2018 PCrLJ 242 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Syed TAHIR SHAH
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence ---Circumstantial evidence ---Prosecution case was that the accused committed murder of his wife by strangulation with the help of his brother/co-accused and they by concealing the murder had hanged her dead body---Prosecution examined six witnesses including complainant and real sons and sister of the deceased to prove its case---Complainant had deposed that he was informed by a lady that dead body of his sister was hanging in a hut---On receiving such information, complainant rushed to the house of his sister and found her dead body lying on the ground---Complainant stated that accused and his deceased wife had no good relation with each other---Complainant had submitted that on the day of incident, his sister had phoned him that the co-accused had threatened her to leave the house otherwise she would be killed---Record showed that complainant was cross-examined and he remained firm on all material counts---Prosecution witness corroborated the statement of complainant with regard to the occurrence and his presence at the place of occurrence---Witness/son of accused and the deceased stated in his statement that the beginning the relation of his parents were not good and his father/accused often used to torture his deceased mother and even beaten her many times---Said witness further stated that his deceased mother had explained to his uncle as to how she was living with her husband despite physical torture---Witness denied that due to his drug addiction his mother was under depression, so she committed suicide---last seen independent witness of the case deposed that on the day of incident at about 10.00 a.m. he had seen the accused coming out of his house---Statement of said witness had established the presence of accused at the place of occurrence at 10.00 a.m.---Defence had failed to put any question with regard to false implication of the accused persons---Another son of accused and deceased appeared as witness, corroborated the statement of his brother on all material counts regarding the ill-treatment of the accused with his mother---Witness further stated that he handed over the memory card to the Investigating Officer, in which the conversation of her mother was recorded wherein, she was telling his paternal uncle about the torture and problems being faced by her---Prosecution witness/sister of deceased corroborated the statements of complainant and two sons of deceased regarding the ill-treatment suffered by her sister from her husband due to which her sister remained ill and was under depression---Witness further stated that due to ailment, deceased was admitted in hospital but her husband neither visited her nor asked for her welfare---Said witness had given bath to the dead body of the deceased and found two inches inside wound on her left neck and also observed certain injuries on her person---Record revealed that despite lengthy cross-examination, defence had failed to jolt her statement---Statements recorded by the blood relatives of the accused were natural witnesses and entirely well aware with the overall situation of their family affairs from childhood till the incident---Depositions of said witnesses with regard to family affairs and relationship of accused and deceased would be mostly natural and reliable on all counts---Such evidence could not be thrown out merely on the basis of their having not seen the occurrence---Site-plan showed that no signs were noticed getting support of hanging the lady herself and no items using for hanging were found in the hut where the offence had allegedly been committed---Without availability of such instrument near the dead body, she could not manage to hang herself with the roof of the hut---Circumstances and facts of the case connected the accused with the commission of offence, however, no direct or indirect evidence was available on record against the co-accused that he in furtherance of common intention and with the help of accused, had committed the murder of deceased---Appeal against conviction and sentence of accused was dismissed while co-accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RANI BIBI
Side Opponent : State
evidence ---last seen evidence ---Scope---evidence of last seen was always regarded as a weak type of evidence ---Such evidence itself was not sufficient to award conviction---In order to award or uphold the conviction of a person on the basis of last seen evidence , the prosecution was required to place on record some other piece of evidence which might provide sufficient corroboration---In the absence of such corroboration, conviction could not be awarded solely on the basis of last seen evidence .
