2023 YLR 2207
According to prosecution , accused got recovered the dead body Said discovery was not a secret information that could remain within the knowledge of police and the accused so as to evaluate it in the light of Art . 40 of Qanun e Shahadat Order . 1984 As per evidence an application was moved before Magistrate for disinterment of corpse , though such order was not brought into the evidence yet Medical Officer on firmed the fact that exhumation of dead body was done in the graveyard by a court order on an application moved by Investigating Officer Said witness stated that on the lead and pointing out by the accused dead body was recovered from the graveyard in the presence of complainant , her husband . one other person and Medical Officer and that too by digging a grave by the accused himself --- However , it was strange when application was already moved for exhumation and information in that respect was available with the police , doctor and complainant , question of exclusive knowledge did not arise so as to make evidence of recovery of dead body as admissible under Art . 40 of Qanun - e Shahadat , 1984 --- Another strange factor was mentioned by the witnesses that for digging out the dead body no men were hired but that was done by accused himself --- It was beyond comprehension that a man was laid into grave in a populated graveyard and nobody noticed nor it was reported that in what circumstances the deceased was brought there --- No witnesses were available who could even depose burial of dead body by the accused or the co - accused --- During evidence , it did not come to light that accused had ever pointed out a place where he committed the murder of deceased --- There was no evidence of last seen in the case , nor any eye - witness to the act of murder and act of burial --- Claim of prosecution that a certain cell phone number was in use of deceased and it remained on in certain intervals till the registration of FIR and thereafter too , was not supported with proof of ownership or report of a cellular company in that respect --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt --- Appeal against conviction was allowed , in circumstances .
2023 YLR 2207
Identification of dead body of the deceased by complainant Doubtful Accused was charged that he along with others commined murder of the brother of the complainant after abducting him in the present case , the DNA report showing the identity of deceased as biologically full sibling of complainen lost its efficacy and could not be read in favour of prosecution - Prosecution had also put forward complainant and a witness with the claim that they had identified the dead body at the time of postmortem examination but both of them when in the witness box did not depose about said fact - Idemnification of last worn clothes along with dead body was also in doubt because related recovery me showed interpolation and addition of fact of identification of cloches with different hand writing - In this case prosecution remained unsuccessful to prove the identity of skelton as dead body of deceased - So . when the basic fact in issue had not been proved , further material could not be used , was though same was also not worthy of appreciation , against the present accused- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2023 SCMR 2207
Recovery of hoe , shoes and pistol --- Reliance --- Accused was charged that he along with others committed murder of the brother of the complainant after abducting him --- In the present case , the recovery of hoe ( Kassi ) and shoes were of no avail when they were not sent for testing to obtain any forensic clue with respect to use of such kassi for causing any injury or excavation of earth for burial of dead body --- Similarly , shoes were also not sent for testing nor any expert examined such shoes to know about its size and whether it fit in the feet of deceased --- Pistol though was recovered but its recovery was doubtful from the place because police had already visited that place prior to said recovery --- Even otherwise only a functionality test report of such pistol was available --- No bullet casings were collected by the police so as to obtain any evidence of its matching with alleged pistol --- Though Medical Officer had observed injuries by firearm weapon but it was not discernable from the record that it was caused with pistol shots --- More so , neither the time nor cause of death was determined by the Medical Officer as admitted by him during cross - examination , therefore , recovery of pistol did not add any quality to prosecution case --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ---
Safe custody of the parcels for analysis doubtful --- Accused was charged that he along with others committed murder of the brother of the complainant after abducting him --- In the present case , three different reports of Forensic Science Agency were tendered in evidence --- Forensic Science Agency report relating to parcel of pistol correctly mentioned the name of Police Constable as the man who deposited the said parcel --- Investigating Officer though appeared twice before the Court as witness but did not depose about fact of depositing of said parcels yet claimed production of complainant before Forensic Science Agency --- Safe transmission of parcels from Medical Officer to Forensic Science Agency not established. 2023 YLR 2207
Accused was charged that he along with others committed murder of the brother of the complainant after abducting him --- Record showed that during cross - examination Medical Officer responded that he prepared the postmortem report after one month and about cause of death he had not given any official opinion about cause of death of the deceased in postmortem report --- Exaggerated version of Medical Officer deposing about cause of death by firearm before the Court could not be considered because accused was not aware of such opinion nor copy of it was provided to him , therefore , it was improper admission of a fact which lost sight of Trial Court --- Medical Officer had further stated that he had not mentioned the time of death in the postmortem report --- 2023 YLR 2207
0 Comments