2021 Y L R 2301
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 337-H(2) & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, rash and negligent act, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant---Record showed that the FIR was lodged with promptitude and the accused had been nominated with specific role---Occurrence took place at night time but according to the statements of witnesses the accused were open-faces, therefore, the accused being already known to the prosecution witnesses was clearly identified in the light of electric bulb lit at that time besides the light of motorcycle, therefore, the identification of the accused with specific role in the FIR could not be doubted---Two witnesses available at the site also identified and recognized the accused---Perusal of the statements of witnesses revealed that there was no contradiction, dishonest improvement or material omission to justify the discarding of their statements---Defence had not been able to bring on record either any contradiction nullifying the impact of the statements or dishonest improvements justifying any interference for false booking of the accused---Identification of the accused with the specific role stood established beyond any reasonable doubt in the given circumstances of the case---Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
---Ss. 302(b), 394, 337-H(2) & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, rash and negligent act, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Minor discrepancies in the case of prosecution---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant---Record showed that there might be some meager, minute and minor differences between the statements of the witnesses in terms of distance among the accused, victim and witnesses but that was not sufficient to lessen the weight of statements---Admittedly, after three to four years of the incident, the cross-examination was conducted so in such circumstances if one witness said the distance was ten paces and the second said it was fifteen feet, so in such circumstances such a minor discrepancy was bound to be ignored---Difference of five to ten minutes regarding the incident was also immaterial as in such a situation, neither one was supposed to look at his watch nor was expected to weigh and measure the paces and distance---No major contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, hence, the statements of the witnesses, which were straight forward, trust worthy and confidence inspiring, could not be discarded or ignored on such feeble grounds---Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception---Appeal was dismissed accordingly
(c) Criminal trial---
----Witness--- Related witnesses---Reliance---Scope---Mere relationship itself is no ground to discard the testimony of a witness, however, the relationship could not be ignored, if there is a motive to falsely book an accused.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 337-H(2) & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, rash and negligent act, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant---In the case in hand the venue was not disputed as the site plan, prepared by the prosecution, suggested the same site where the incident took place and pointed out---Blood taken from the place of occurrence and the empties collected by the Investigating Officer left no room for doubt that the victim was murdered at the place that found mentioned in the FIR---Recovery of motorcycle from the possession of accused was another corroborative piece of evidence---Ocular testimony regarding the seat of injuries and number of injury stood corroborated by medical evidence---Defence, in such circumstances, had not been able to point out any major contradiction or discrepancy warranting discarding the evidence brought against the accused---Admittedly, there was no confrontation of the statements recorded by the witnesses qua their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---High Court observed that to disbelieve the statement, there must be glaring contradiction in the statement itself showing the fact that if one piece of the statement was believed that belied the other part of the statement or if the statement of one of the eye-witness was believed that clearly belied the statement of other witness, so, in that type of case though no confrontation be made, yet the court might be in a position to discard the testimony but in the present case such position was not available---Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 337-H(2) & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, rash and negligent act, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant---Of-course, the empties and the pistol were sent to Ballistic Expert together---Such piece of evidence was discarded---When said piece of evidence was discarded, yet rest of the straight forward and ocular evidence could not be discarded or rejected merely because of rejection of that corroboratory piece of evidence---Lengthy cross-examination was conducted but the witnesses stuck to their gun and their testimonies could not be shaken---Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 337-H(2) & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.340(2)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, rash and negligent act, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Examination of accused---Scope---Prosecution case was the accused along with co-accused, armed with pistols, robbed a motorcycle from complainant and his brother and on resistance, the accused fired at them, resulting in the death of brother of complainant---Record showed that the accused while recording his statement on oath as provided under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., did not attribute any ill-will for his false involvement in that case on account of any enmity between the complainant, witnesses and the accused---Plea of accused that his involvement was at the instance of someone else was neither appealable nor reasonable and plausible---No evidence, whatsoever, in support of that plea was available---Stance of the accused that his family members were taken into custody to force him to make a confessional statement, did not appeal to reason nor any of the inmates was produced before the court to support the contention nor for that matter any such grievance was shown when the accused was produced for remand during the course of investigation--- Accused was not confronted with the report of Ballistic Expert---Though, there was irregularity but since the report of Ballistic Expert had been discarded and further that matter had already consumed a very lengthy period, therefore, it was not advisable to remand the case to confront the accused with a piece of evidence that had been discarded---Accused entered the witness box and recorded his statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. but he did not deny the recovery of robbed motorcycle---Circumstances established that findings so recorded by the Trial Court against the accused were not open to any legal exception---
0 Comments