Mitigating Circumstance

Accused were charged that they entered into the home of complainant, tied his and his wife's hands and one of them murdered his son

Record showed that the prosecution's case revealed two conflicting narratives regarding the motive

One asserted that the murder occurred during a robbery/dacoity, while the other proposed the possibility of targeted killing

Consequently, the true motive remained shrouded in mystery

Both versions had surfaced in the evidence, yet neither diminished the culpability of the appellants, nor any of the versions was supported by cogent evidence

Where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted

Additionally, given that four individuals were implicated in the crime, the investigation and identification parade did not attribute a specific role to each appellant with respect to inflicting that injury

Said factual matrix, while not exonerating the appellants, constituted a relevant mitigating circumstance in the assessment of their respective culpabilities and the quantum of sentence

Thus, death sentence of the appellants was modified to the sentence of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that the accusation leveled against accused "AA" was that he inflicted hatchet blows on the head of the deceased

As per prosecution case the accused persons came to the farm house of the deceased for dacoity on the instigation of one "GN", but the same proved to be incorrect

No looted money, article or hens were recovered from the possession of accused "AA" or his co-accused

No witness had stated that he had seen the petitioners while attempting to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased

While awarding death sentence and convicting an accused motive had to be given prime importance since without there being an un-shattered motive proved by the prosecution, death sentence could not be awarded, rather in such cases, death sentences were usually converted into sentences for life imprisonment

In the instant matter, the aspect of proving motive to the hilt was missing

Therefore, awarding death sentence or confirming the same would not only be harsh but also uncalled for, when admittedly no material had come on the record to prove the alleged motive

Moreover, it was not determinable in this case that as to what had actually happened immediately prior to the occurrence which resulted into present unfortunate incident

Likewise, if the motive of robbery punishable under Section 393, P.P.C., was not proved then offence of trespass punishable under Section 449, P.P.C., in order to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased was also not proved

Thus, the conviction and sentence of accused "AA" under Sections 393 & 449, P.P.C., were set-aside and he was acquitted of the said charges

However, the sentence awarded to the accused "AA" under Section 302(b), P.P.C., was modified from death sentence to life imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, petition was converted into an appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mitigating circumstance is a fact or situation that does not justify or excuse a wrongful act or offence but it reduces the decree of culpability and thus may reduce the punishment in a criminal case.

Record revealed that the appellant was a first offender without a previous criminal history , which aspect is considered as a mitigating circumstance while deciding question of sentence because an accused is entitled to the benefit of any available mitigating circumstances

High Court, while maintaining conviction of the appellant, converted his sentence of death into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Sentence, reduction in

Mitigating circumstance

Scope

Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of the complainant and also causing injuries to her paramour

Record showed that the Investigation Officer had failed to interrogate/investigate about the motive as set up in the FIR

Not a single witness had seen the accused while committing the murder of his wife

Accused in his confessional statement had also not stated that he had seen injured with his wife in physical contact with each other

Injured had deposed that at the time of incident, accused declared him on illicit relations with his wife and caused knife blows at neck, he went unconscious and heard cries of deceased

Two prosecution witnesses had also not witnessed the actual incident but their evidence was relevant and reliable

Present case fully attracted the rule of res gestae

Record was silent as to why father of deceased remained calm, even FIR was not lodged by him

Such circumstances of the case had put to a caution in the matter of sentence of accused

Whole prosecution evidence was silent on the said aspects of the case

Thus, real cause of occurrence was shrouded in mystery and was completely suppressed by both the parties

Prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same which might re-act against the sentence of death passed against the accused on the charge of murder

None had seen the accused while committing the murder of his wife in the house but there was huge evidence which clearly showed that accused had committed the murder of his wife in the house and attempted to commit murder of his paramour/injured

Said fact squarely constituted "proof beyond doubt" admitting no hypothesis other than guilt of accused

Father of deceased was also present at the door of the accused when he committed the murder of his daughter but neither he rescued her daughter nor lodged FIR of the incident

Brother of injured/witness was also present at the time of incident but he had also not lodged FIR to the police station

