Reappraisal of evidence

Convict-appellant claimed that the recovered contraband was initially wrapped in white cloth weighing 60 grams, whereas the Forensic Science Laboratory Report indicated that the parcel received by the laboratory was wrapped in a khaki envelope and packed in a polythene bag

While this inconsistency, in isolation, did not suffice to dismantle the entire prosecution case, it raised a point that must be considered in the context of sentencing

Discrepancy, though minor, could be seen as a mitigating factor, as it might have indicated a lapse in strictly adhering to the prescribed protocols

Trial Court and the High Court, while both affirming the conviction, did not appear to have fully addressed this factor in their judgments, despite its potential relevance to the sentence

Given the minor nature of the discrepancy and the otherwise unbroken chain of custody, it would have been prudent to award the convict-appellant the benefit of this mitigating factor, potentially leading to a reduction in the sentence imposed

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

Meticulous examination of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses unequivocally revealed that all material witnesses remained consistent and unanimous in their depositions to the extent that the convict-appellant was apprehended from F.W.O Turn and from his exclusive possession, charas weighing 1080 grams was recovered

No contradiction or inconsistency was elicited during cross-examination of the witnesses either with regard to the locus in quo (place of occurrence) or the quantity of the contraband recovered

It was alleged by defence that while the FIR recorded the place of apprehension as "F.W.O Turn", the prosecution witnesses, in their statements before the Court, stated that the apprehension took place near the "Revenue Complex", thereby suggesting a contradiction sufficient to cast doubt upon the prosecution's case

However, such contention was wholly misconceived and appeared to be a futile attempt to mislead the Court

It was imperative to clarify that the so-called divergence was purely superficial and did not carry any substantive weight, as both "F.W.O Turn" and the "Revenue Complex" were situated in close proximity, virtually at the same location and were commonly understood and referred to interchangeably within the local parlance

Minor variation in nomenclature could not, by any stretch of legal reasoning, be construed as a contradiction of material consequence so as to discredit the otherwise consistent and corroborated account of the prosecution witnesses

In such a factual paradigm, where the ocular and documentary evidence collectively pointed towards the unequivocal recovery of narcotic substance from the possession of the appellant, the prosecution's narrative remained unimpeached and suffered from no material infirmity that could merit the benefit of doubt

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

Record showed that the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, rightly convicted the convict-appellant, however, after taking into account the mitigating factor present in this case, particularly the minor discrepancy in the packaging of the contraband, it was just and appropriate to modify the sentence

Accordingly, the judgments of both the Courts below were modified and the convict-appellant was hereby sentenced to 05 years of simple imprisonment

With said modification in the sentence, appeal was partially accepted.

Appellant, in his defence, also opted to record his statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., and also adduced defence evidence; however, the same fell short of displacing the prosecution's case or creating any dent in the consistent chain of events established through unimpeachable evidence

Once the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proving the recovery of narcotic substance beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof shifted to the accused under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to account for the possession of the contraband

In the instant case, the appellant had palpably failed to discharge such burden or to create any plausible doubt regarding his innocence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

Transmission was entrusted to a Police Official who, during his cross-examination, testified that he received Parcel No.1 from the Police Station on June 07, 2023, and submitted it to the Forensic Science Laboratory on the same day

He further asserted that the parcel remained intact throughout the process

Moharrar at the Police Station corroborated this by stating that the parcel was submitted to him by the complainant on June 04, 2023, and was then sent through said Police Official for chemical analysis

Said consistent testimony from the witnesses established, with sufficient clarity, that the chain of custody and the safe transmission of the contraband was unbroken, which in turn strengthened the reliability of the prosecution's case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

Initial cause of the incident was the annoyance arising from the deduction in the price of the pedi crop by the father of the petitioner-convict, which led to a spontaneous altercation and grappling between the parties

Incident occurred at the doorstep of the house of the petitioner-convict

To some extent the motive i.e. settlement on price of the pedi crop between the parties and the mode and manner of the occurrence had not been honestly placed by the prosecution before the Court

Significantly, the petitioner-convict, at the initial stage, was involved in a grappling/altercation with the deceased and others, which clearly indicated absence of premeditation or intention to kill

Act of firing was a spontaneous reaction in a heated moment

Moreover, only a single fire shot was fired and no acts of undue brutality were inflicted upon the deceased

Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 302(c), P.P.C, and not Section 302(b), P.P.C

Thus, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict under Section 302(b), P.P.C were set-aside, however, he was convicted under Section 302(c), P.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15-years

With said modification in sentence, appeal was partly allowed.

In their statements, said witnesses deposed that on the fateful day they had visited the house of the petitioner-convict to pay the price of the pedi crop to his father

Dispute arose on account of deduction of a certain amount from the total price of the pedi crop, which led to annoyance on the part of the father of the petitioner-convict and initially resulted in an altercation between the parties

During the course scuffle, the petitioner-convict allegedly fired at the deceased, who was present along with his father/the complainant

During cross-examination, the defence did not challenge the place of occurrence

Eye-witnesses had consistently and specifically attributed the role of firing to the petitioner-convict, however, they were consistent on the point that only single fire shot was fired by the petitioner-convict at the deceased which proved fatal

Medical evidence, furnished by Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased supported the ocular account

Medical Officer observed a single firearm entrance wound, measuring 1×1 cm, on the lower border of the left lower jaw of the deceased, and opined that the said injury resulted into the unnatural death of the deceased

Petitioner in his statement had not denied the occurrence, however, he had come forward with a slightly different version

According to him, during grappling the deceased got hit with his own pistol

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to extenuating circumstances, the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 302(c), P.P.C, and not Section 302(b), P.P.C

Thus, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict under Section 302(b), P.P.C, were set-aside, however, he was convicted under Section 302(c), P.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15-years

With said modification in sentence, appeal was partly allowed.

