The distance between police station and the place of occurrence is six kilometers. Complainant in cross examination stated that he had been using mobile phone for the last ten years and the PWs were also using mobile phone since then. Obviously they were travelling at night far away from their houses so there was every possibility that all the PWs had mobile phones available with them. In this way, they could have easily made calls through their mobiles to the police at available police emergency numbers which are almost known to a person travelling. The prosecution failed to give any plausible reason for the aforesaid delay. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay in setting the machinery of law into motion speaks volumes against the veracity of prosecution version.
Postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 01.2.2016 at 09.30 a.m. with a delay of six hours and fifteen minutes from the occurrence. More so, as per opinion of Doctor the time between the death and postmortem examination was 6 hours. It has been held repeatedly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that such noticeable delay is normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased which happens only when the Complainant and police remain busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in such cases of un-witnessed occurrence.
Firearm injuries are present on the person of PWs indicate his presence at the spot, however it is not a conclusive proof of what he deposed before the Court is true. As per settled principles laid down for appraisal of evidence, even the testimony of injured witness is to be subject to scrutiny, for making
basis of conviction.
The distance, from where the firing was caused by the accused upon Manazar Ali deceased, shown in the site plan was about three feet, but this fact has been rebutted by medical evidence as in the cross-examination Doctoe stated that there was no blackening, burning and tattooing on the body of the deceased. He further described in his cross examination that “burning occurs when fire is made within the range of three feet whereas the blackening occurs within the range of four feet”. In the light of the statement of Doctor there is glaring contrast between ocular and medical account. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there must be blackening on the body of deceased which is very much lacking in this case.
Only source of light available with the PWs by which they saw the appellants firing at the deceased was the head lights of the cars. PW in his cross examination admitted that he had not produced the car used by them at the time of occurrence. After scanning the record it transpired that the police has also not taken into possession the car in which the alleged eyewitnesses were travelling and they witnessed the occurrence in the light of supra mentioned car. Identification of the accused in the head lights of vehicle is a weak type of evidence.
The narration of occurrence given by PWs as aforesaid is repellent to senses. It was a night occurrence and they were sitting in the car. Though it has been mentioned that they identified the culprits in the lights of car yet it is hardly believable that they could see the assailants when they had been firing desperately. All the PWs were equally under direct and immediate threat of death but still they were able to give photographic narration of the occurrence by attributing fire shots at the deceased and injured at the hands of two accused persons at a distance of 33 feet. The PWs had no any weapons along with them so they were at the mercy of assailants to be targeted.
Murder Reference No.489 of 2017
(The State versus Nasir Abbas) &
Crl. Appeal No. 73258 of 2017
(Nasir Abbas and another versus The State)
 and the matter was reported to the police on 01.02.2016 at 07:15 a.m. i.e. after the delay of about four hours of the incident. ){kind=link}
0 Comments