2021 P Cr. L J 1654
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 154---First Information Report---Object and scope---First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely imperative piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial---Object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the crime scene---Delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in adornment with mala fide lodging intention---On account of delay, the FIR not only deprived of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation, adversely affecting the case of the prosecution.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular and medical evidence---Contradictions---Effect---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that accused party damaged the paddy crop of complainant party on which the parties exchanged hot words---Ocular testimony consisted of two witnesses, complainant and a witness---Both the said witnesses were cousins of the deceased---Witnesses had reiterated the contents of the FIR, however, deposed in cross-examination that the deceased received firearm injuries at the distance of 9/10 paces and injured received fire from 5 to 6 paces and witnesses were at the distance of 10/15 paces from the accused---Witnesses had further deposed that the incident continued for 5 to 10 minutes---Medical Officer had contradicted the said witnesses by stating that the deceased received firearm injuries at the distance of 35 feet---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---In the present case, the accused allegedly fired continuously for 5 to 10 minutes, but none of the said eye-witnesses received even a single injury despite the fact that they were also available at the scene of incident, with the deceased and injured at the short distance---As per post-mortem report, the dead body was identified by two persons, who were also stated to be the cousin of the deceased, but none of the said eye-witnesses had disclosed their names as accompanying persons on the way to hospital from police station and even they had not been cited as witnesses in the calendar of witnesses---Had the said eye-witnesses been accompanied by the injured and dead body from the occurrence, they would have identified the dead body to Medical Officer---Such state of affairs made the presence of said eye-witnesses at the occurrence doubtful--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding best evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Injured had not been examined by the prosecution---Injured being natural witness his presence at the occurrence could not be doubted, hence, evidence of injured witness was the best piece of evidence but the prosecution withheld the same by not putting him in witness box---Said witness was given up on the statement of complainant that the injured witness had lost his mental balance due to sustaining severe bullet injury---No supporting medical certificate was annexed by the complainant with the said statement, therefore, the prosecution, without assigning any convincing reasons, withheld the best piece of evidence of injured witness---Presumption, in circumstances, could fairly be raised, that had injured witness been produced in court, he would have not supported the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 129(g)---Withholding best evidence---Scope---If a best piece of evidence was available with the party and the same was not produced in court then it could be presumed that the party had some ulterior and sinister motive behind the same---Presumption could fairly be drawn that had the said evidence produced, it would have been unfavourable to the said party.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empties---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Allegedly, Investigating Officer accompanied by the complainant, visited the place of incident in presence of mashirs and secured blood stained earth in sealed parcel and 10 empties of 7.62 bore, 5 of 12 bore and 3 of TT pistol from the place of occurrence---Mashir had given different version in cross-examination by stating that the complainant handed over the empties to police at place of occurrence---Complainant had also admitted in cross-examination that he handed over the blood stained earth and empties to Investigating Officer which he sealed at the place of occurrence---In view of such facts, no credibility could be attached to the recovery memo as recovery of empties was not affected from the occurrence but handed over by the complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Crime weapon was recovered from the accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Kalashnikov was recovered from accused---Investigating Officer had deposed that on spy information, he took mashirs and reached near Minor Bridge where he arrested accused and recovered Kalashnikov from his possession under memo of arrest and recovery---Mashir in his cross-examination first admitted that the Kalashnikov was given by the complainant to police, but then again said that in fact complainant was present at the time of arrest of accused and recovery of Kalashnikov from him---Investigating Officer had not stated that at the time of arrest of said accused, the complainant was also accompanied by him as deposed by the said mashir---Record did not show that the complainant was also accompanied by the police party at the time of arrest of accused---Such contradictory statement of said mashir made the recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of accused doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in sending the recovered weapon and crime empties for analysis---Effect---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Record showed that the alleged recovered Kalashnikov and empties were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory after 10 days of the said recovery---Said fact had rendered the report legally unacceptable as the possibility could not be ruled out of consideration that the same had been managed and maneuvered in order to get favorable report of Ballistic Expert---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
0 Comments