Upon the failure of petitioner to deliver the stipulated goods and after providing successive but hollow assurances, he purportedly issued a cheque of Rs. 4,400,000/- intended to discharge his subsisting financial liability; however, the said cheque was subsequently dishonored upon presentation for encashment, thereby leading to the registration of FIR

Petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2023

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of Trial Court, the respondent No. 2/complainant preferred appeal before the High Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.03.2025 whereby the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to record statements of three witnesses as Court Witnesses, to obtain expert opinion regarding signatures and to decide the matter afresh after recording fresh statement of accused and hearing both the parties

Validity

Upon a holistic review of the settled principles, it could safely be concluded that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal was narrow, predicated on the "double presumption of innocence" where the initial presumption was significantly fortified by the judicial finding of the Trial Court

Such an acquittal could not be lightly interjected unless the impugned judgment was demonstrably perverse, arbitrary, or suffered from a shocking misreading of evidence that resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice

Furthermore, while Sections 423 and 428, Cr.P.C., conferred the power of remand, such discretion must be exercised with extreme caution and only upon the clear dictate of justice, ensuring that it did not serve to merely provide the prosecution a second opportunity to strengthen a doubtful case

So far as the finding of the High Court qua determination as to thumb impression and signatures of the petitioner on certain documents was concerned, the record showed that such finding of High Court was result of misreading of the record

High Court had observed that the evidentiary aspect concerning signatures and fingerprints was left unaddressed by the Trial Court without seeking expert opinion in terms of Article 59 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ("the Qanun-e-Shahadat"), however the record showed that the said aspect had not only been properly addressed by the Trial Court but also adequately discussed with reasons in its judgment

Trial Court while exercising such powers sent the disputed Affidavit/Halfnama to NADRA for automated fingerprints identification system to determine if the LTI embossed on it belonged to petitioner whereupon the NADRA authority reported that the thumb impression was having poor quality, hence could not be determined

Similarly, while exercising powers under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, the Trial Court compared the signatures of witness at evidence recorded before Court and upon disputed Affidavit/Halfnama with his alleged signatures on memo of seeing cheque and other documents which were found totally different

Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat empowered the Courts to visually compare the disputed signatures in order to ascertain whether the same were that of the person by whom it purported to have been written or made

So far as the omission to record ocular testimony of certain witnesses was concerned, the High Court concluded that failure to record their statements deprived the Trial Court of potentially crucial testimony, thereby limiting its ability to make an informed and just decision

In that regard, the High Court referred to Section 540, Cr.P.C., emphasizing that failure to exercise such power, where warranted, resulted in an incomplete and deficient trial

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed its evidence through statement of ADPP for the State

It was not asserted before Court that the evidence of three witnesses was new one which emerged after passing of judgment by the trial Court meaning thereby that the said evidence was always available to be presented before the trial Court at the time of trial

Similarly, it was observed that no effort was made by prosecution to present such evidence before the trial Court despite of its availability and having ample opportunity

In addition to that, the trial Court while appreciating the evidence discussed the lacuna of non-production of the said threewitnesses by prosecution during the proceedings of trial

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the judgment of High Court and restoring the judgment of Trial Court, in circumstances.

During cross-examination, Medical Officer stated that he had asked the deceased (then injured) some questions before examining him, which he responded to clearly, which suggested that he was in a fit condition to give a statement

In cross-examination, nothing contrary had been elicited to discredit the Medical Officer's evidence

Comparison of the dying declaration and the statement of brother of deceased/eye-witness, recorded before the Trial Court, showed that they tallied on material points

There was no conflict or inconsistency between those two statements

In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution clearly established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the deceased was conscious when he was moved to the hospital

Prosecution's evidence showed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make statement on the date and time of report

Complainant then injured expired on the same day, i.e., 07.09.2007 at 15.45 hours at hospital

Autopsy of deceased was conducted by Medical Officer on 07.09.2007 at 04.30 pm

No justifiable reason was pointed out to disbelieve the testimony of eye-witnesses and dying declaration made by the deceased

Prosecution's evidence did not suffer from any legal infirmity, which would render the dying declaration as doubtful or unworthy of evidence

In such a situation, the lapse on the part of the recorder of the dying declaration, i.e., failure to get the statement attested by the Medical Officer, should not be taken in favour of the accused; it might be that such lapse was committed by design or because of negligence, particularly when, prior to recording of statement of the then injured (now deceased), the Medical Officer examined him and opined that he was conscious and was in a position to make a statement

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

It was an admitted fact that the occurrence took place on 07.09.2007, while the accused-petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2015

Soon after the occurrence, accused-petitioner went into hiding and remained fugitive from the law for about eight years, for which he could not offer a plausible explanation

Proceedings under Sections 204 and 87, Cr.P.C., were initiated and completed against him

Unexplained disappearance of the accused-petitioner immediately after the occurrence from his place of residence, knowing that the deceased was his co-villager, strongly indicated towards his guilt

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

Evidently, the incident was reported by the deceased himself on 07.09.2007 at 08.50 am to Head Constable at casualty of hospital, which was recorded in the shape of Murasila at 09.25 am

Matter was reported within thirty-five minutes of the occurrence

Report was endorsed by the eye-witness, brother of the deceased

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined.

