2024 YLR 841
Murder Reference
45-18
STATE VS
MUHAMMAD SHARIF
In a scenario where the motivation was against the complainant or the witnesses, but the accused did not cause any harm to them, notwithstanding being within the range of their firing, would reveal that the said witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence.
The inordinate and unexplained and substantial delay in the post-mortem examination of the dead body and submission of the police papers to the Medical Officer clearly establishes that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence or having seen the appellant escaping from the place of occurrence had not seen the occurrence and were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post-mortem examinations was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account of the occurrence, after consultation and planning. It has been repeatedly held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that such delay in the post-mortem examination is reflective of the absence of witnesses and the sole purpose of causing such delay is to procure the presence of witnesses and to further advance a false narrative to involve any person.
The prosecution witnesses failed to establish the fact of such availability of light source and in absence of their ability to do so, we cannot presume the existence of such a light source. The absence of any light source has put the whole prosecution case in dark. It was admitted by the witnesses themselves that it was a dark night and they had used the light of the electric bulbs lit at the place of occurrence , never produced, to identify the assailants during the occurrence and as the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the availability of such a light source, their statements with regard to them identifying the assailants cannot be relied upon. The failure of the prosecution witnesses to prove the presence of any light source at the place of occurrence ,at the time of occurrence has repercussions, entailing the failure of the prosecution case.
The Investigating Officer was under a binding duty to collect evidence and his failure has to be taken as a circumstance belying the prosecution case. The purpose of the trial is the discovery of truth. As long as men keep lying the only causality would be the reality. The prosecution case suffers from inherent defects which are irreconcilable as they are. Compounding the failures of the prosecution is the fact that the persons admittedly present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, were not produced as witnesses.
0 Comments