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 310 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RANI BIBI
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302, 364, 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt---last seen evidence ---Scope---Accused were charged for the murder of brother of complainant---Prosecution case revolved around the statement of two witnesses including complainant---Said witnesses appeared in support of the evidence of last seen --- evidence of said witnesses showed that deceased was seen last time alive in the company of accused and co-accused on 22.5.1998---Subsequently, neither any person had seen the deceased alive nor heard about him---Record showed that the dead body of deceased was recovered on 26.8.1998 at the pointation of co-accused persons from the house of the deceased---Admittedly, at the time of recovery of the dead body of the deceased, neither the accused was present at the crime scene nor made any such discloser---Prosecution case revealed that accused and her co-accused, since acquitted, had made a disclosure on 2.9.1998 while in police custody and pointed out the place of burial of the dead body of the deceased---Record transpired that accused was implicated in the case with similarity of evidence with co-accused/mother, since acquitted, and the accused was convicted on the same set of evidence ---Accused persons who were implicated in a case with allegation of similar nature, were entitled to same treatment---Complainant had alleged that deceased left his house in the company of accused and her co-accused and subsequently went missing---Dead body of the deceased was recovered later from the same house that too after about three months of the occurrence---evidence of last seen was very easy to knit but extremely difficult to prove---Said aspect of the case casted doubt regarding the correctness of the claim of complainant and witness and rendered them unworthy of any credence---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 177 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED
Side Opponent : State
last seen evidence ---Evidentiary value---last seen evidence was a weak type of evidence and in order to award conviction on the basis thereof, independent corroboration would be required.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 177 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302 & 364---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping in order to murder---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt---last -seen evidence ---Scope---Accused was charged for the murder of brother of complainant---Prosecution case hinged upon the circumstantial evidence comprising last seen evidence furnished by three witnesses---evidence of last seen initially was furnished by complainant at the time of registration of FIR---Complainant appeared as witness and reiterated the same stance as mentioned in the FIR that deceased while in possession of an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-, which he received from a person, left in the company of accused---evidence of complainant was supplemented by two witnesses---Admittedly the person from whom the deceased received the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- and in whose presence he left in the company of accused was neither produced during the course of investigation nor at the time of trial---Record showed that complainant was not on good terms with the deceased---Both the brothers were previously in a joint business, however, parted their ways on account of dispute arising out of rendition of accounts and over a piece of land---Said fact, coupled with the delay with which, complainant reported the matter to the police, cast doubt about his testimony---If at all, complainant had seen the deceased, while leaving in the company of accused, then why he remained silent for a period of five days---Complainant failed to bring on record any evidence in support of his claim that during this period he had been searching for his slain brother---Complainant did not make any reference to the remaining witnesses of last -seen evidence at the time of registration of the case and recording his statement in the court---None of these witnesses mentioned the exact date when they had seen the deceased and the accused---Testimony of said witnesses showed that they had assigned no reason of their presence at the place, where they had seen the deceased and the accused---Record transpired that the statements of said two witnesses were recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. with a delay of about nineteen days of the registration of FIR---Said delay in recording the statement of witnesses cast serious doubt about their credibility---Circumstances established that many doubts about the guilt of the accused were found, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJ 177 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : JAVED
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302 & 364---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping in order to murder---Appreciation of evidence ---last seen evidence ---Scope---last seen evidence would be based on the statement of witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased last time alive in the company of accused---Prosecution was required to bring on record the duration between the time when the deceased was last time seen alive and time when he met his death---More was the duration the weaker would become the evidence of last seen ---Prosecution was required to bring on record the distance between the place where the deceased was seen in the company of accused and the place from where his dead body was recovered---Said two ingredients, if proved, would exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and would reduce the possibility that the deceased was done to death by a person other than the accused.
Citation Name : 2018 MLD 136 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHID ALI
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Appreciation of evidence ---Accused-appellant was charged for the murder of the deceased---No direct evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of offence---Witness had deposed that he had seen the accused-appellant leaning over a package of blue color cloth---Statement of witness suggested the presence of accused-appellant with a package at the spot and thus by no stretch of imagination, it could be presumed that package contained the dead body---No blood was seen at the place where witness had seen the accused having package with him---Prosecution did not have any evidence direct or otherwise to establish that accused-appellant had thrown the dead body in the well---If the accused-appellant, as alleged, had committed the murder for nasal pin and earrings of the deceased, there was no need to undertake such exercise---Medical evidence was not in line with the hypothesis introduced by the witness---Record showed that deceased was done to death on 14.9.2013 between 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and autopsy of the dead body was done at table at 8.30 p.m. on 16.9.2013; dead body was said to have been rapped in white plast ic sack and not in blue cloth in putrefied state---Statement of witness showed that the duration between death and autopsy could not be more than 60 hours, while as per Medical Officer, the time ranged between 50 to 70 hours---Findings of Medical Officer, in such a situation, did not advance the prosecution case being inconsistent with medical report---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused-appellant---Accused-appellant was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAINAB BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Circumstantial evidence /last seen evidence ----Requirements---In case of circumstantial evidence , it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish unbroken chain of circumstances from the stage of last -seen evidence till death of the victim---All the pieces of evidence should be so linked that the same should give picture of complete chain, one corner of which should touch the neck of the deceased and the other to the neck of the accused---Failure of one link destroys the entire charge.
