Unnatural witnesses---Presence of eye-witnesses at the place and time of occurrence doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by throttling her neck---Ocular account of the incident in issue had been furnished by a witness and complainant---Complainant was the father and the witness was close relative of the deceased---Conduct of the said eye-witnesses was highly unnatural---According to the statements of said witnesses, on the fateful morning, they were in the house where the occurrence took place at 07:00 a.m. and saw that accused throttling the deceased---Question was as to why they had not physically intervened especially when the accused was empty handed---According to their statements, deceased made hue and cry, upon which her father, brother and a close relative were attracted to the place of occurrence---Said witnesses were three male adult members whereas the accused was alone and not armed with any weapon to terrify the prosecution eye-witnesses from saving the deceased---It was not appealable to a prudent mind that if the said eye-witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, were present at the house of occurrence, then as to why they did not physically intervene to apprehend the accused after the occurrence---Under the circumstances, it could be safely held that both the eye-witnesses were neither present at the spot at the relevant time nor they had witnessed the occurrence.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs State
2024 PCrLJ 214
Withholding material evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by throttling her neck---According to the prosecution evidence, at the time of alleged occurrence, five children of the accused and deceased were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Eldest of them was aged 12/13 years but not a single child was produced during the trial as a witness---In the given scenario, abandoning of the said witnesses obviously led to an adverse inference in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had they been produced in the witness box, they might have not supported the prosecution case---If any party withheld the best piece of evidence, then it could fairly be presumed that such party had some sinister motive behind it---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Dishonest Improvements made by witness---Scope---Witness is untrustworthy if he makes dishonest Improvements in his statement on a material aspect of the case in order to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to bring his statement in line with the other prosecution evidence.
Delay of seven hours and thirty minutes in lodging FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by throttling her neck---As per contents of FIR, the matter was reported to the police about seven hours and thirty minutes after the incident---Distance between police station and the place of occurrence was twelve kilometers---No plausible explanation for the said delay had been brought on record---Even while appearing before the Trial Court the prosecution witnesses did not utter even a single word about the said delay---Thus, delay in setting the machinery of law into motion spoke volumes against the veracity of prosecution version. Delay of nine hours and twenty minutes in conducting post-mortem examination---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by throttling her neck---Record showed that the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted with the delay of nine hours and twenty minutes---Thus, it was a case of delayed post-mortem, which casted serious doubts---Such noticeable delay was normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the postmortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased which happened only when the complainant and police remained busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in cases of un-witnessed occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by throttling her neck---Prosecution story was negated by the postmortem report wherein three injuries in the shape of bruises were found on the neck of deceased but Medical Officer had stated in her cross-examination that hyoid bone was not broken and ribs as well as cartilages were not damaged---Although cause of death was manual strangulation (throttling) leading to asphyxia, nonetheless, it did not appear to have occurred in the manner suggested in the crime report.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs State
2024 PCrLJ 214
0 Comments