Recovery of blood-stained earth and one crime empty of .30 bore pistol confirmed the scene of crime as the railway track

So far as non-recovery of rest of the crime empties were concerned, it was observed that the crime was committed at a railway track near a mosque, therefore, there was strong possibility that the people of the vicinity would have been attracted to the crime scene after the occurrence and the remaining empties would have been misplaced due to rush of people

Petitions were dismissed and leave was declined, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, common intention

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Discrepancies in recording the confessional statement

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and her husband's nephew

In the instance case the appellants were arrested on 17.02.2016 during the purported inquiry prior to the registration of FIR

Arrest was based solely on an entry in the daily diary

Judicial confessions were recorded on 23.02.2016 i.e. six days after their illegal arrest

Judicial Magistrate deposed that the appellants were remanded to prison through a Naib Court, yet he was unaware whether the Naib Court handed them over to the police

However, Investigating Officer stated that the Magistrate had called him to take custody of the appellants after recording their confessions and that he himself transported them to the prison

Said inconsistency undermined the reliability of the alleged confessions which, notably, were corroborated by other prosecution evidence and, in fact, contradicted the prosecution's own narrative

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, common intention

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Delay in lodging the FIR

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and her husband's nephew

Complainant reported the matter on 17.02.2016 to Police Officer, who was on patrol duty

Written complaint disclosed the commission of the cognizable offence

Officer Incharge of the Police Station, however, failed to enter the information in the register prescribed under Section 154, Cr.P.C., as he did not register FIR

Instead, the particulars were entered in the daily diary and permission was sought from the Magistrate to initiate an inquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

Magistrate had no authority to order such inquiry and order was without lawful sanction

Purported inquiry was assigned to Sub Inspector who, under its guise, undertook actions properly attributed to an investigation

Appellants were arrested on 17.02.2016 i.e. prior to the registration of a crime report under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., their arrest was, therefore, illegal and without lawful authority, not falling within any of the statutory exceptions

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, common intention

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Medical evidence contradicting prosecution's case

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and her husband's nephew

According to the medical evidence, the injuries sustained by the deceased must have resulted in profuse bleeding, however, the evidence brought on record showed no indication of such bleeding having occurred at the alleged crime scene

Moreover, it was not the prosecution's case that the stains had been washed or cleared to destroy evidence

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, common intention

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Recovery of incriminating material

Inconsequential

Accused-petitioners were charged for committing murder of son of complainant and her husband's nephew

In this case, small blood-stained portion of a chitae (mat) along with axe and churri (knife) claimed to bear blood-stains were recovered

Said items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory almost a month after their recovery casting serious doubts on the reliability and evidentiary value of the positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report

Furthermore, the firearm weapon and the spent bullets allegedly recovered from the crime scene were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together, which compromised the integrity of the chain of custody and the reliability of the findings

In view of such material deficiencies and inconsistencies, reliance on the Forensic Science Laboratory Report for the purposes of sustaining a conviction would not be safe

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Prosecution case was that one packet containing 1005-grams ICE/Amphetamine was recovered from beneath the driver's seat and 6000-grams chars in five packets was recovered from the trunk of the vehicle driven by the accused/petitioner

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 9(d) and 11(c) of the Act 2019, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years

High Court dismissed the appeal

Validity

According to the testimony of Seizing Officer, he himself took the accused, the motorcar, and the sealed parcels containing the samples and the case property to the Police Station and handed over the same to Moharrir of the Police Station, for safe custody

Contrary to this the Constable/recovery witness deposed that he had taken the Murasila and other documents, along with the case property, to the Police Station, and that his statement in that regard was also recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code

Seizing Officer further stated that when he handed over the case property to Moharrir of the Police Station, he made entry in Register No. 19 in his presence

Contrary to the version of recovery witness/Constable, other Police Official stated that it was the Seizing Officer who handed over him the accused along with the case property

Moharrir deposed that Constable had brought Murasila, recovery memo, and arrest card and on the basis of Murasila he registered FIR

As per contents of FIR and statement of Seizing Officer, he handed over only Murasila to Constable, who took the same to the Police Station

Version of the Seizing Officer in the FIR as well as in his statement was contradictory with the statements of constable and Moharrir as in cross-examination Moharrir had categorically stated that Constable had handed over him Murasila, recovery memo and card of arrest of the accused

Contradictions in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses not only casted serious doubt on the chain of safe transmission and custody of the samples and case property from the place of recovery to the police station, but also struck at the very root of the prosecution's case

Consequently, it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband

Said defect alone was sufficient to vitiate the prosecution's case and entitled the petitioner to acquittal

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution's case primarily rested on the ocular testimony of the complainant and a witness, who both claimed to have witnessed the occurrence

In their statements both had assigned the role of firing at the deceased to total five persons including the appellant

In the FIR, the complainant had charged the appellant and co-accused only by name along with three unknown assailants

According to version of the complainant the sequence of events began with co-accused, who at first instance raised lalkara and then fired the first fire shot at the deceased, followed by the fire shot of appellant

