2021 Y L R 1211
(a) Criminal trial---
----Each criminal case had its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hardly coincide with each other on salient features.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 459 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-mudihah, Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about three and half days in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused entered into the house of complainant, committed murder of the father of complainant and also injured his mother and sister by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that during the intervening night of the day of incident at about 12.30 a.m. the occurrence took place but the FIR was lodged after 3-1/2 days whereas police station was located at seven kilometres from the venue of incident---Complainant and witnesses shifted the deceased in injured condition to the hospital---Neither complainant nor witnesses bothered to report the incident to the police and get the FIR registered instantaneously---Record showed that there was an inordinate delay of three and half days in setting the machinery of law in motion, but the prosecution had not advanced any plausible explanation in that regard---Said sole circumstance had made the story incorporated in FIR doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 459 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-mudihah, Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused entered into the house of complainant, committed murder of the father of complainant and also injured his mother and sister by inflicting hatchet blows---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that there was an exchange of marriage of accused with injured/sister of the complainant, but he ousted her one month prior to the incident, but subsequently wanted to rehabilitate her forcibly and on refusal of her father, he extended threats to him---Record showed that accused was the husband of female injured witness, son-in-law of other female injured witness and brother-in-law of complainant---Crime report showed that accused had deserted his wife/female injured witness a month prior to the incident, meaning thereby, previous ill-will, grudge and malice of complainant party existed against the accused---Chances for deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant party for false implication of the accused could not be ruled out---All the witnesses had attributed identical role of giving hatchet blows on the persons of injured females to co-accused, who was acquitted during the same trial and while pronouncing the judgment of acquittal, they all were held untrustworthy and unreliable witnesses---Complainant party had shown satisfaction over the findings of Trial Court regarding acquittal of said co-accused of the accused by not challenging the same; however, testimony of witnesses was partially accepted to the extent of accused without realizing that independent and strong corroboration from unimpeachable source was required, which was conspicuously missing---Circumstances suggested that eye-witnesses were untrustworthy and unreliable witnesses and as such conviction and sentence of the accused could not be maintained on the basis of such type of shaky evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 459 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-mudihah, Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused entered into the house of complainant, committed murder of the father of complainant and also injured his mother and sister by inflicting hatchet blows---In the present case, though injured witness/wife of accused reiterated the story incorporated in FIR that the accused and co-accused, while equipped with hatchets, entered in the house after scaling over the wall and inflicted injuries to her as well as her father/deceased and mother and thereafter eye-witnesses attracted to the spot---Contrary to the narrations of crime report as well as the statement of said injured witness, the other eye-witnesses deviated from their earlier version by stating that as soon as the accused trespassed into the house, the female witnesses raised hue and cry upon which the complainant along with male witnesses also attracted to the spot and witnessed the tragedy with their own eyes---Said noted material contradiction and crucial improvement was introduced only to establish the presence of eye-witness, complainant and given up witnesses at the spot at relevant time---Such an attempt on the part of the prosecution had badly shattered their credence and credibility---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(e) Criminal trial---
----Witnesses---Injured witness---Scope---Injuries on the body of injured witnesses only indicate their presence at the place of occurrence but did not necessarily amount that whatever the injured witnesses had stated was a gospel truth.
(f) Criminal trial---
----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence might confirm the ocular account with regard to seat, nature and duration of injuries and the kind of weapon used for causing such injuries but it could not connect the accused with the commission of crime.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 459 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-mudihah, Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of blood stained hatchet at the instance of accused---Reliance---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused entered into the house of complainant, committed murder of the father of complainant and also injured his mother and sister by inflicting hatchet blows---Said recovery was shown to have been effected from a field of sugarcane and that was testified by witness, who, while appearing in the witness box did not utter a single word to the effect that the accused had made any disclosure and in furtherance thereof he had got recovered the weapon of offence---Recovery of weapon of offence had not been proved by the prosecution beyond the shadow of doubt---Recovery of hatchet and the report was supportive of direct evidence and not the evidence of charge and did not offer any help to the prosecution case in the absence of any trustworthy and confidence inspiring eye-witness account---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 459 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-mudihah, Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused entered into the house of complainant, committed murder of the father of complainant and also injured his mother and sister by inflicting hatchet blows---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that there was an exchange of marriage of accused with injured/sister of the complainant, he ousted her one month prior to the incident, but subsequently wanted to rehabilitate her forcibly and on refusal of her father, he extended threats to him---Record showed that the accused had ousted his wife/injured witness a month prior to the occurrence but thereafter he was intending to forcibly rehabilitate her and on refusal of her father, he along with co-accused committed the occurrence---On the other hand, the accused maintained that his wife/injured witness used to beat his old mother, due to which he had divorced her and sent her to the house of her parents, but her in-laws were forcing him to take her back and on refusal, they implicated the accused in that mysterious incident which had taken place during odd hours of night---Motive was double edged weapon which might cut either side---If it was the reason for the accused to commit the occurrence, it would be equally a reason for his false implication in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(i) Criminal trial---
----Benefit of doubt---Principle---One circumstance creating doubt would be enough to extend benefit of the same to the accused.
0 Comments