The eyewitnesses were not only very closely related to deceased but they were also chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their availability at the scene of the crime at the relevant time; it is held that eyewitnesses reached at the place of occurrence by chance and occurrence took place exactly at the time of their arrival at place of occurrence does not appeal to a prudent mind; Further according to the Inquest Report as well as statement of doctor the mouth of the deceased was opened and this fact shows that no person had afflicted to close the mouth of deceased, which couldn't have befell in the presence of eye witnesses; the eyewitnesses were not the witnesses of identification of deadbody at the time of autopsy and preparing the inquest report, held, that had they been present at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time they must have been the witnesses of identification of deadbody. It is improbable when a person has sustained 17 injuries with fire shot and sharp-edged weapon, blood would not ooze and would not touch the clothes of attending persons. This fact constrained this Court to hold that eyewitnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence, otherwise, their clothes must have been stained with blood while attending the deceased; Further held that ipse dixit of police is not binding on the court yet it can be considered if it is founded on some cogent and convincing evidence; evidence of call data not worthy of reliance if no voice record transcript has been brought on record; It is settled proposition of law that blood disintegrate after three weeks. Further held that if prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused.
Murder Reference
51-22
STATE VS
ASHFAQ HUSSAIN
Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem
06-12-2023
2023 LHC 7536
0 Comments