Prosecution had failed to prove the motive at trial

Said facts were the mitigating circumstances in the case, which were sufficient to adopt the alter course by awarding life imprisonment instead of death sentence

Appeal was partly allowed and death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, common intention, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Recovery of weapon

Non-availability of report of Forensic Laboratory

Weapon not in working condition

Mitigating circumstance

Scope

Accused was alleged to have ineffectively fired at the complainant

Recovery of crime weapon was the only evidence which could play vital role in the case of accused to ascertain the true picture

Recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of the accused was made after a considerable delay i.e. on the last day of remand

Recovery witness stated that at the time of recovery, weapon was in working condition whereas Trial Court had noted that the weapon was not in working condition

Weapon recovered on the pointation of accused and the empties recovered from the spot were not even sent to the Forensic Laboratory

Strong mitigation in respect of the recovery, which in view of the role attributed to the accused was of vital importance as well as the active participation of the accused, was available in the case

Sentence of accused was reduced to the one already undergone by him

Appeal of accused was disposed of accordingly and that of complainant was dismissed.

Rule of expectancy of life as applied in common law jurisdictions (outside Pakistan) stated.

Record showed that matter was reported within one and half hour of the occurrence, wherein accused was directly and singularly charged for murder of the deceased

Accused was co-villager and neighbour of the complainant and was well known to him prior to the occurrence

Being a broad-daylight occurrence, question of mistaken identity did not arise

Complainant reiterated the same story as set forth by him in his initial report and once again charged the accused singularly for murder of the deceased

Complainant stood firm by stating that site plan was prepared at his pointation by the Investigating Officer

Complainant had been subjected to lengthy and taxing cross-examination but nothing beneficial to defence could be extracted from his mouth

Witness remained stuck to his stance on each and every material aspect of the incident

Many un-explained material facts having been explained through the witness by the defence itself had strengthened the prosecution case

Presence of witness with the deceased at the time of occurrence was quite natural as the deceased was his maternal uncle and had visited with his family to the house of complainant and stayed there for two days prior to the occurrence

No evidence, whatsoever, had been brought by the defence to prove any enmity or grudge of complainant with the accused

Mere relationship of complainant with the deceased would not detract his veracity, as he had absolutely no motive of his own to involve the accused falsely by letting off the real culprit

Prosecution had successfully proved that accused had committed murder of the deceased on the day, time and place with a 30-bore pistol as alleged by the prosecution and substantiated through cogent and confidence inspiring ocular evidence, supported by medical evidence and corroborated by strong circumstantial piece of evidence

However, the motive advanced by the prosecution did not seem true, thus, the same could be taken as mitigating circumstance

While maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life

Appeal was disposed of with said modification.

Failure to establish motive on part of the prosecution may react upon sentence of death.

If the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the murder, the court is justified in imposing the alternate sentence of life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty.

Accused of mature age and understanding for that reason could not be regarded to have acted on instigation because the principle of influence of elders was confined only to offenders of impressionable ages and that too living under influence of elders.

Sentence of death was withheld when it was not clear as to whether a particular accused was actually responsible for causing death or not.

Most of the formalities required by the law vis-a-vis holding of a test identification parade had been duly compiled with yet the dummies had remained unchanged while all the accused persons were put to identification

Such irregularity did not vitiate the parade itself but had putting the court to caution in the matter of death sentence of accused persons

Furthermore the allegations leveled against the accused persons were joint and common and no specific injury had been attributed to any particular accused person, thus, it was not clear as to which one of the accused persons, was actually responsible for causing the fatal injuries to the deceased

Sentences of death passed against the accused persons were reduced to imprisonment for life.

Where the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on part of the prosecution may react against sentence of death passed against a convict on a capital charge.

Sentence of death may ordinarily be withheld where it was not clear from the record as to which of the culprits had caused the fatal injury to the deceased.