Thereafter, all five accused, including the three unknown assailants, were said to have fired causing multiple injuries on various parts of body of the deceased

Subsequently, the complainant nominated two of the previously unknown three accused as “M” and “MA”

Third unknown assailant was still not nominated

Trial Court acquitted co-accused persons by disbelieving the ocular account of the complainant and eyewitnesses, terming their testimony unreliable and untrustworthy to the extent of the acquitted accused despite the fact that the acquitted co-accused were also assigned the similar role of firing at the deceased

Surprisingly, on the same set of evidence forming the foundation of the case against all the accused, only the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court

High Court, while modifying the sentence of the appellant from death to life imprisonment, nonetheless upheld his conviction on the same evidence that had already been disbelieved in respect of the acquitted co-accused

Moreover, it was observed that neither the trial Court nor the High Court had pointed to any cogent or compelling evidence to distinguish the role of the appellant from the role assigned to the acquitted co-accused

Admittedly, the alleged eyewitnesses in their statements had not specifically assigned the role of firing at the deceased to the appellant rather to total five accused persons

Evidence led by the prosecution was not divisible to distinguish the role of the appellant from the acquitted co-accused

If the prosecution evidence was found unreliable or insufficient to sustain the conviction of one accused and if the same evidence was indivisible and not capable of separate appreciation for the remaining accused, then a conviction could not be recorded on the same discredited evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that 30 bore pistol was recovered at the instance of the appellant, however it was rendered inconsequential due to the negative forensic report from the Forensic Science Agency

According to report of Forensic Science Agency, the empties recovered from the spot were not fired from the pistol shown recovered at the instance of the appellant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Despite being brother and cousin of the deceased, they neither intervened to rescue the deceased nor raised hue and cry to attract people to the spot

More notably, the alleged eyewitnesses had not charged the appellant for firing at them despite the fact that they were also on equal footing for the accused having common motive like the deceased

Passive and inactive conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses coupled with their escape when they too were at the mercy of five accused persons or their let off by the accused to stand eyewitnesses against them, casted serious doubt on their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence

Sequence of the deceased running after the initial shot, being chased, encircled and then collectively fired upon by five armed assailants, without any injury being caused to any of the co-accused or a stray bullet hitting another, was also implausible and did not appeal to reason or the ordinary course of human conduct

Possibility of such a coordinated assault, in which all five assailants simultaneously and accurately fired at a single individual running for his life, without any unintended consequences, was highly improbable

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused along with his companions allegedly committed murder of the brother of complainant and also caused injuries to other members of the complainant party

Occurrence in this case had taken place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot

In the FIR, 13 culprits, including the present appellant, had been nominated whereas 7/8 other culprits had been described as unknown

Motive set up by the prosecution was based upon land dispute between the parties and, thus, the said motive cut both ways

If the said background could provide a motive to the accused party to launch such a horrific attack on the complainant party, then the same motive could equally push the complainant party to spread the net very wide so as to falsely trap some innocent members of the accused party

On the basis of same statements made by the eye-witnesses, co-accused had been acquitted by the Courts below despite the fact that the said eye-witnesses had tarnished the said co-accused with the same brush

When 12 co-accused attributed the role of causing injuries to the deceased and other members of the complainant party had been acquitted in this case, it was incumbent upon the Courts below to look for independent corroboration to the ocular account before convicting and sentencing the present accused

Accused was allegedly armed with 'Sota' at the time of occurrence and caused injury on the skull of the deceased with the said 'Sota' and the same had also been recovered from his possession but it was astonishing and disturbing to observe that the appellant was not confronted with the said piece of evidence at the time of recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C.

If a piece of evidence or a circumstance was not put to an accused person at the time of recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., then the same could not be considered against him for the purpose of recording his conviction

In the absence of any independent corroboration or confirmation of the allegations levelled against the appellant, particularly when some co-accused who were attributed the same roles had already been acquitted by the Courts below, the Supreme Court was compelled to observe that the complainant party had no regard for the truth and the eye-witnesses produced by it had been established to be untruthful regarding many innocent persons who had been implicated by them and who had subsequently been acquitted

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that neither husband of deceased, nor any child out of the four children of the deceased had appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution case

As per contents of the FIR, deceased had been married with "ZH" for the last 16/17 years and she had four children from the said wedlock

Husband of deceased and children of the deceased were the natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence being inmates of the area, where the occurrence took place but none from them appeared in the witness box

Said fact had also created another dent in the prosecution story because the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would have not supported the prosecution case

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

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Delay of 15 hours and 20 minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased due to delay in receiving police papers

Consequential

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of wife of his brother/daughter of complainant by firing

Occurrence in the case took place on 30.07.2012, at 06.30 pm, whereas the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 31.07.2012, at 09.50 am and as such there was delay of fifteen (15) hours and twenty (20) minutes in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased

Medical Officer stated during her cross-examination that on 30.07.2012, she was on call for the postmortem examination, up till the postmortem examination was conducted

Medical Officer further stated that the dead-body was received in the mortuary on 30.07.2012, however, the complete police documents were received on 31.07.2012, at 9.45 am and thereafter, she conducted autopsy at 9.50 am

Said witness further stated that on account of the said reason (non-availability of complete police documents), the delay in conducting autopsy had taken place

