Murder Trial

Complainant sought transfer of trial from court at place 'S' to court at place 'D' on grounds of security of prosecution witnesses

Validity

Application of complainant was supported by affidavits of prosecution witnesses who were star eye-witnesses of the case and they were under fear and threat to appear before Trial Court at place 'S' and record their statements

Apprehension of security of prosecution witnesses existed which was likely to result in inconvenience/ intimidation to prosecution witnesses if they would come forward and record their statements before Trial Court at place 'S'

High Court directed that case be withdrawn from court at place 'S' and was transferred to court at place 'D'

Application was allowed in circumstances.

During trial accused wanted to summon record keeper of Excise and Taxation Office to prove ownership of motorcycle recovered during investigation

Trial Court refused to summon record keeper on the ground that it was an attempt to delay the trial

Validity

Record keeper could not have been refused to be summoned by holding that application was made to cause delay in disposal of case

Office of Excise and Taxation Officer was located in the same city where matter was pending before Trial Court and the same could not cause any delay in disposal of the case, if relevant record could have been summoned with record keeper

Such order of Trial Court resulted in miscarriage of justice

Accused was entitled to fair trial and due process and order passed by Trial Court had denied right of fair trial to accused

High Court directed Trial Court to summon record keeper with relevant record and to afford opportunity to accused to place the record on file

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Accused during cross-examination of prosecution witness wanted to confront him with report made by him at police station but Trial Court disallowed such question

Validity

As the report was lodged by that prosecution witness, therefore, he was the relevant person from whom question pertaining to that report could be asked during cross examination, being the person who lodged report in question

Contents of report in question fell within the ambit of "previous statement" as mentioned in Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and as it was official register and entries therein were made in discharge of official duties, which if relevant concerning a fact in issue, could be used and brought on record under Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Trial Court erroneously disallowed question by accused regarding filing of report in police station

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Courts have always applied the principle of sifting grain from the chaff.

Motive by itself neither proves nor disproves any assertion conclusively.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder trial-Murder committed in broad daylight and eye-witnesses having no difficulty to identifying assailant-Evidence of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence-Trial Court and Nigh Court appreciating evidence properly-No ground for interference made out-Appeal dismissed.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder trial-Conviction for offence of murder based on statement of woman witness receiving 9 injuries at hand of accused and on statement of another prosecution witness-Presence of woman witness at spot and opportunity to identify assailant not doubtful-Woman witness having no motive to falsely charge assailant except that she turned down his overtures-Turning down such overtures, on other hand, furnishing motive for commission of crime -Conviction, held, well based

Appeal dismissed.

S. 302-Murder trial Transportation for life awarded-Enhancement of sentence Refused by High Court in view of fact that several years elapsed since occurrence took place.

S.288- Admissibility of evidence-Murder-trial-Eye-witness bent upon helping accused giving two different versions one in committing Court and other at trial stage-Statement consistent with other evidence on record to be preferred-Entire evidence cannot be outright rejected merely due to somersault given by witness in two Courts-Statement of witness given in committing Court, under S. 288, held, could be treated a substantive piece of evidence.

S. 302/34 read with S. 100Murder trial-Self-defence, right of-Party in concerted action making deliberate attack on another and latter defending itself Difficult in circumstances for latter to choose between assailants for degree of harm that may be caused to each one of them separately to ward off individual harm intended by each one of other party-Shots fired by accused party in thick of assault in order to save themselves from surprised onslaught of other party-Argument that since deceased was fired at on back of shoulder deceased was fired at when on retreat and so right of private defence of person did not accrue, held, unsatisfactory and inconclusive-Firing of shot at deceased even if from behind would not impair plea of right of self-defence in circumstances.

S. 302/34 read with S. 100Murder trial-Grave and sudden provocation-Self-defence, right of-Altercation over flowing of water taking place between complainant and accused party in the morning but accused all of a sudden opening attack on complainant party at degarwela-Plea of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation, held, not available to accused in circumstances.

S. 302/34-Murder trial Prosecution witnesses found to be truthful-Mere fact that they were related to the deceased or were interested persons-No ground for disbelieving evidence.

S. 302 read with S. 300-Murder trial-Provocation-Self defense-Sentence-Accused inflicting two knife blows on deceased's abdomen, resulting in his death-Accused and deceased found not only to have been grappling with and filthily abusing each other for a good time but injuries also found to have been inflicted all of a sudden-Case, clearly one of acting under provocation-Nothing indicating that deceased or his brother was armed with any weapon or had put accused in fear of death or grievous hurt-Plea of self-defense not available to accused in circumstances Sentence of death, however, held, not warranted-Sentence reduced to one of transportation for life.

….Ss. 148, 149, 302/34 & 307/34-Murder trial-Benefit of doubt-Statements of police officials contradictory, prosecution witnesses intimately related to deceased and interested in prosecution-Prosecution story unnatural, suffering from inherent impossibilities and not inspiring confidence Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

S. 302-Murder trial-Two persons killed at two different places and in different circumstances by same set of assailants in course of same transaction-Evidence in respect of two occurrences given by same set of witnesses but evidence with regard to both murders not identically of same quality Witnesses disbelieved in respect of one occurrence but believed in respect of another-Contention that such discrimination was not made on any principle-Rejected.