According to the prosecution about 6/7 years prior to the present occurrence the accused party had suspected that deceased had murdered one of their relatives and despite taking of an oath by deceased on the Holy Quran maintaining his innocence in the matter the accused party did not feel satisfied

During the ensuing 6/7 years no untoward incident had taken place between the parties

Alleged motive was only based upon a suspicion which too stood removed through an oath on the Holy Quran taken by the deceased

No independent evidence was available on the record that the grudge against the deceased still continued unabated

Furthermore nothing had been recovered from the custody of accused and although a firearm had allegedly been recovered from the custody of co-accused during the investigation yet the record of the case showed that the crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of co-accused which factor denuded the alleged recovery of its evidentiary worth

According to the prosecution four accused persons including the present accused had effectively fired at the deceased on different parts of his body and the statement made by the concerned doctor showed that no particular injury sustained by the deceased had been declared by the doctor to be fatal

Question as to which of the culprits had caused the fatal injury to the deceased remained unclear

Sentences of death passed against the accused persons were reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Where the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder.

Accused had contended that he had faced agony of prolonged trial and remained in a death cell for a long period, which was a mitigating circumstance in his favour

Validity

Prolonged trial or being in death cell for a long period was not a valid ground for inflicting lesser penalty to accused.

Case was based on circumstantial evidence, mitigating circumstance existed particularly in favour of the lady accused, as such lesser punishment had rightly been awarded.

Statements of prosecution witnesses were silent with regard to motive, therefore, a case of mitigation in the sentence of accused was made out

Conviction was maintained, sentence of accused from death was altered to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that accused party had assaulted on complainant party, made firing thereon, as a result of which two persons died and one person sustained injuries

All the victims had sustained injuries by a Pistol

Motive for the incident was business dispute between the parties

Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses including deceased then injured

Accused remained fugitive and the case was tried against him in absentia and he was awarded capital punishment

Accused filed appeal after his arrest, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for commencing de novo trial of the accused

When the case proceeded in absentia, the statement of one injured was recorded by the Trial Court; however, after arrest of the accused, the said injured witness, according to the prosecution, had died

Complainant submitted application along with death certificate of the said witness, with the submission that the statement of said witness be placed on record

Said application was allowed and the statement of said witness was placed on record

Validity

Trial Court relied upon the ocular account furnished by a witness and statement of deceased then injured under Art. 47 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Record showed that incident took place on 27.1.2002

Witness had stated to be present at the place of incident, but neither at the time of incident she recorded her statement, nor explained the sufficient reasons for delay in recording her statement

Said witness had appeared after about three months of the incident sworn an affidavit, but no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay had been put forth

Statement of such witness, in circumstances, was not safe to be relied upon

In the present case, only ocular evidence of deceased then injured, which had been taken into consideration under Art. 47 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was on the record

Record showed that death certificate of the witness had not been challenged by the defence nor rebutted through any cogent evidence

At the time of accepting the application for transfer of statement of witness, evidence regarding death of said witness was already on record, thus the requirement of Art. 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was proved with regard to the death of said witness

Evidence of said witness was also put to the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Contention of defence that conviction awarded to the accused, which was recorded in absentia, had been set-aside in appeal and the previous trial was not judicial proceeding, was not tenable

Statement of said witness was recorded in the previous trial in judicial proceedings and counsel for pauper accused cross-examined the said witness, therefore the statement of said witness qualified the requirements of Art. 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Deceased, then injured witness, had given a detail account of the incident by attributing role of firing to the accused and co-accused and firearm injuries sustained by him and deceased persons

Evidence of said witness was supported by medical evidence, recovery of empties, bloodstained clothes of deceased and injured, thus was worth of credence, independent, natural and trustworthy

No reason existed to discard his testimony, therefore, the testimony of single witness was found entirely reliable

Prosecution, however, had not been able to prove motive part of the occurrence, which was mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence

Conviction was maintained but sentence of accused was reduced/altered from death to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the complainant himself along with co-accused committed qatl-i-amd of his wife and her paramour

Motive behind the occurrence was illicit relations between the deceased and his wife

Complainant himself brought the dead body of his wife to the police station and lodged report about their murder by himself, his brother and absconding co-accused

Postmortem reports of both the deceased confirmed the story of FIR by showing multiple firearm injures on their bodies and also sharpedged wounds on male deceased

Said facts were in total conformity with statement of complainant/accused in the FIR to the effect that he, his brother and absconding co-accused fired at both the deceased with their firearms and then he caused axe blows to male deceased