Medical Officer further stated that she was bound to conduct postmortem examination immediately after receiving the dead-body, however, she volunteered that the postmortem examination could only be conducted after receiving the police papers

It was evident that the delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased was result of the delay in handing over the police documents to the Medical Officer

Said delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead- body of the deceased was also suggestive of the fact that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot, at the time of occurrence and the said delay was consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses of the occurrence

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

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

House of deceased and her husband had not been shown in the site plan though the house of one "GM" and one "SM" had been shown therein

Both the eye-witnesses stated that they were present inside the house of deceased, when they heard the noise coming from outside the said house and they came out of the said house and witnessed the occurrence but no such house had been shown in the site plan

It was evident from the perusal of the site plan that it was a sheer chance that the accused, the deceased and the witnesses all simultaneously reached at the said passage situated in-front of an open plot, where the occurrence took place and where the prosecution's eye-witnesses had no house or place of business

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

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was brother-in-law (husband's brother) of deceased emerged at the spot and started abusing the deceased

On hearing the noise, the complainant came to the spot and witnessed that the petitioner, who was holding a 30-bore pistol in his hand, made a fire shot, which landed on the chest of deceased, which went through and through

Both the eye-witnesses were residents of a village, whereas the occurrence of this case took place in another town

Daughter/sister of the said witnesses/deceased was married 16/17 years prior to the occurrence in the village

Both the eye-witnesses had not stated any reason for their visit to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence

As the eye-witnesses were not residents of the area, where the occurrence took place and they had not given any reason for their presence at the spot at the relevant time, therefore, they were chance witnesses and it was not safe to rely upon their evidence

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

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Another purported eye-witness, in his examination-in-chief, supported, in material terms, the version put forth by the complainant

However, during cross-examination eye-witness conceded that he was a resident of a village "G" and that his CNIC reflected the same address

In these circumstances, eye-witness clearly was a chance witness

Testimony of a chance witness was to be relied upon after great care and caution and before reliance could be placed upon it, such a witness must convincingly prove his presence at the scene of occurrence through strong, natural, and independent circumstances

Eye-witness admitted that there existed a jungle on both sides of his house

Complainant had also admitted the said fact by stating that eye-witness ordinarily grazed his cattle in the jungle near his house, which was situated at a distance of approximately 20-25 minutes' walk from the place of occurrence

Therefore, it was highly improbable that eye-witness would have been present at the spot at the relevant time for grazing his cattle, particularly at that late hour of the evening

No plausible explanation had been offered by eye-witness as to why, when suitable grazing land existed near his own house, he chose to take his cattle to a distant location at sunset time

Eye-witness, thus, remained unsuccessful to prove his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence through some strong and convincing evidence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

As per the FIR, the occurrence took place on 14.09.2015 at 6:00 p.m., but the matter was reported to the police at 11:20 p.m., after an unexplained delay of more than five hours, despite the fact that the police station was merely 17 kilometers from the place of occurrence

Such delay, without any satisfactory explanation, not only eroded the credibility of the prosecution's case but also rendered the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence highly doubtful

Complainant in his report and statement had not furnished any explanation for the said delay

Unexplained delay in reporting the occurrence created doubt in the prosecution's case and its benefit had to be extended and construed in favour of the accused

In absence of any plausible explanation, the delay in lodging of FIR was always considered to be fatal, as it casted suspicion on the prosecution story

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Record showed that Kalashnikov was recovered on the pointation of accused and crime empties from the spot and there was a positive Forensic Science Agency Report in respect thereof

However, the said recoveries would not advance the prosecution's case because such piece of circumstantial evidence, when the direct evidence of the prosecution had already been disbelieved, could not form the basis for conviction, particularly in a capital charge

Circumstantial evidence derived its weight and efficacy only when considered in conjunction with reliable direct evidence, and not in isolation

In the present case, since the ocular evidence of the prosecution had been disbelieved, therefore, the alleged recovery, by itself, could not sustain a conviction of the petitioner-convict

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

One daughter of accused married to the deceased was living with complainant along with their three children in an atmosphere described as cordial and harmonious

Other daughter of the petitioner-convict was living in her parental home due to strained relations with her husband "H"

If this was the prevailing domestic situation, the alleged murder of the deceased, against whom the petitioner-convict had no motive, was wholly un-comprehensible

Complainant had offered no cogent explanation as to why the petitioner-convict would commit such a grave offence against a son-in-law with whom no animosity existed so as to make his grand children orphans and daughter a widow

Such inconsistencies and improbabilities made the prosecution's case highly doubtful

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Claim of the alleged eye-witnesses that they were grazing their cattle at the very fag end of the day seemed to be highly improbable

Complainant's cross-examination further casted a shadow of doubt on his presence at the spot

Complainant admitted that someone from the spot informed him about the occurrence and that people advised him not to approach the police station, as the petitioner-convict was armed with a Kalashnikov and might kill him as well

If the complainant had actually witnessed the incident, it defied logic and normal human conduct that others would need to apprise him of the petitioner-convict's presence or advise him not to visit the Police Station

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on the following day of occurrence i.e. 15.09.2015 at 12:20 a.m. by Medical Officer

No explanation, much less a plausible one, had been furnished by the prosecution for this delay

Unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination raised serious doubts regarding the veracity of the ocular evidence and the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Record revealed that there were complaints to police about the street crime, snatching, and motorcar theft, therefore, the petitioners-convicts, who were Police Constables, might have formed the belief that the deceased was a criminal and trying to make his escape good from the spot

