2023 SCMR 831
"Interested" witness---Witness "related" to deceased---Distinction---Term "related" is not equivalent to "interested"---Witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished---Witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested".
Ocular evidence--- Medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused.
Sentence, reduction in---Recovery of weapon of offence was inconsequential as admittedly no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence---High Court had rightly disbelieved the motive by holding that a divorce, which was the alleged motive for the occurrence, took place two years prior to the occurrence, therefore, what happened immediately before the occurrence, which provoked the accused to take lives of two innocent persons, remained shrouded in mystery---Hence, the motive part of the prosecution case did not inspire confidence so as to term it is as a cause of the murder---Keeping in view the fact that motive had been disbelieved and the recovery was inconsequential, the High Court has rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and leave was refused.
Medical evidence--- Recovery evidence---Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of an accused.
S. 302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---First Information Report was registered just after 1 hour and 25 minutes of the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 25 kilometers, thus, it could safely be said that FIR was lodged with promptitude---Promptness of FIR showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation---Occurrence took place in the broad daylight and the parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and an another witness, who were residents of the same locality where the occurrence took place---Said witnesses had given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence---Complainant had sustained injuries during the occurrence, which had fully been supported by the medical evidence; this clearly proved her presence at the place of occurrence---Counsel for the accused could not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant would falsely involve the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of her mother and sister---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased and injured was concerned---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused, and conviction of accused under section 302 (b), P.P.C. was maintained.
Injured witness, testimony of---Scope---Testimony of an injured eye-witness carries more evidentiary value.
Ocular account provided by a witness---"Contradiction" and "minor discrepancies"---Distinction and effect---Contradiction in the statement of a witness is fatal for the prosecution case whereas minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful---Normal course of human conduct is that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies---Parrot-like statements are always discredited by the courts---In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounts to contradiction, regard is required to be made to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witnesses were making the statement---Normal discrepancies are always present, howsoever, honest and truthful a witness may be---Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, memory due to lapse of time and mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence---Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.
0 Comments