Belated denial of the complainant/ accused, without disputing his signature on the FIR and without furnishing any explanation for the presence of dead bodies in his living room, would not absolve him of the charge of qatl-i-amd of his wife and her paramour at late night

Prosecution witnesses, who verified FIR lodged by complainant/ accused, were abandoned by the prosecution for having been won over by the defence

Defence had the opportunity to produce those witnesses as defence witnesses but it did not avail said valuable opportunity

None of the legal heirs of both the deceased had, so far, exonerated the complainant/accused from the charge

First Information Report lodged and signed by the accused himself further substantiated the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution

Charge of iskat-i-janin of fetus under S.338-C, P.P.C. had been proved through the un-rebutted deposition of Medical Officer, together with the charge under S.13 Arms Ordinance, 2013 owing to recovery of 30-bore pistol loaded with five rounds

Nothing was on record for setting aside conviction of the accused awarded by the Trial Court

Facts and circumstances of the case showed that three minor sons had lost their mother and if death sentence was maintained, they would lose their father, therefore, the penalty of death was commuted and converted into imprisonment for life on two counts

Conviction of accused was maintained accordingly.

Prosecution failed to prove the recovery of weapon of offence from the accused, which though could be taken as a mitigating circumstance being supportive piece of evidence, but said factor alone could not be made basis to brush aside whole of the trustworthy evidence

Evidence available on record was sufficient to convict the accused for an offence committed by him

Said mitigating circumstance could be considered to determine the quantum of sentence and the Trial Court had rightly circumvented to pass capital sentence against the accused

Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court declined to interfere.

Complaint showed that the mother and sister of deceased came out after the complainant, but as per statement of mother of deceased, complainant emerged on the scene after the mother

Said inconsistency showed that the complainant had improved his statement from FIR, whereas he had only seen the accused in the street from his back, therefore, his statement to the extent of being wajtakar could be given consideration at that stage

Ocular account given by the mother of the deceased had gone un-rebutted

Accused had himself asked a specific question regarding the alleged occurrence from the mother of the deceased and in response to said question she narrated the actual event

Record showed that accused was nominated at the very first instance, even the FIR was promptly lodged

Statements of complainant and mother of the deceased proved to be consistent in that regard that deceased stated that accused had stabbed her

Statements of said witnesses were further confirmed through independent

Evidence of taxi driver, who had brought the injured lady in his taxi to the hospital

Circumstances and facts of the case had proved that the dying declaration of deceased with regards to details of injury, name and description of the accused had not been denied rather the entire cumulative facts demonstrated that the last words of deceased were based upon truth and nothing was concealed thereon

Statement of mother of deceased, who had seen the actual occurrence with her own eyes, corroborated the occurrence

Testimony of Medical Officer, who at first instance medically examined the deceased, showed that the time of death was 5.15 a.m. which occurred in Operation Theater during her treatment

Said facts had proved that deceased was brought to the hospital alive and it could safely be concluded that, approximately two hours of time was passed from incident till death, therefore, it could firmly be concluded that deceased had stated some facts about the alleged occurrence to her mother and brother in presence of witness/taxi driver, who were natural witnesses of the alleged crime

Prosecution, had not been able to prove motive and recovery of the crime weapon, which were mitigating circumstances for reduction of sentence

Sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Once the prosecution alleged a motive and failed to prove the same during the trial, the same could be taken as a mitigating circumstance while deciding the quantum of sentence of a convict.

While maintaining conviction of the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C., his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

Effect

Accused was merely a volunteer in the occurrence and not a party to the friction between the complainant and accused party

Actual cause of the occurrence, therefore, was not known; its origin vis-a-vis the accused was vague and incomprehensible

Intention, guilty mind or motive of the accused to commit the offence remained shrouded in mystery and was therefore unproven

Possibility existed that the eye-witnesses had withheld evidence that could fairly explain the immediate cause of the occurrence

Sentence of death awarded to accused was altered to that of life imprisonment under S.302(b), P.P.C.

Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.