Acting on that assumption, petitioners-convicts resorted to firing at the motorcar

However, even if such belief was assumed, the act of opening fire in those circumstances was wholly disproportionate and amounted to an excess of authority vested in the petitioners-convicts by law, resulting in the fatal injury to the deceased

No prior enmity, ill will, or motive against the deceased had been established on the part of the petitioners-convicts

Likewise, there was no evidence on record to suggest any premeditation or prior consultation between them in the commission of the offence

Therefore, from the facts and circumstances emerging from the available evidence the petitioners-convicts, while acting in the purported discharge of their official duties and treating the deceased as a suspect, fired at his vehicle

As a consequence thereof, one of the bullets struck the deceased, resulting in his unnatural death

Admittedly, there was no direct evidence to establish as to which of the petitioners-convicts fired the fatal shot

However, according to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the official weapons allotted to both petitioners-convicts matched with the crime empties recovered from the spot

In these circumstances, the question as to whose shot actually hit the deceased became immaterial, as both petitioners-convicts actively participated in the firing that led to the fatal consequence

Thus, the ingredients of the offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C., were attracted in the present case rather than those of Section 302(b), P.P.C

Convictions under Section 302(b), P.P.C., were converted into Section 302(c), P.P.C., and accused were sentenced to undergo 15-years imprisonment

Petition was converted into appeal and disposed of, accordingly.

According to that witness, the petitioners-convicts were serving as gunmen/guards of the SSP and the deceased had developed a relationship with niece of the Personal Assistant of the said SSP, on which the Personal Assistant of the SSP was displeased and that due to this alleged grudge, the deceased was murdered by the petitioners-convicts at the instigation of the Personal Assistant of SSP

No sufficient or convincing evidence was found on record to substantiate said assertion of father of the deceased

Mere bald allegation without solid proof and evidence would not be sufficient to believe the motive advanced by the father of the deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt, however, the ingredients of the offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C., were attracted in the present case rather than those of Section 302(b), P.P.C.

Convictions under Section 302(b), P.P.C., were converted into Section 302(c), P.P.C., and accused were sentenced to undergo 15-years imprisonment

Petition was converted into appeal and disposed of, accordingly.

Said witness although admitted having witnessed the occurrence but she did not identify any of the accused as the persons who fired upon the motorcar of the deceased

Testimony of said witness proved the commission of the offence on the day, date, time and place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution, though she had not directly named anyone by name as accused

Mst. "M" in her statement stated that the deceased obtained narcotics from his friends which were available with him in the motorcar as well as certain number plates and that for that reason deceased accelerated the vehicle when he was signaled to stop

As per the statement of Mst. "M", when the deceased failed to obey the signal to stop, firing was opened at his motorcar

Although Mst. "M" did not specifically name the petitioners-convicts as the persons who fired at the vehicle of the deceased, however, the record showed that the official weapons allotted to all the accused, including the petitioners-convicts, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the crime empties

Forensic Science Laboratory Report established that only the official weapons allotted to petitioners-convicts matched with the crime empties

Testimony of Mst. "M" further revealed that narcotics and certain number plates were present in the vehicle, suggesting that the deceased attempted to flee, presumably to evade arrest and did not comply with the police signal

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt, however, the ingredients of the offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C. were attracted in the present case rather than those of Section 302(b), P.P.C

Convictions under Section 302(b), P.P.C., were converted into Section 302(c), P.P.C., and accused were sentenced to undergo 15-years imprisonment

Petition was converted into appeal and disposed of, accordingly.

In the judicial confession of "FM" (co-accused), he categorically stated that he forced petitioner "Y", who was his wife to participate in the occurrence but there was no judicial confession or extra judicial confession of "Y" petitioner herself that she participated in the murder of deceased

Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession or on the pointing out of "Y" petitioner, therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove its case against "Y", petitioner, beyond the shadow of doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed and she was acquitted of the charges.

Said petitioner was head of the family and living in the house, where his son's wife died an unnatural death but instead of reporting the matter to the police, he remained mum

Said petitioner tried to give the colour of suicide to the death of deceased but when the prosecution witnesses reached at the spot after the occurrence they noticed that the feet of deceased were touching the floor of the room, where her dead-body was hanging

No table, chair or other supporting articles were present around the dead-body of deceased to show that deceased first climbed on the said article and after pushing the said article, she committed her suicide

As per evidence of a witness that the door of the room, where the occurrence took place was open, petitioner, "FM" had not claimed that the said door was broken by anybody

Noteworthy that a "dupatta" was found around the neck of the deceased and another "dupatta' was found on the eyes of the deceased, therefore, it was rightly concluded by the Courts below that there was no reason for the deceased to first tie her eyes with a "dupatta" and thereafter to commit suicide

Moreover, medical characteristics of suicide were also missing in this case

As per record, "FM" petitioner recorded his judicial confession before Judicial Magistrate

In the said judicial confession, said petitioner, confessed that he developed illicit relationship with deceased and later on he committed her murder due to the fear that she might disclose the said relationship to others

However, it was brought on the record through the evidence of complainant, that there were domestic disputes between petitioner and his daughter-in-law/deceased, on account of amount sent by the husband of the deceased from Saudi Arabia, etc.