Citation Name : 2018 PCrLJN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAINAB BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Ss. 302 & 34----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-i-amd; common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence ---last -seen evidence ---Benefit of doubt---Circumstantial evidence ---Complainant alleged in private complaint that the accused, employers, had murdered her son, the employee, over some money matter---Trial Court acquitted the accused---Prosecution's ocular account and medical evidence manifested material inconsistencies and deficiencies---Prosecution witnesses were related inter se---Prosecution witnesses had not stated the exact date of alleged occurrence---Complainant had failed to explain as to why she had failed to record the dying declaration of the deceased to the police when he remained admitted in the hospital for a long time---Medical witness had deposed that the history of the head injury, drowsiness and anorexia was three days old---Postmortem examination of the deceased had also not been conducted to determine the cause of his death, which was fatal to the case of prosecution---Prosecution evidence on the dimension of last -seen was neither confidence inspiring nor reliable---last -seen evidence due to its inherent defects was fundamentally weak and the same failed to furnish any ground for conviction in absence of any independent corroborative evidence ---Deceased had neither been last -seen in the company of the accused nor at the place of occurrence shortly before the time he was presumed to have met with death---Prosecution witness, Capital Police Officer, had categorically deposed that according to the police inquiry, the deceased had died due to road accident---Impugned verdict of acquittal of accused was neither perverse nor the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence ---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2018 YLRN 26 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : PEHLWAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 396---Dacoity with murder---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account did not corroborate medical evidence ---Prosecution case was that the accused along with co-accused (thirteen in number) appeared at the spot where the cousin of complainant was grazing his buffaloes and attempted to rob the buffaloes---Upon resistance from his cousin, three out of thirteen persons fired at him and his cousin died---Ocular account was furnished by witnesses including the complainant---Complainant had narrated in the FIR that three co-accused had pistols who fired at the deceased and as a consequence three bullets hit the deceased---Eye-witness stated that accused and five co-accused persons fired directly upon the deceased---Deposition of said witness was not in line with that of the complainant---Statement of said witness appeared to be dishonest as accused along with co-accused were stated to be carrying Kalashnikovs---Record showed that neither any injury on the deceased caused due to Kalashnikov bullet nor was any empty of Kalashnikov was recovered from the site---Other eye-witness categorically deposed that accused did not make any fire on the deceased---Admittedly, accused was not charged with playing an overt role in shooting at the deceased---FIR showed that occurrence took place at 2.00 p.m.---Statement of complainant showed that he had seen the deceased (as dead) between 2.00 p.m. to 2.05 p.m.---Medical Officer recorded in postmortem report of deceased that he was informed by the heirs who accompanied the dead body to the hospital that the time of death was 1.45 p.m., whereas eye-witness deposed that the deceased remained alive for two to three hours after the incident---Complainant had stated that the incident was over in 2/3 minutes while eye-witness deposed that incident took 30 or 10 or 15 minutes---Complainant had said that he left his house with food for the deceased at 1.45 p.m. whereas eye-witness deposed that deceased along with others were taking lunch at 1.40 p.m.---Blood on earth collected as sample by the police did not match with the blood of the deceased---Circumstances established that material contradictions existed between the witnesses as to how long the incident last ed and whether the deceased died on the spot or not---Complainant had stated that there were ten buffaloes, whereas the other witnesses stated that there were 50/60 buffaloes---Admittedly, enmity between the parties and thirteen members of the same family had been implicated in the case, therefore false involvement of the accused in such a situation could not be ruled out---Statements of witnesses of ocular account were not in line with the version of complainant, thus, prosecution had failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court.
0 Comments