The mouth and eyes of the deceased were found open at the time of preparation of the inquest report
No source of light was taken into possession at the spot by the Investigating Officer
The prosecution witnesses failed to establish the fact of availability of any light source at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and in absence of their ability to do so, we cannot presume the existence of such a light source. The absence of any light source has put the whole prosecution case in murk. It was admitted by the witnesses themselves that it was a dark night and as the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the availability of any light source, their statements with regard to them identifying the assailant cannot be relied upon. The failure of the prosecution witnesses to prove the presence of any light source at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence has repercussions, entailing the failure of the prosecution case.
It is opposed to human conduct that an assailant would keep waiting for the arrival of the witnesses prior to commission of the offence. It is all the more illogical that being perceptive of the fact that by pending the matter the accused ran the risk of the arrival of the witnesses and them deposing against the accused even then the assailant kept waiting for their arrival. Such behavior, on part of the accused, runs counter to natural human conduct and behavior.
No person having ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would remain watching the proceedings as mere spectators for as long as ten minutes without doing anything to rescue the deceased or to apprehend the assailant. It is strange that when the witnesses had the desire to apprehend the accused after the occurrence and were not fearful of the assailant at that time, then why they could not stop him from committing the occurrence. The allowance of prosecution witnesses to the assailant of causing the death of their near and dear relative speaks loudly that if PWs had been present at the place of occurrence, they would have definitely intervened and prevented the assailant from murdering their dear one. It only proves that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailant and no one was there to save him. Such behavior, on part of the witnesses, runs counter to natural human conduct and behavior. Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 allows the courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case. We thus trust the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that the conduct of the witnesses, as deposed by them, was opposed to common course of natural events, human conduct and that the witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence at the crime scene.
Delayed postmortem
Recovery or Motive is only corroborative piece of evidence
Murder Reference No.03 of 2019 (The State Vs. Muhammad Ismail)
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2019 (Muhammad Ismail Vs. The State and another)
Decided on 28.10.2021.
0 Comments