned its presence in the site plan on the asking of complainant and prosecution witnesses and except the bulb there was no other source of light
Mute presence of witnesses throughout during the occurrence and alarm thereafter was inconceivable to say the least
Complaint and inquest report were drafted at the spot and in column No. 24 of the inquest report dead body was found lying with head and the same was not in consonance with the narrative furnished by investigating officer, who claimed to have retrieved the head of the victim from a well near another village and deputed a police constable to escort the dead body
As to how the investigating officer reached to the well and who disclosed its location were the issues left to the imagination of court
Inquest report was prepared much later than the time mentioned therein and there was possibility that complaint was recorded subsequent to the point of time mentioned therein after consultation and deliberations
Forensic Science Laboratory report was negative and prosecution case was tumbling on forensic side as well
In a violent crisis situation with witnesses standing next to deceased, removal of head of deceased by co-accused merely to be thrown in a deserted well was without any logical explanation and instead spelled out some different scenario
Admission by Medical Officer in his cross-examination that he conducted autopsy on dead body without head was a position diametrically inconsistent with the statement of investigating officer as well as description given in inquest report
Statement of police constable who escorted the dead body was also out of tune
Evidence presented by prosecution did not fit within the ambit of probability
Occurrence probably did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report
Conviction could not be maintained merely on the premise that accused harboured the only possible motive against deceased, for it required evidentiary certainty to hold the charge, and it was unsafe to maintain conviction
High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused persons, set aside conviction and sentences awarded by Trial Court and acquitted them of the charge
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
If statement of a witness qua identity of accused even in court inspires confidence and the witness is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to prosecution case.
Prosecution to prove-Question in cross-examination by accused's counsel assuming that the accused Rab Nawaz was a partner of "Nawaz Brothers" -Assumption not evidence in case-Identity not established by such assumption.
"Identity of Accused", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1432
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Identity of Accused"
1984 P Cr
SAGO alias PATHAN AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: Karachi1977 S C M R 483
GHULAM QASIM KHAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑case‑Appreciation of evidence‑Accused having motive to kill deceased for not being allowed to carry coal dust from mine‑‑First Information Report though not containing name of accused appellant yet sufficient explanation given for failure to do so , no suggestion put in cross‑examination to prosecution witnesses of their having not identified accused‑No reason for prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate accused‑Accused absconding imme diately after occurrence‑Making of efforts to apprehend accused imme diately after occurrence‑Indicative of identity of accused having been known‑identity of accused appellant, held, not in doubt and offence of murder brought home to him.‑‑Identification‑y Evidence.2000 M L D 1709
ABID and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1989SCMR409
KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: High Court2002 MLD 7
GHULAM RASOOL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi1990 P Cr
MUHAMMAD KHALID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Lahore1990 S C M R 140
MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: Shariat Appellate Bench2004 Y L R 1798
SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2000 M L D 1046
JAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Applicant Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Karachi1981 S C M R 1256
WAHEED KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: -- S. 302-Evidence, appreciation of-Identity of accused established beyond reasonable doubt-Dying statement found genuine and true and corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of eye witnesses Conviction maintained.-Evidence.