Evidence of eye-witnesses revealed that the act of inflicting single knife blow by accused at deceased was preceded by a dialogue between accused and complainant followed by scuffle

Accused inflicted only single blow of knife and did not repeat

Prosecution case was silent with regard to motive

Such factors cumulatively made out a case for mitigation of sentence

Accused was awarded death sentence for murder, which was undoubtedly a normal penalty for the offence, but benefit could be extended in presence of mitigating circumstances

Conviction was maintained, death sentence of accused was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.

Prosecu-tion case was that due to exchange of hot words between the wife and brother of complainant, accused commanded his co-accused/brother for firing at the wife of complainant, who in compliance fired at the wife of complainant with .30-bore pistol, as a result of which she expired

Contents of FIR and statement of eye-witness showed that there was no background of ill-will or bitterness between the accused-appellant and deceased lady or her husband/ complainant

Incident erupted all of a sudden without any premeditation

Complainant stated nothing about previous ill-will of slightest nature amongst the brothers and his wife

Circumstances established that present case was one of sudden provocation and altercation which resulted into the incident

Said circumstances could be treated as mitigating circumstances in the case for reduction of sentence, thus case against accused-appellant fell within the purview of S.302(c) and not under S.302(b) Penal Code, 1860

Sentence was therefore, reduced from life imprisonment to imprisonment for fifteen years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification.

If motive was not proved, same could be taken as mitigating circumstance.

Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed in circumstances.

Casings secured from the spot were dispatched to Forensic Science Laboratory prior to the arrest of accused persons and the same were found to have been fired from weapons recovered at the instance of accused persons

Acquittal of co-accused did not adversely affect the case of prosecution regarding accused persons as they were not assigned any harm either to deceased or to prosecution witnesses, as they were exonerated during the course of investigation, they had been acquitted out of abundant caution to ensure safe administration of criminal justice

Accused were arrested on 27-9-2009 and convicted on 12-2-2011 and under S. 57, P.P.C., imprisonment for life was to be reckoned as equivalent to 25 years

In case of denial of benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. to accused, their sentences would remain within the permissible period provided under the law as they still could possibly avail remissions under S. 55, P.P.C.

When two real brothers were brutally murdered, no other than their first cousins; one of them, a brother-in-law as well within the view of their aging father and real sister on petty issue, origin whereof remained shrouded in mystery, through successive fires shots in broad daylight

High Court declined to extend benefit provided under S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. and converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Circumstances suggested that accused could be held responsible for the crime, however, his conviction under S. 302(b) Penal Code, 1860 warranted serious consideration

Prosecution case was that the deceased lady left the house of accused and started living in a house arranged by her paramour

Investigation confirmed the hypothesis of accused's surprise arrival while paramour of deceased was present with her

Said circumstances spelled out situation which appeared to have cropped up all of a sudden where-under the accused seemingly lost control over his faculties

Said situation was confirmed by the weapons used in the occurrence

Churri, electric iron, bricks and cord were used by the accused at the time of occurrence, which showed that the accused used whatever object, he found nearby

Violence suffered by the deceased was compatible with the provocation and emotional devastation

Accused's culpability was more squarely covered by the mischief of S. 302(c) of the Penal Code, 1860

Circumstances established that offence of accused fell in the ambit of S. 302(c) instead of under S. 302(b) Penal Code, 1860

Appeal was dismissed, however, conviction of accused was converted from clause (b) of S. 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 into clause (c) of the Code and he was sentenced to fifteen years.

Circumstances established that prosecution had not been able to prove recovery of the crime weapon, which could be considered as mitigating circumstance, as such, extreme penalty of death was not warranted in case

Sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Accused did not get registered the case nor they made any complaint about the murder of wife of one accused to any notable of the area

Effect

Non explaining the murder of deceased wife of accused by any of the accused persons showed that some important facts as to causing double murder of two young people were concealed by both the parties and what had happened immediately before the occurrence was not clear

Motive was not proved in circumstances

Where motive pleaded by the prosecution had not been proved, it would be considered mitigating circumstance qua quantum of sentence

In the present case, Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused and awarded them imprisonment for life instead of death sentence

Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed accordingly.