It was evident that due to the said domestic disputes, petitioner, committed the murder of deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against petitioner beyond the shadow of any doubt

Petition to the extent of said petition was partly dismissed and leave to the extent of said petitioner was refused.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Complainant conceded during her cross-examination that petitioner had abducted her other daughter and FIR was registered in that respect against the petitioner

Complainant further stated that the said FIR was lodged after the arrest of the petitioner in this murder case

Complainant also conceded that complainant party had tried to get back his daughter (abducttee) about 3/4 days prior to the occurrence

Such admissions of the complainant showed that another daughter of the complainant was abducted by the petitioner prior to the occurrence of this case

Under the circumstances, there was no reason with the petitioner to come to the house of the complainant party on the night of occurrence in presence of the such strained relationship between the parties, in order to take his wife back and as such the prosecution story did not appeal to a prudent mind

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the daughter of the complainant, who was wife of the petitioner had come to the house of the complainant being annoyed with the petitioner and the petitioner wanted to take her back forcibly with him to his house

In such circumstances, daughter of the complainant was the best witness to prove the ocular account and the alleged motive but she was not produced in the witness box

As the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witness been produced in the evidence, then her evidence would not have supported the prosecution case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Occurrence in this case took place on 08.10.2011 at about 2.00/3.00 a.m. (night) but no source of light had been mentioned in the contents of the FIR or in the site plan or in the evidence of prosecution's eye-witnesses

Under the circumstances, the identification of the petitioner in the darkness of night was not free from doubt

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

In the contents of the F.I.R,there was only mentioning of one injury caused by the petitioner with the butt of his rifle at the left side of the head of deceased but according to the medical evidence brought on the record through Medical Officer, there were two lacerated wounds on the left side of the forehead and left temporal area of the deceased and as such there was conflict between the ocular account, as mentioned in the contents of the FIR and in the medical evidence of the prosecution

In order to bring their evidence in line with the medical evidence, the prosecution eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements while appearing before the trial Court and stated that the petitioner inflicted butt blows of his rifle at the left side of the head of the deceased but their said evidence was in-conflict with the story narrated in the contents of the FIR, where there was no mentioning of infliction of any second blow with the butt of his rifle by the petitioner on the head of the deceased

As the prosecution witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their statements in order to bring their statements in line with the postmortem report, therefore, their evidence was not worthy of reliance

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Record showed that rifle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner

In the recovery memo, it was not mentioned that butt of the recovered rifle was stained with blood

In such circumstances, the recovery of rifle from the possession of the petitioner was of no avail to the prosecution and the said recovery had rightly been disbelieved by the High Court

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his other two sons

Incident took place in broad daylight and there was no question of misidentification as the parties knew each other, as they belonged to the same area/village

Manner and method in which the petitioner-accused killed the deceased did not warrant any interference, as the ocular evidence was fully supported by the medical evidence, as was evident from the depositions of various prosecution witnesses and that of Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased

Trial Court, while conducting the trial, examined as many as 16 witnesses and from their depositions no major contradiction or inconsistency, which could put a dent in the prosecution case, had been pointed out by the petitioner-accused

Motive had not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and the benefit of not proving the same had rightly been given to the petitioner-accused in that behalf

Recovery of a 30-bore pistol had also not satisfactorily been proved by the prosecution, since the incident took place on 31.05.2009 whereas the petitioner-accused was arrested (as per jail roll) on 23.02.2012, and during that period, he remained a proclaimed offender; hence, the recovery of the pistol after his arrest, i.e. after a substantial period, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, had rightly been disbelieved by the High Court

Apart from these two aspects, i.e. motive and recovery of the pistol, the other aspects had satisfactorily been proved by the prosecution, i.e., ocular evidence had supported the medical evidence, the depositions of various witnesses had remained un-shattered and beyond shadow of doubt

In case of non-proving of the motive, the case is always considered to be that of life imprisonment and not capital punishment

If all factors were considered in juxtaposition, it would reveal that the High Court had rightly converted the death sentence, awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner-accused, to that of life imprisonment and no exception in that regard was warranted

Thus, petition was dismissed and leave was refused, accordingly.

Prosecution case was that 21.150 kilograms of charas and 1200 grams opium was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant

Seizing Officer reiterated the same story as set forth in the FIR regarding the arrest of the petitioner and the alleged recovery of narcotics from secret cavities of the vehicle

Recovery witness also posed to have witnessed the recovery

According to the Seizing Officer, the Motorway Police Officials were present at the time of recovery of the narcotics from the vehicle

However, said witness candidly admitted that he neither requested nor directed any of Motorway Police Officials to witness the recovery proceedings

Said witness further conceded that any incident occurring on the Motorway was mandatorily reported to the Motorway Police

Seizing Officer had not furnished any explanation, much less plausible, as to why the motorway Police Officials who allegedly helped in intercepting the vehicle of the petitioner, were not cited as witnesses to the recovery proceedings or at least cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan

Police Official of Motorway Police was summoned as Court witness

Bare perusal of deposition of Court Witness revealed that he completely refuted the version of Seizing Officer

Said witness deposed that on 06.07.2012, he along with one "SR" was on routine patrolling duty when they intercepted and apprehended a vehicle allegedly driven by the petitioner on the spot; that upon search of the vehicle, 22.500 kilograms of charas and 6.500 kilograms of opium were recovered; that he immediately informed the DSP, the Control room and other police station about the incident; that information was also conveyed to the Anti Narcotic Force who reached the spot and the recovered contraband along with the apprehended accused and the vehicle was handed over to them through a proper receipt

During cross-examination by the defence, Court Witness stated that the incident occurred during daytime between 12:00 noon and 2:00p.m. on 06.07.2012, which contradicted the time of occurrence mentioned by the Seizing Officer in the FIR as 09.00 p.m.

