2023 MLD 629
Recovery of weapon of offence from the accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Recovery of hatchets from the accused was of no use as were not blood stained and even both the hatchets were recovered from the house of accused on the same day---One hatchet was shown recovered from co-accused and out of two other hatchets shown present at the place of recovery---One separated from accused as recovered on his lead treating it as weapon of offence was nothing but plantation, so its being joint recovery was also inadmissible---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubts---
Presence of eyewitnesses at the spot was doubted---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Prosecution's ocular account led by complainant and an eyewitness, though claimed to have been present at the place of occurrence yet role assigned to the present accused had received a dent when Investigating Officer declared one of the accused innocent, who later died---Prosecution had introduced a story of abetment in the case which was also found false by the Investigating Officer and resultantly the co-accused persons were acquitted---Witnesses stated that they were at a distance of 1-1/4 acre away when they had seen the assailants; they ran toward the deceased but by the time accused fled away from the place of occurrence---Witnesses had admitted that accused were not armed with any firearms; yet they had not chased the assailants in order to apprehend them---Both the witnesses deposed that they did not offer water to the deceased because he immediately succumbed to the injuries, whereas doctor observed probable time between injury and death as 15-30 minutes which belied the contention of the witnesses---Said witnesses further deposed that blood was oozing from the body of the deceased and their clothes and hands were stained with blood but they did not hand over the blood stained clothes to the police---Complainant stated that injured/deceased received 3/4 injuries from the hands of the assailants at bull-cart and after that deceased ran toward northern side in order to save himself, assailants chased the deceased and caused more 20/25 injuries at distance of 02-kanals---Similar was the deposition of eyewitness, however, he stated that assailant inflicted many injuries to the deceased at a distance of 02-kanals---Investigating Officer admitted that during investigation the complainant and the witnesses did not show the proof of their ownership of land where the occurrence took place---Draftsman stated that he did not see any footprints of anybody on points Nos.1, 2 & 3 and witnesses did not tell him about the ownership of Killa near the place of occurrence and there was no Dera shown in the scaled site plan, so that also would go against the prosecution that there was no reason for presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Presence of claimed eye witnesses at the time and place of occurrence could not be proved; therefore, their testimony could not be considered as credible or trustworthy---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubts---
Unnatural conduct of the witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Conduct of both the witnesses was highly objectionable that the deceased was being beaten by the accused and they could not intervene the situation and could not reach to the deceased during that time which showed that they were not present at the place of occurrence---Witnesses were shown present at point No.3 as per site plan which was very close to the place of occurrence and they also deposed that they were at a distance of 1-1/4 acre (at one point mentioned as 1-1/4 Killa) so they could not make resistance in order to save the deceased was not appealable in the circumstances---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubts-
0 Comments