The deceased was survived by five sons, each married with a family, ranging 40 years to 19 years in age, admittedly residing in the same household; it is surprising that none, except the deceased, from such a sizable clan was present on the fateful day; their absence clamours for explanation and in retrospect spells out a scenario diametrically incompatible with the story set up in the crime report. Prosecution’s bid to frame the appellant as a suspect in the crime on his questionable credentials is hit by Article 68 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 and as such by itself does not advance its case. Allegation that the appellant forcibly committed rape upon the deceased stands negated by medical evidence leaving no apparent motive for him in the field to take on the deceased. Magnitude of violence, essentially reflecting a time intensive assault with obvious resistance by an able bodied village-hardened woman could not have gone unnoticed by the residents of the houses located nearby. Constricted legs reflecting onslaught of rigor mortis negates the hypothesis of witnesses’ arrival within the timeframe, suggested in the crime report. An assailant actuated by carnal designs is not expected to bring a hammer with him to accomplish the task; web of circumstances, each mindboggling, heavily intrigue upon the integrity of prosecution case, unmistakably found fraught with doubts, deducible from its own record, benefit whereof, cannot be withheld.
0 Comments