Said witness categorically stated that no prior information was conveyed to them by the Anti Narcotic Force regarding the vehicle in question

Said witness further stated that the Anti Narcotic Force Officials neither searched the vehicle nor recovered any narcotics in their presence

Said witness clarified that it was the Motorway Police who informed the Anti Narcotic Force after the arrest and seizure, and that the Anti Narcotic Force Officials arrived at the scene nearly four hours later

Statement of said witness was never recorded by the Anti Narcotic Force during the investigation

Such contradictions between two versions casted a deep shadow on the prosecution's case

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the two Courts below were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him.

Prosecution case was that 21.150 kilograms of charas and 1200 grams opium was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant

If the recovery was affected by the motorway police during day time, why the time of occurrence was shown as 09.00 p.m. by the Anti Narcotic Forceand why the motorway police was not cited as witnesses, who were the most important witnesses

Not citing the officials of the motorway as prosecution witnesses by the Anti Narcotic Force, amounted to withholding of best available evidence and an adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be drawn against the prosecution

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the two Courts below were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Motive behind the occurrence was that earlier, son of complainant had injured petitioner by making fire shots, therefore, due to the said grudge, the occurrence of that case was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused

Motive was disbelieved by the High Court because the son of the complainant was the best witness to prove the alleged motive but he was not produced in the witness box

No other tangible evidence was produced to prove the alleged motive, hence the same was rightly disbelieved by the High Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Presence of eyewitnesses at the spot not proved

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

According to the prosecution case, it was son of the complainant, who had earlier injured petitioner by making fire shots, therefore, under the circumstances, the complainant himself should have been the prime target of the petitioner but the complainant who himself was present at the spot at the time of occurrence did not receive a single injury during the occurrence, whereas there was no motive with the petitioner to commit the murder of deceased

Therefore, the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time

Said fact had also created another dent in the prosecution story

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Chance witnesses, evidence of

Doubtful testimony

Unnatural conduct of chance witnesses

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

In the present case, eye-witnesses stated that after offering the funeral prayer only deceased had proceeded towards his village on a motorcycle and witnesses proceeded towards their village by foot

Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that when deceased was going alone on his motorcycle to his village from a different village then as to why none from the eye-witnesses, who being real brother and son were closely related to the deceased, did not accompany him on his motorcycle

Thus, it appeared that the eye-witnesses had consciously stated that they proceeded by foot towards their village because as per postmortem report there were four (04) entry and four (04) exit wounds on the body of the deceased, therefore, it was difficult for the said witnesses to justify their presence on the motorcycle of the deceased at the time of occurrence because in that case, they should have also received injuries if they were sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle of the deceased due to the bullets which went through and through from four (04) exit wounds on the back side of the body of the deceased

In order to cover the such situation, eyewitnesses stated that they were going by foot to their village, at the time of occurrence, otherwise, their natural conduct would have been to accompany the deceased on his motorcycle

Said fact showed that none from the prosecution's eye-witnesses was present at the spot at the time of occurrence and the story of going by foot towards their village was concocted by said witnesses to justify their presence at the spot at the relevant time

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties

Inconsequential

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Record showed that 30-bore pistol was recovered at the pointing out of the petitioner

However, as per Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the empties recovered from the spot did not match with the said pistol, hence the alleged recovery of pistol at the pointing out of the petitioner was inconsequential for the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Throwing a wider net

False implication

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Record showed that for the single deceased of this case, the complainant party implicated total ten (10) accused persons in this case (eight accused with the allegation that they were present at the spot at the relevant time and participated in the occurrence, whereas two accused were implicated with the allegation of abetment)

Said fact showed that a wider-net was used by the complainant party against different innocent persons

Most of the accused were declared innocent during the police investigation and all the remaining accused except the petitioner had also been acquitted by the Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence

Chance witnesses, evidence of

Scope

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Occurrence took place near the graveyard of village "MB", whereas the prosecution eye-witnesses, complainant and an eye-witness, both were residents of village "MJ"

Said eye-witnesses were not residents of village, where the occurrence took place, therefore, they were bound to prove the reason of their presence at the relevant time at the spot, which was situated in a different village

In order to justify the presence of witnesses at the spot at the relevant time, it was stated by the eye-witnesses that they came to village "MB" to offer funeral prayer of one "FK" and the occurrence took place near the graveyard immediately after the funeral prayer but no resident of the village "MB" was produced in the witness box to support the claim of the eye-witnesses, that they participated in the funeral prayer of "FK" and the said witnesses were present in his village at the time of occurrence

Claim of the prosecution that the eye-witnesses were present in the village "MB" to offer funeral prayer of one "FK", showed that the complainant party had close ties with the family of said "FK" but even no member of the family of the "FK" was produced in the witness box to support the prosecution case

As the prosecution eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they could not prove the reason of their presence in a different village at the time of occurrence through any cogent evidence, therefore, they were chance witnesses and as such their evidence was not free from doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.