2024 SCMR 1085
Recovery of weapon ( sota ) -Not consequential in absence of a forensics report - An important aspect of the prosecution's case was the recovery of the weapon ( the sota ) . Respondent ( accused ) was arrested on 30.12.2007 , whereas the said weapon was recovered on 01.01.2008 from his residence 6 days after the occurrence of the crimeAccording to the Investigating Officer ( 10 ) , the weapon was lying under a cot , and it was not stained with blood - Admittedly , the prosecution had not placed anything on the record to show whether the said weapon was sent to the forensic science laboratory for examination --- Hence , significance could be attributed to the recovery of the sota as it was not established as the murder weapon - It was the responsibility of the 10 to have presented the sota for forensics to establish that the blows inflicted on the deceased were from the recovered sota , or if any blood or other evidence could have been found on the said weapon , that may have strengthened the no story of prosecution --- Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent beyond reasonable doubt --- Crl.P.L.A.887-L/2013
Muhammad Ramzan v. Khizar Hayat, etc
2024 SCMR 1085
Contradictions in evidence of witnesses --- Interested witnesses --- Presence of witnesses at place of occurrence not explained --- Admittedly , the deceased was assaulted by a non - lethal weapon ( sota ) ; yet being his real brother , and sitting beside the deceased , the petitioner ( complainant ) sustained no injury , nor was he able to prevent the assault on the deceased ... Contradictions and discrepancies in the ocular account of the eye - witnesses diluted the story of the prosecution , whose case rested on the statement of eye - witnesses , who all were closely related to the deceased Ocular account of the prosecution's interested witnesses was uncorroborated by the available evidence No one else was present at the place of occurrence --- This creates doubt in their testimony , because both the petitioner and the other eye - witness , resided in different villages , that too , at a considerable distance and their joint arrival at the Dera of the deceased , on foot , in the early morning of the last week of December remained unexplained ... Presence of these witnesses at the crime scene was highly doubitul and questionable As to the other two eyewitnesses . they were also interested witnesses due to their close relationship with the deceased --- Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
Crl.P.L.A.887-L/2013
Muhammad Ramzan v. Khizar Hayat, etc
2024 SCMR 1085
It is essential to emphasize the importance of forensic science in the criminal justice system. Forensic deals with ‘the application of scientific techniques to provide objective, circumstantial evidence.’ Forensic is a science ‘of interest to the legal system,’ whose objective is to ascertain what happened in the recent past. Forensic science means nothing more than the science which is used in the courts of law for the purposes of detection and prosecution of crime. This science plays a significant role in the criminal justice system by providing data that can be used to assess the degree of guilt of a suspect. Crl.P.L.A.887-L/2013
Muhammad Ramzan v. Khizar Hayat, etc
2024 SCMR 1085
We find it necessary and compelling to reiterate that the cornerstone of the criminal justice system is the effective functionality of the investigating agency and prosecution. The principle of fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution specifically mandates this. The dispensation of justice and fair adjudication require that the accused be equitably treated, investigated, and prosecuted in accordance with the law. However, we find that in the case at hand, the entire prosecution evidence is marred by inherent improbabilities and material defects, aside from concerns about the credibility of the witnesses. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Our concern herein is that a faulty investigative process will continuously dampen trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. Time has come for the investigation agency to recognize these inherent flaws and concerns in its methodology, and it needs to work towards specializing its investigative functions and separating the same from other police duties.
Crl.P.L.A.887-L/2013
Muhammad Ramzan v. Khizar Hayat, etc
2024 SCMR 1085
0 Comments