Muhammad Anwar vs State
2024 YLR 1745
Delay of two days in recording statements of injured witnesses---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---All the male members of the complainant parts had either lost their lives or were admitted in the hospital being in injured condition and, thus, it was not expected for a sole female household lady to herself make arrangements for recording the statement of the injured witnesses---Even otherwise, neither the Medical Officer, who medically examined the injured witnesses, observed any kind of fabrication or friendly-hand injury nor the accused persons made any effort to challenge their Medico-Legal Reports at any forum thus it could be safely concluded that both the injured witnesses sustained injuries during the occurrence---If there was any lapse due to an act of the Investigating Officer for recording their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., belatedly, its benefit could not be extended to the defence in any eventuality--
Crime weapons recovered at the instance of two accused---Reliance---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Defence had laid much emphasis that two Kalashnikovs recovered at the instance of two accused persons respectively did not match with the crime empties secured from the place of occurrence; that nothing was recovered from the remaining convicts/accused persons, which fact alone was sufficient to take the same as a mitigating factor for awarding lessor punishment---Validity---As far as effect of inconsequential weapons of offence shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused persons was concerned, one accused was arrested after eighteen months, whereas, the other was after 36 months of the occurrence and in the intervening period, the weapons of offence used during the occurrence were not supposed to have been preserved---There was every possibility that accused had handed over different weapon of offence, with the intention to claim benefit of them being inconsequential at a subsequent stage and as such, it could not be taken as a mitigating factor for awarding lesser punishment---Similarly, rest of convicts also remained fugitives from law for a considerable period ranging from 09 months to 3-years, therefore, non-recovery of weapons of offence from them after such a long period was immaterial---However, when the ocular account was found to be confidence inspiring and trustworthy, mere fact that the recovery was inconsequential by itself could not be a ground for lesser punishment---
Muhammad Anwar vs State
2024 YLR 1745
Presence of the complainant and witnesses at the time and place of occurrence proved---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---During cross-examination, complainant explained that she along with her husband intended to pay homage to Data Darbar at Lahore and as such they accompanied the deceased, who had to attend the Court proceedings there---This was a very valid reason and could not be sighted with doubt---Even otherwise, on such point the defence had questioned the complainant at considerable length but she remained firm and consistent and even gave minute details of description of floor, mosque, path and even colour and height of shrine and the defence failed to shake her testimony on that point---So far as non-sustaining of injuries by the complainant lady while all other members present in the vehicle had sustained injuries was concerned, initially, brother of one of the accused persons was murdered and four of the deceased persons as well as one injured were booked in the said case---Deceased persons were declared innocent by the police, whereas injured was released on post arrest bail after more than three years of his arrest---After the release of injured, the accused persons hatched a plan of revenge and tried to commit murder of entire male members of their opponents---Leaving the complainant scratch-less appeared to be a calculated move on part of the accused persons to make her an example and leave her alone to feel the pain and misery of departure of her dear ones---Complainant faced the test of lengthy cross-examination from time to time spreading the period of over three years with full confidence and described the gruesome incident in minute detail, which established her presence at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time without any doubt---Two persons of the complainant party sustained injuries during the occurrence and as such their presence at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time could not be questioned in any manner---Injured appeared in the dock before the Trial Court and categorically raised accusing finger towards none else but the accused persons being responsible for the murder of five innocent persons and causing fire arm injuries to the injured witnesses---Both these witnesses faced the test of lengthy cross-examination with full confidence, which could not be crushed by the defence in any manner---Statement of both the said witnesses was sufficient to believe the prosecution version and bring home guilt against the accused persons beyond shadow of even slightest doubt
Muhammad Anwar vs State
2024 YLR 1745
Withholding material witnesses---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed, and two were injured---Defence objected that two independent witnesses mentioned in the FIR were given up by the prosecution so the inference could be drawn that they were not ready to support the prosecution version---Prosecution was not bound to produce all the witnesses---If the accused persons were sure that these witnesses were not ready to support the prosecution witnesses, they had ample opportunity rather were at liberty, to examine them in their defence or even submit application before the trial Court to summon them as Court witnesses but merely on that basis other overwhelming and confidence inspiring prosecution evidence could not be discarded---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Muhammad Anwar vs State
2024 YLR 1745
Delay of about 17 to 24 hours in conducting postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased---Not consequential---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were killed and two were injured---Though there was delay ranging from 17 to 24 hours in conductng post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased yet the same was not fatal for multiple one reasons---Firstly, in this unfortunate incident five persons lost their lives, two sustained injuries and only a female remained safe---Investigating Officer, who reached at the spot within 20/25 minutes after the occurrence stated that dead bodies of two deceased were lying at the spot, whereas, rest of five injured persons had been shifted to the hospital and after fulfillment of codal formalities, he transmitted those two dead bodies to the mortuary without wastage of time---In that way, it could safely be concluded that the deceased, either in injured condition or dead, were shifted to the hospital soon after the occurrence and there was no deliberate delay in dispatching them to the mortuary/hospital and if afterwards the autopsy was held belatedly, defence could not claim its premium---Secondly, one of the deceased, while in injured condition, was shifted to hospital where he remained admitted for five days and breathed his last on 28.06.2010, where after, his dead body was shifted for post mortem examination on the same day at 7.00 p.m., but even in that case, his autopsy was held with a delay of seventeen hours---It was not understandable what kind of benefit the prosecution could achieve in delaying the post mortem examination of said deceased, as all the codal formalities including lodging of crime report, recording of statements of prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., had already been completed---Thus it could safely be concluded that it was pattern of the hospital to conduct autopsy after a certain period either due to some administrative issue or non-availability of doctor, therefore, its benefit could not be extended to the accused persons-
Muhammad Anwar vs State
2024 YLR 1745
0 Comments