2021 P Cr. L J 1586
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twenty six hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting iron rods blows---Record showed that the occurrence in the case, as per prosecution story, took place at 11.45 a.m.---Matter was reported to the police on the following day at 01.40 p.m. i.e. after delay of twenty-six hours of the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 1-1/2 kilometre---First Information Report was not lodged at Police Station rather the complainant submitted a written application for the registration of case before Police Official at a Chowk, near the crime spot---Had the Complainant or witness been present at the place of occurrence, matter could have been reported within no time, in view of nearby location of police station---Said fact indicated that the occurrence was un-witnessed one and whole story had been concocted after preliminary investigation by joining fake witnesses---True that, in each and every case, if the FIR was lodged at the crime spot,the entire case of the prosecution could not be thrown away but there must be some plausible reasons for such omission---In absence of said reasons, many suspicions and doubts arose and an adverse inference against prosecution had to be drawn---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.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about three days in conducting post-mortem---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting iron rods blows---In the present case, Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted after about three days of the occurrence---No explanation, whatsoever, had been given by the prosecution qua the delay in conducting the post mortem examination of the deceased which was obviously suggestive of the fact that time was consumed to fabricate the whole proceedings---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.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot was doubtful---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting iron rods blows---Record showed that the ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by son and son-in-law of the deceased---Presence of both the said prosecution witnesses at the spot was found highly doubtful---Complainant had admitted that he was working at other place---Working hours of complainant were 9.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m.---Inter se distance between place of occurrence to working place could be covered within twenty minutes---Complainant admitted that eye-witness/son-in-law of deceased was residing at a distance of 1¼ hour's drive from the place of occurrence---Said fact had also been endorsed by the eye-witness---Said eye-witness was labourer by profession and his working hours were from 08.00 am to 06.00 pm---From said depositions, it was vivid that they were chance witnesses as no plausible reason had been given qua their availability with the deceased at the relevant time---Undeniably,complainant was son of deceased, whereas, other eye-witnesses were son-in-laws of the deceased---Had they been present at the spot at the relevant time, why they did not try to rescue the deceased or to catch hold of the accused and his co accused, who admittedly, were not armed with any firearm---What refrained the said eye-witnesses to keep them away at the time of incident---In that backdrop, presence of the witnesses and participation of the assailant in the occurrence both become doubtful---Eye-witness stated that deceased was lying on the ground when they escorted him---Clothes of said witness were not stained with blood when he escorted the deceased---Deposition of said witness negated the natural phenomena because when an injured person was handled by a person then his clothes ought to have stained with blood---Complainant had, however, admitted in his cross examination that when he escorted his father, his clothes were stained with blood and he did not produce blood stained clothes before the police---Ocular account produced by prosecution was not worthy of credence in circumstances---Prosecution was established to have failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(d) Criminal trial---
----Witness---Chance witness---Scope---Chance witness was one who claimed that he was present on the crime spot at the relevant time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resided, carried on business or run day to day life affairs---Testimony of chance witness, in that context, ordinarily, was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence on the crime scene at the relevant time.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting iron rods blows---Motive behind the occurrence was that seven months prior to the occurrence brother of complainant contracted runaway marriage with the sister of accused persons and due to that grudge accused persons committed murder of the father of complainant---No iota of evidence with regard to motive alleged was available---Complainant admitted in his cross-examination that no FIR regarding the abduction was registered by the accused party against complainant party---Accused persons never quarrelled with complainant party before---Complainant party never reported the matter of threats against the accused persons in any police station---Accused persons never demanded to complainant party for return of their sister---From the said admissions of complainant, it was crystal clear that the motive set up by the prosecution was vague and had not been proved by any convincing and plausible evidence---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.
(f) Criminal trial---
----Motive---Scope---If the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same, then such failure on the part of the prosecution might react against a sentence of death on the charge of murder.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of iron rod on the pointation of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by inflicting iron rods blows---Record showed that iron rod was recovered at the instance of accused---Accused got recovered the alleged iron rod (weapon of offence) almost about two months after the incident, however, the iron rod was received in the office of Forensic Science Agency with the delay of nineteen days---Even otherwise, the report of Forensic Science Agency was not helpful to the prosecution which indicated that no human blood was identified on the allegedly recovered iron rod---Police Officer, who effected recovery of iron rod at the pointation of accused had not joined any witness from the vicinity, thus, violated the express provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Not believable that a person would retain weapon of offence with him just to facilitate the prosecution, thus, it was not safe to rely on that piece of evidence---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.
(h) Criminal trial---
----Recovery of weapon of offence---Conviction---Scope---Recovery of weapon of offence was a corroborative piece of evidence---Conviction could not be based merely on the corroborative piece of evidence.
(i) Criminal trial---
----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence by its nature and character could not recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved incident---Conviction could not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone.
(j) Criminal trial---
----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single circumstance which created reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person would entitle the accused to acquittal.
0 Comments