FIR had been lodged in the case with sufficient promptitude, wherein accused was specifically named attributing to him specific role

Occurrence took place at midnight, and both eye-witnesses had identified accused who had inflicted the fatal firearm injuries on the person of the deceased, which resulted into his death at the spot in the light of electric bulbs

Eye-witnesses being residents of the place of occurrence; their presence at the spot at relevant time was natural

Both the eye-witnesses having also pointed out the source of light in their statements, the identification of accused at the place of occurrence was not doubtful

Witnesses had sufficiently explained time, place of occurrence and also explained the mode and manner of taking place the occurrence qua the culpability of accused in the case

Witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing favourable to the defence could be extracted; and both remained consistent on all material points

Parties being known to each other, there was no chance of mistaken identity of accused, or his false implication in the case

Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, were not fatal enough to destroy the prosecution case against accused, or to shatter the confidence inspiring testimony of their statements adduced before the Trial Court

Prosecution had successfully proved ocular account to the extent of accused which was duly supported by the medical evidence

Conflict in the ocular account and the medical evidence was not fatal to the prosecution case, as it was not expected from a layman to describe the exact seat of injuries on the dead body of the deceased

One crime empty taken into possession from the place of occurrence, having not sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, report of Forensic Science Laboratory to the extent of working order of pistol .30-bore, allegedly effected from accused became inconsequential, and was of no help to the prosecution

Prosecution had successfully proved case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt through confidence inspiring evidence in shape of ocular account and medical evidence

Case carried some exceptional/mitigating circumstances in favour of accused

Sentence of death awarded to accused was not justified in the case; and the capital sentence of death passed against by the Trial Court, appeared to be harsh to be sustained as motive set up by the prosecution had not been proved in the case, and it remained shrouded in mystery

Accused was entitled for the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question of sentence

Capital punishment of death to accused would not serve the interest of justice in the case, life imprisonment would be absolutely apt with the circumstances of the case

Death sentence awarded to accused, was converted into life imprisonment, in circumstances.

FIR had been reported with promptitude with all the necessary details of the incident, eliminating the possibility of concoction or deliberations on behalf of the prosecution

Parties were co-villagers inter se and were known to each other prior to the occurrence

Substitution of accused persons for the actual assailants was unbelievable, as one could not expect from father of deceased of advance age, to substitute the real culprits with that of accused persons, which was otherwise a rare phenomenon

Blood stained earth, secured from the place of occurrence, and last worn blood stained garments of the deceased taken into possession, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for Serologist opinion

Analyst report affirmed that it was human blood, and of the same group; which had proved that the deceased was done to death on the same place as alleged by the complainant in his report

Crime spot, in circumstances, had been fully established from said material pieces of circumstantial evidence

Autopsy report of the deceased had established that deceased had been done to death with firearms

Role of effective firing was assigned to accused persons

Complainant who was solitary eye-witness of the incident, had furnished the ocular account; he had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but he stood firm to his stance and successfully passed the test of cross-examination

No material contradiction, or any dent could be made by the defence testimony

Place of occurrence and other particulars of the incident, were further supplemented through cross-examination of said solitary eye-witness

No doubt complainant was the real father of the deceased, but his mere close relation, would not discard his testimony on the sole ground of his relationship

Straightforward and confidence inspiring statement of complainant, was corroborated by circumstantial evidence and medical evidence

Minor discrepancies, in the statement of complainant, would not be fatal for the prosecution case, as he was examined after a long period of seven years

No enmity existed between the parties which could prompt the complainant to falsely implicate accused persons

Three accused, were charged in the present case for murder of single deceased

Deceased had sustained multiple firearm injuries on his person; and it was not discernable from the available evidence, as to shot of which of the three accused proved fatal, which could be a mitigating circumstance, in the prosecution case

Condign punishment provided for the offence, would not be a step justified in law, in circumstances

Trial Court, was justified in sentencing accused to imprisonment for life

Counsel for the complainant had failed to make out a case of enhancement of sentence, in circumstances

Trial Court, in circumstances, had properly appreciated the evidence available on record, and was justified in convicting accused persons and in sentencing accused to imprisonment for life.

