اگرچہ، نقشہ موقع کو کبھی بھی ٹھوس ثبوت کے طور پر نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا لیکن واقعہ کے مقامات اور خاص طور پر ان معاملات میں، جہاں گواہوں کی موجودگی اور اس کے ساتھ ساتھ اس واقعے کے مقامات کو چیلنج کیا گیا ہو، تو ان باتوں کے تعین کے لیے نقشہ موقع کی اہمیت سے انکار نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

اگر جائے وقوعہ سے خول جمع کرکے لیبارٹری بھیجیں جائے اور بعدہ ملزمان کے قبضے سے اسلحہ کی برآمد ہوجائے اور لیبارٹری کی رپورٹ یہ ہے کہ اسلحہ چلتی حالت میں ہے اور اس بابت خاموش ہے کہ جائے وقوعہ سے برآمد شدہ خول اسی اسلحہ سے فائر ہوئے ہیں تو ایسے اسلحہ برآمد کرنے کا کوئی فائدہ نہیں۔۔۔

Criminal Appeals Nos . 132397 , 135890 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2018
MUHAMMAD AZAM and another versus The STATE and another
2024 PCr.L J 306

Site plan --- Scope --- Although , site plan can never be considered as substantive piece of evidence but its importance cannot be denied to determine the locations of the incident as well as the position of the witnesses particularly in those matters , where presence or otherwise of the witnesses has been challenged .

 Site plan contradicting prosecution version --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- Complainant claimed that he was cutting the fodder from his land when the assailants attacked upon his brother --- Scaled and un scaled site plan showed that dead body of the deceased was lying in field , which was shown under cultivation of the deceased as tenant and the said land was shown to be owned by one Mr. " N " --- Claim of the eye-witnesses was that they were ploughing field but the name of the complainant was neither mentioned as a tenant nor as an owner because one Mr."I" was shown as owner of the said land --- Although complainant had alleged that the said land was under the possession of the complainant as he had got the same on lease but no such fact was mentioned on both the site plans --- According to the prosecution version , the complainant along with other witness was ploughing the said field but as per site plan , the Investigating Officer and Draftsman observed and noted a crop in that field and they neither observed any sign of ploughing nor mentioned availability of any tractor in the site plan --- Similarly , according to the record and version of witnesses , there was a different crop in the field , where deceased was done to death --- Distance between point where the dead body was found and point where the witnesses were available was shown as 88 feet , so , it was impossible for witnesses to see the incident , which according to the prosecution took place in the field having 5/6 feet high crop --- Complainant had admitted that no sickle of the deceased or cutting fodder was shown available at the crime scene --- Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of the accused and crime empties from the spot --- Inconsequential --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- Prosecution case was that Investigating Officer had secured 12 empty cartridges of .12 bore gun and 9 empties of .44 bore rifle from the crime scene and the same were sent to Forensic Science Agency and on arrest of the accused , he got recovered repeater 12 bore gun and the same was also sent and the report tendered by the said agency only confirmed its working condition and no matching report with the crime empties was available on record --- Thus , the recovery of weapon of offence was inconsequential in all eventualities , hence , rendered no corroboration to the ocular account

Absconsion of the accused not established --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- According to the record , the accused was apprehended by the police on 03.08.2015 almost about one year and ten months after . the alleged occurrence and during the interregnum , he had been declared proclaimed offender --- Although the prosecution had exhibited the documents of proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused but when confronted , complainant had admitted that neither the process server had appeared before the trial Court nor any report qua the execution of notices had been brought on record --- Prosecution had apprised that Constable had been given up being unnecessary --- Meaning thereby that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of abscondence and proclamation proceedings under Ss . 87/88 , Cr.P.C., as per dictate of law --- So , such piece of evidence was of no avail for the prosecution

Co-accused acquitted on the basis of same set of evidence --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- Record showed that evidence of the prosecution had been belied and discarded by the Trial Court to the extent of five acquitted co-accused, especially to the extent of a co accused l, who allegedly fired gun shot on the person of the deceased, which hit him on his chin and right and left arms --- So, in the prevailing circumstances , strong and independent corroborative evidence was required in support of the ocular account to maintain the conviction of the accused --- No doubt previous enmity could be a reason for the accused to commit the alleged crime but the same could equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the accused in the present case as motive was always considered to be a double edged weapon --- Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- In the scaled site plan , the distance between accused with that of deceased was shown as three feet and according to the prosecution case , he was armed with .12 bore repeater gun but on going through the testimony of Medical Officer and postmortem report of the deceased , sixteen firearm wounds were observed by the Medical Officer during the autopsy of the deceased , out of which fifteen were declared as having inverted margins ( entry wounds ) but none of the wounds carried any blackening , burning , charring or tattooing --- Meaning thereby that the medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution case rather it contradicted the same as far as the distance of assailants and the deceased was concerned --- Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Chance witness --- Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye - witness at the spot --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing --- Record showed that the second eye-witness was not the resident of the village of the complainant and the deceased --- Complainant while deposing before the trial Court himself admitted that said witness was resident of other village---Such address was also given by said witness while deposing before the trial Court --- Said witness just stated before the trial Court that he along with two other witnesses was present at the field and were ploughing agricultural land of complainant but no reason whatsoever had been explained by the said witness qua his visit to the deceased or the complainant --- So , such witness in all eventualities could not be considered a natural witness and he could be categorized as chance witness --- Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt