Name of star eye witnesses not mentioned in the FIR and belated recording of their statements --- Consequential --- Both the alleged eye - witnesses claimed that they were present at the time of incident but their names were not mentioned in the FIR --- Moreover , despite their presence at the place of incident their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded by the police with a delay of 16 hours - Recording the statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C at a belated stage casted serious doubts on the version of prosecution --- No plausible explanation was rendered by the prosecution as to why statements of star witnesses were recorded after such a delay and why their names were not mentioned in the FIR Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt
2024 SCMR 1490
Expectancy of life ' , principle of --- Period of incarceration equal to or more than a full term of imprisonment for life - In a case where a convict sentenced to death undergoes period of custody equal to or more than a full term of imprisonment for life during the pendency of his judicial remedy against his conviction and sentence of death , the principle of ' expectancy of life ' may be considered as a relevant factor along with other circumstances for reducing his sentence of death to imprisonment for life In the present case the petitioner ( convict ) had been in the death cell for 16 years awaiting the fate of his juridical remedies Inordinate delay in disposal of case was not attributable to the petitioner as the trial proceedings were twice remanded by the Appellate Court to the Trial Court , firstly due to defective charge and non examining the second investigating officer , and secondly , due to defective 342 , CPC statement of the petitioner Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed , and conviction awarded to the petitioner / appellant under section 302 ( b ) . P.P.C. was maintained , however his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life on the basis of the mitigating
2024 SCMR 1474
Circumstantial evidence
2023 PCrLJ 1071
-- Last seen evidence Scope Accused was charged that he along with his co - accused committed murder of the cousin of complainant --- Last seen evidence was furnished by witness , who was named in the FIR -- Said witness was not related to the deceased or the accused --- Said witness was not a chance and he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused --- Evidence of said witness was straight forward and he was not dented during cross - examination --- Evidence of said witness was found to be trustworthy , reliable and confidence inspiring , hence believable and thus , relied upon --- Said witness stated that the accused was present in the Madrassa at the time of the incident , as corroborated by the CCTV evidence -- Accused , the deceased and other witnesses were present in the room / place of occurrence at about 11.00 p.m .-- When the witness of last seen evidence got up to go the wash room he had seen the accused sitting on the stairs looking puzzled at 12.30 a.m. ( night ) --- Said witness had seen the accused already on his bed when he returned to his bed which would be at around 1.00 a.m. ( night ) --- At about 2.30 a.m. said witness and some of the other student woke up when they heard a sound as if something had fallen and they found the deceased lying on the mattress with blood oozing from his head --- At about 2.30 a.m. when the witness and others woke up and found the body of the deceased , the accused was gone --- Cement block was found adjacent to the mattress of the deceased which had not been there before --- Significantly , the timings given by the witness tied in roughly with the timings mentioned by complainant in his evidence whilst watching the CCTV footage --- Thus , keeping in view the fact that it had already come in evidence that the beds of the accused and the deceased were next to each other in the same room -- Moreover , it would appear that the last seen evidence test had been met --- Namely , at about 1.00 a.m. , the accused was seen sleeping beside the deceased and within one and a half hours the accused was gone and the deceased was dead in the bed next to the accused where a cement block was found which the accused had already been found carrying in the CCTV / USB footage back towards his room where the deceased was sleeping next to him --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt --- Motive was not proved , thus death penalty was reduced to imprisonment for life.
Dying declaration
2023 PCrLJ 1200
--- Scope --- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to father , sister and aunt of the complainant --- Record showed that the occurrence in the case took place on 13.07.2016 and injured brother of complainant died on 29.08.2016 i.e. more than one and half month after sustaining the injuries --- Investigating Officer in his statement had clarified that after getting permission from doctor he had recorded the statement of said injured on 22.08.2016 - No specified forum was necessary before whom such dying declaration could be made --- in that view of the matter , no illegality was committed by the Investigating Officer while recording the statement of injured then died , whose statement otherwise , had been found to be in line with the narration of the FIR --- Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused , however due to mitigating factors , the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life ... Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.
0 Comments