If charge of qatl-i-amd was proved against accused, normal penalty of death should be awarded, and leniency in any case should not be shown except where strong mitigating circumstances for lesser sentence were brought on record

Circumstances of the case had disentitled accused to any leniency in the sentence and accused deserved normal penalty of death, which had rightly been award to him by the Trial Court

Same was maintained and confirmed.

Report had been lodged without any delay and recovery of semen-stained clothes from the spot confirmed the site of occurrence

Mobile phone which was used for making video of the occurrence had also been recovered from the pocket of one of accused persons

Four pieces of clothes having semen stains were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, report of which was in positive

Investigating Officer investigated the case properly and collected the corroboratory evidence

Minor age of the complainant/ victim and charging accused without any previous enmity or family dispute, was sufficient to connect accused with the commission of crime

Defence had failed to bring on record any reason for falsely involving accused in the case

Not a single accused claimed to have been charged due to enmity or malafidely

High-handedness and the criminal conduct of accused persons disgracing the complainant and his family could not be ignored

Statement of victim, was direct, straightforward, confidence inspiring, fully corroborated by the medical evidence, video, Forensic Science Laboratory report and other evidence produced by the prosecution

Age of accused persons who were ranging from 17 to 21 years and also being first offenders, had created mitigating circumstance warranting reduction in the quantum of sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court

Conviction of accused persons was maintained, but their sentence was reduced to ten years' R.I. each from imprisonment for life

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused persons.

Both eye-witnesses had furnished the natural and straightforward account in respect of the occurrence, by recounting the facts mentioned by the deceased then injured in his F.I.R.

Eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy searching and taxing cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted from their mouths, which could diminish the probative worth of their testimony

Absolutely no conflict was noticed between account narrated by prosecution witnesses and the entries made in the site plan

No inconsistency existed between the dying declaration made by the deceased, then injured, ocular account furnished by the two eye-witnesses and medical evidence, rather it supplemented each other

Account furnished by the official witnesses, including the medical officer also appeared to be natural and straightforward, without any significant discrepancy in their version

Minor discrepancies/ omissions, if any, on the part of the prosecution in the matter, was not of much importance when the entire evidence available on record appeared to be trustworthy

Charge against accused having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, he had rightly been convicted by the Trial Court

Record did not show with certainty that it was the shot of accused, and not that of the absconding co-accused, which killed the deceased

Sentence of death awarded to accused by the Trial Court was converted into imprisonment for life, in circumstances

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., would also remain intact.

Delay of six days in the registration of the case, being genuine had plausibly been explained, no adverse inference therefore, could be drawn regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story, merely, due to said delay

Minor contradictions between the statements of the victim and prosecution witness, neither were material, nor sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story, as such statements were recorded by the Trial Court after more than seven years of occurrence

Such contradictions were not proved in accordance with Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Despite minor contradictions in the statement of prosecution witness, his evidence could not be discarded

Mere absence of marks of injury or violence on the victim's body, would not imply non-commission of rape

Existence of marks of struggle, pre-supposed struggle which depended on capability of victim to offer resistance

In the present case, victim was a married lady of 38 years, having suddenly been overpowered by a young man of about 22 years, victim could not have resisted the assault with her physical force

Non-recovery of the knife, allegedly being carried out by accused at the time of occurrence, was not fatal to the prosecution story, as the complainant could not be held liable for any lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer

No previous enmity existed between the complainant and accused which could have resulted in the false implication of accused

Solitary statement of the victim, if found to be confidence-inspiring, was sufficient to record conviction of accused without any corroboration

Shalwar as well as the swabs taken from the vagina of the victim, were found to be stained with semen by Chemical Examiner

Lady doctor had stated that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse

Statement of the victim was fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence

Trial Court had no justification to acquit accused of the charge, in circumstances

Misreading of evidence by the Trial Court, had resulted in miscarriage of justice

Impugned judgment, whereby accused was acquitted by the Trial Court, was set aside

Period of more than 20 years having elapsed, since the occurrence, till the decision of the present appeal, same was a mitigating factor for awarding a lesser punishment to accused

Ends of justice, would adequately be fulfilled, if a lesser punishment was awarded to accused

Maintaining conviction of accused, accused was sentenced to four years' R.I., with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Commission of murder under the influence or on the exhortation of elders can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment of imprisonment for life to accused.

