Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive piece of evidence.

 Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive piece of evidence.

JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI vs State
2024 YLR 94

Presence of the witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Failure of the complainant to name the appellate as an accused in his oral statement on the basis of which formal FIR was registered conclusively proved that the accused was involved in the case subsequently and had the witnesses seen the accused present at the place of occurrence, taking part in the same, then there did not exist any possibility that they would not have named him as an accused in the FIR---Despite the fact that the occurrence took place at about 01.00 a.m. on 4th June, 2010, the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted after much delay at about 10.45 a.m. on 4th June, 2010---According to Medical Officer, he on 04.06.2010 at about 10.45 a.m. conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased after more than nine hours of the occurrence---Medical Officer also noted developed rigor mortis at the time of conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased---However, rigor mortis was a term which stands for the stiffness of voluntary and involuntary muscles in human body after death, which starts within 2 to 4 hours of death and fully develops in about 12-hours in temperate climate---No explanation was offered to justify the said delay in conducting the postmortem examination of the dead body---Inordinate and unexplained and substantial delay in the post-mortem examination of the dead body clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence or having seen the accused escaping from the place of occurrence had not seen the occurrence and were not present at the time of occurrence---Delay in the post-mortem examination was used to procure their attendance and formulate a dishonest account of the occurrence, after consultation and planning---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Delay in reporting the matter to police---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that despite the occurrence having taken place at about 01.00 a.m. on 04.06.2010, the matter was not reported to the police till 04.30 a.m. on 04.06.2010---According to the prosecution witnesses a motorcycle was available at the place of occurrence and the complainant travelled upon the same for reporting the matter to the police, however, still the oral statement of complainant was recorded by Police Officer (since dead) at 04.30 a.m. and the formal FIR was registered on the basis of the said oral statement of complainant by another Police Officer at 04.50 a.m. on 04.06.2010---In such a case, the ocular account furnished was suffering from legal and factual infirmities and did not appeal to a prudent mind, because, the complainant delayed the matter of reporting the incident to the police---Said inordinate delay in reporting the matter conclusively proved that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place and time of occurrence and the said delay was used to procure their attendance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.

Delay in reporting the matter to police---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that despite the occurrence having taken place at about 01.00 a.m. on 04.06.2010, the matter was not reported to the police till 04.30 a.m. on 04.06.2010---According to the prosecution witnesses a motorcycle was available at the place of occurrence and the complainant travelled upon the same for reporting the matter to the police, however, still the oral statement of complainant was recorded by Police Officer (since dead) at 04.30 a.m. and the formal FIR was registered on the basis of the said oral statement of complainant by another Police Officer at 04.50 a.m. on 04.06.2010---In such a case, the ocular account furnished was suffering from legal and factual infirmities and did not appeal to a prudent mind, because, the complainant delayed the matter of reporting the incident to the police---Said inordinate delay in reporting the matter conclusively proved that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place and time of occurrence and the said delay was used to procure their attendance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.

Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Record showed that a Kalashnikov rifle was recovered from the accused---Recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from the accused could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the said recovery, which action of his was in clear violation of the provisions of the S. 103, Cr.P.C. and therefore the evidence of the recovery could not be used as incriminating evidence against the accused, being evidence which was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Moreover, according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, the recovered Kalashnikov rifle was found in working condition, however, no comparison was made of the said Kalashnikov rifle with the empty shells of the bullets recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, the report of the Forensic Science Agency, offered no proof of any relevant fact---Prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing after trespassing the house during night---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused "B" kidnapped a lady for committing Zina and in that regard, deceased got lodged FIR against said accused and due to said grudge, the accused persons committed the offence---Prosecution case revolved around the statement of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence including complainant also---Both the said prosecution witnesses were brothers of the deceased---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that his house was at a distance of as much as 5/6 acres from the place of occurrence---Both the said witnesses did not explain as to why and in what circumstances, they came to be present at the place and time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.