2022 SCMR 998
The perusal of record clearly reflects that there is no direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The prosecution’s case mainly hinges upon the testimonies of four PWs, who belong to the petitioner’s department. The crux of the testimonies of the four PWs who belonged to the petitioner’s department is that during the inquiry proceedings the petitioner had confessed his guilt and had submitted an application seeking time to return the articles. However, we have noted that a specific question in this regard was put to the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. but he categorically denied the filing of any such application or his signatures on the said application. Perusal of the record reveals that neither the disputed signatures of the petitioner were sent to the handwriting expert nor the forensic test of the same was got done to get them verified in a scientific manner and the Trial Court of its own compared the admitted signatures of the petitioner with the disputed signatures on the alleged application filed by him. There is no cavil that Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 empowers the Courts to compare the disputed signatures in order to ascertain whether the same is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made but in the matters where no direct evidence is available and the prosecution case exclusively rests on indirect evidence especially like the present case where the prosecution’s case is solely based upon the alleged admission of the petitioner then as an abundant caution the Courts while convicting an accused must adopt a safest way, which glorifies the true spirit behind the safe administration of criminal justice, which admittedly has not been done by the courts below. Even otherwise, it is settled law that in absence of sufficient evidence available on the record in the shape of oral or documentary, the evidence of handwriting expert is always considered to be most unsatisfactory, so weak and decrepit as scarcely to deserve a place in the system of jurisprudence and the courts are not to base their findings merely on expert opinion.
It is also an admitted position that at the time of registration of the crime report neither the inventory of the alleged stolen articles nor their description was given. If the foundation of the prosecution case is false and would not conform to the doctrine of fairness then the very case of the prosecution falls to the ground. In these circumstances, a dent in the prosecution’s case has been created, benefit of which must be given to the petitioner. It is a settled law that single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution’s case is to be resolved in favour of the accused as burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption/Trial Court while un-necessarily pressing into Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 PPC. Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the trial of cases by Magistrate and Section 244 & 245 lie in this Chapter, which prescribe the procedure for trial of a warrant case instituted on a complaint. However, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, we do not deem it appropriate to go further into this aspect of the matter.
0 Comments