2024 SCMR 1490
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
Presence of alleged eye - witnesses at the scene of occurrence doubtful ... Delay in sending body for the post mortem was reflective of the absence of witnesses at the place of occurrence - Had they been present at the place of occurrence , they would have strived to save the life of deceased and immediately shifted him to the hospital - However , in the present case . contrary to normal reaction , father and brother of deceased , neither shifted the deceased to hospital nor accompanied him when he was sent to hospital by the police --- Such behaviour alone created sufficient doubt about their presence at the place of occurrence ... This fact also found corroboration from the fact that perusal of post - mortem report and inquest report revealed that dead body was brought to hospital by the police and was identified by two persons , who were not the alleged eye - witnesses of the occurrence Thus , alleged eye - witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the post - mortem report In absence of physical proof qua presence of the witnesses at the crime scene , the same could not be relied upon --- In view of the material contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses and the fact that they did not accompany the deceased in the hospital and that their names were neither mentioned in inquest report nor in post - mortem report as the identifiers of the dead body spoke volumes about their absence at the place of occurrence Hence , their testimonies were unreliable Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt 2024 SCMR 1449
0 Comments