Allegations against the accused were that he fired at and murdered the deceased (complainant's brother) when the latter was making ablution in a disputed piece of land, and that the accused and his co-accused fired at the complainant and prosecution witness

Contention of the accused was that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Validity

Medical report of the deceased proved that his death had been caused by means of a firearm injury

Prosecution witnesses included the brother and a relative of the deceased, but only on account of their relationship with the deceased, they could not be termed as interested witnesses for the reason that they had no direct animosity with the accused

Despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to create any dent in the veracity of the witnesses, except a few immaterial discrepancies

Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight, therefore, question of mistaken identity did not arise

Non-recovery of crime weapon was not fatal to the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the case

Accused remained an absconder for two months after the commission of the offence

Place of occurrence was situated at a distance of fifty (50) kilometers from the police station, which fact explained the delay of four hours in lodging the report

Prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

According to prosecution's own admission, one day prior to the incident, the accused claiming ownership of the disputed land and restrained the deceased from working on it

By working on the disputed land, the deceased caused annoyance to the accused, who fired a single shot in spite of having the opportunity to repeat the firing

Conviction of the accused, in view of such mitigating circumstances, was maintained, but his sentence of death was altered to that of imprisonment of life

Order accordingly.

Said statement which had assumed the status of dying declaration, was made in presence of Doctor whose presence was established

Cause of death of deceased having been established, which was firearms injuries received by him, non-conducting of his postmortem had lost its value and that alone could not be termed as factum of doubt

Defence had failed to shatter the stance of deceased complainant

Said report could not be discarded

Version of the complainant got full support from the ocular account of occurrence given by prosecution witness

Prosecution witness being brother of deceased, alone would not be sufficient to discard his statement, when otherwise his statement was worth-reliance

Abandonment of one witness being unnecessary was not fatal to prosecution case, when statement of other eye-witnesses, coupled with dying declaration of the complainant along with other corroborative evidence had fully supported the case of prosecution

Even otherwise, it was the quality of evidence and not the quantity

Even a single confidence inspiring statement of witness was sufficient for conviction of accused

Medical account of the case also supported the case of prosecution as same was in consonance with ocular account

When the parties were residents of the same area and known to each other, they could easily be recognized, even in the dark

Contention that being a night occurrence without disclosing source of light would create serious doubts on the identification of accused, was repelled

Delay of 2.45 hours in making the report was fully justified

Prosecution having proved its case against accused without any shadow of doubt, accused was rightly convicted by the Trial Court

Occurrence had taken place at night and because of darkness, it was not possible to determine that whose shot proved fatal, said aspect could be taken as a mitigating circumstance

Motive as alleged by the prosecution was not proved and remained obscure

Sentence of death awarded to accused, being uncalled for same was converted into life imprisonment, in circumstances.

Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt of extenuating circumstances, while deciding the quantum of sentence.

Three incidents took place on the day of occurrence between the parties and it was the last incident in which two persons were murdered

Trial Court convicted both the accused under S. 302(6), P.P.C. and sentenced then to death but High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

Conduct of parties was that none of them approached police station in spite of two incidents which took place between them prior to occurrence and it had established that either party was not inclined to involve area police

Complainant party had also roped all brothers of accused as co-accused, five of then were acquitted by Trial Court whereas the sixth was acquitted by High Court

Prosecution witnesses deposed that all accused were firing at complainant party but deceased persons had received single bullet injury on their person

Extreme youth, sudden provocation, influence of an elder and question of family honour etc. were covered by phrase "extenuating and mitigating circumstances"

If any case fell within such circumstances, a court, in law, was justified to award lesser penalty

Case of accused was covered by one of the categories of phrase mitigating circumstances

High Court, though had not spelt out reasons for awarding lesser punishment to accused in its judgment, had rightly commuted sentence of death of accused to life imprisonment in view of mitigating circumstances.

Single fire by an accused can be considered as an extenuating circumstance for awarding the lesser sentence.

Weakness or absence of motive is not a mitigating circumstance by itself, but once it is alleged, the same must be positively established, and if prosecution fails to do so, then it must suffer.