وجہ عناد دو دھاری تلوار ہے ۔ملزم کو محض وجہ عناد کی بنا پر سزایاب نہ کیا جا سکتا ہے

Motive--- Double edged weapon for false implication--- Prosecution alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a longstanding blood feud enmity between the parties---Record shows that the defense had not denied the existence of such enmity---When there were open hostilities between two groups, the motive factor may propel one side to commit a crime, and the same factor may possibly induce the other group to implicate their rivals---Even otherwise, motive was a double- edged weapon, which could be (naeem)used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement---As such merely because of motive, the appellants could not be held responsible for the alleged offence---

2024 SCMR 1839

 Joint recovery of alleged weapons of offence on pointation of accused persons---Inadmissible in evidence---Investigating Officer acknowledged during cross-examination that both recoveries (of alleged weapons of offence) were made from the same place and on the same date---Even otherwise it was not the stance of the investigating offices that he conducted the recovery proceedings independently and separately for each appellant (accused)---Besides, the recovery memos were also silent about which appellant first led to the recovery or pointed out the place of recovery---As the police took both appellants together in the same vehicle for the recovery and recovered the weapons from the same place and at the same date and time, it was to be considered a joint recovery for all purposes, irrespective of the fact that the investigating officer prepared two separate recovery memos--Joint recovery was of no evidentuary value and is inadmissible in evidence--- Furthermore, the record showed that the above-mentioned weapons, as per the report of the Provincial Forensic Science Laboratory, did not match the crime cartridges allegedly recovered from the scene of the occurrence, even though both weapons were found to be in mechanical operating condition with working safety features-As such, there coveries of the weapons of offence did not support and advance the case of the prosecution-Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court were set aside, and consequently, both the appellants, were acquitted of the charge.

2024 SCMR 1839

Material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of complainant and alleged eye-witness---Presence of complainant and alleged eye-witness at the scene of occurrence doubtful... While appearing as a witness, the complainant improved his previous statement and categorically described the type of firearm each accused person allegedly carried at the time of occurrence---However, he did not explain how he came to know what type of firearm each accused person, including the appellants, was carrying when, according to his own account, he was sitting in the rear seat of the car, from where it would have been impossible for him to see the whole occurrence--- Furthermore, the complainant, during cross-examination, asserted that the application for the registration of the FIR was drafted 10 to 20 minutes after the incident, and the police arrived at the scene within 10 to 15 minutes---However, the complainant expressed ignorance about the person who drafted the said application---Complainant further disclosed that he remained at the scene for 10 minutes before being taken to the hospital for medical treatment---In contrast, the alleged injured eye- witness, made an entirely different statement, contradicting the complainant by stating that the police arrived at the scene 45 to 50 minutes after the incident; he further mentioned that the District Police Officer, also arrived at the scene, a fact not disclosed or alleged by the complainant---Said contradictions between eye-witness statements cast doubt on whether both witnesses were actually present at the scene---This doubt arose because if they had both witnessed the same event, their accounts should reasonably have aligned on key details--- Moreover, it was an admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses did not attribute the shots that hit the deceased or injured to any specific accused persons, including the appellants; rather, a general role of indiscriminate firing was attributed to all the accused persons---They also did not describe the exact seating arrangement of the accused persons on the motorbikes while fleeing from the scene---This omission of important details further casted doubt on their presence at the place of occurrence---Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court were set aside, and consequently, both the appellants, were acquitted of the charge.

2024 SCMR 1839