2022 Y L R 198
[Federal Shariat Court]
MUNAWAR and another
Versus
The STATE
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Identification parade---Scope---Accused were charged that while committing robbery they murdered the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that the role attributed to the accused by the witnesses during identification parade was contradictory and conflicting---Said witnesses not only did not support each other on material particulars rather were at variance and the said statements were contradictory to their statements recorded by the court---Apparent contradictions qua the role attributed to the accused during the course of identification parade and the improvements made in the court were sufficient to reduce the worth of the identification parade rendering their evidence inadmissible, as if one witness was believed that belied other witness and vise versa---Whole process of identification parade became suspicious and doubtful for another reason as well because one witness stated that he had gone to the Court of Magistrate for identification parade at about 8:30 to 09:00 A.M. and remained in the Court for about 10/20 minutes whereas according to Judicial Magistrate, Identification Parade proceedings started at 11:00 A.M., so looking the identification parade from whatever angle and perspective it did not meet the required conditions of admissibility---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) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
---Art. 22--- Identification parade---Scope---Where the accused was not previously known to witnesses, without the description given by the witnesses, the identification of the accused before the court or during identification parade lost legal weight and significance.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Scope---Accused were charged that while committing robbery they murdered the father of complainant by firing---One of the accused persons got recorded his confessional statement, however, the statement lost its worth, significance and evidentiary value for various reasons; firstly, because it was delayed, as the accused was arrested on 11.03.2014 and his statement was recorded on 20.03.2014 and secondly, the statement was not true according to prosecution case that accused snatched the purse, extended threat, took the pistol on the head of mother of complainant but his statement was absolutely silent regarding those facts so the element of truthfulness of statement was missing---No independent corroboration of the statement was found---Statement of the witness was exculpatory, except mere presence no role he assigned to himself rather exonerated himself---Accused, after recording statement was handed over to police who had produced him before the Court---In the given circumstances, legally such confessional statement could not be used against co-convict without independent corroboration---Confession of co-accused was the sole piece of evidence against him which was not legally sufficient to saddle him with the commission of alleged crime---If that statement was discarded and taken out of consideration then the entire prosecution case was bound to collapse---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.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Delay of about seven days in lodging the FIR---Effect---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged that while committing robbery they murdered the father of complainant by firing---First Information Report of the incident was lodged after about nine days---Only explanation available in the FIR was that after funeral of the deceased, with consultation of the family members the FIR had been lodged---Said excuse for lodging the FIR, even if accepted, might have culminated in lodging of FIR just after funeral of the deceased but the delay so occurred could not be justified---Delay in lodging of the FIR without plausible explanation carried an adverse impact on the prosecution case and militated against the bona fide of the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about eight days in recording the statement of witnesses by the police---Scope---Accused were charged that while committing robbery they murdered the father of complainant by firing---Witnesses had stated before the Court that their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. were recorded, after the delay of about eight days which was fatal for prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Preparation of danistnama and mashirnama of dead body and mashirnama of surzamine prior to the lodging of FIR---Scope---Accused were charged that while committing robbery they murdered the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that danistnama and mashirnama of dead body and mashirnama of surzamine respectively, which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR had lost their significance---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
0 Comments