PLD 2024 SC 1119
No doubt,the mere production of C.D.R., without transcripts of the calls or complete audio recordings, cannot be deemed reliable evidence. In addition to call transcripts, it must also be established on record that the individuals at both ends of the call are the same as those whose call data is produced as evidence. The Courts must exercise heightened caution when evaluating such evidence, as advancements in science and technology have greatly facilitated the editing and alteration of recordings to suit one's preferences.
So far as the investigation of this case is concerned, we believe that the investigation of heinous offences, such as kidnapping or abduction for ransom, is of paramount importance due to the severe implications these crimes have on victims and society. An organized and thorough investigation serves several critical functions in the pursuit of justice. First and foremost, a well-conducted investigation ensures that all relevant evidence is collected, preserved, and presented before the court in a manner that supports the case of the prosecution. This includes gathering physical evidence, such as surveillance footage, phone records, and ransom notes, as well as securing witness testimonies strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules/law on the subject. Each piece of evidence must be carefully analyzed to construct a coherent and compelling narrative of the events. The I.O., in such cases, must employ various modern techniques, including geofencing for tracing communications, identifying patterns in the kidnappers' behavior, and leveraging technological tools to track movements. The urgency of these situations demands prompt and precise action to prevent harm to the victim. It is essential to explore all leads and corroborate findings to build a strong case that withstands judicial scrutiny. This process also involves understanding the motives and methods of the kidnappers, which can provide invaluable insights for future prevention and enforcement strategies. Additionally, the credibility of the criminal justice system hinges on the integrity of the investigation. A flawed or negligent investigation can lead to wrongful accusations, undermining public trust and allowing the true culprits to evade justice. Therefore, the I.O. must adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and diligence, ensuring that their findings are accurate and unbiased.
It is a settled principle of law that once a single loophole/lacuna is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused.
Having considered the available evidence from all corners in juxtaposition, we have observed that the prosecution has bumped into significant challenges in substantiating their allegations against the petitioners. The defence has presented a version of events that stands in stark contrast to the prosecution's narrative, and it is incumbent upon the latter to rebut this version with concrete evidence. However, the prosecution has not produced any such evidence to counter the defence claims. This raises serious questions about the strength of the prosecution case and whether they have fulfilled their burden of proving the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, the defence witnesses have undergone a rigorous cross-examination process, designed to test the veracity and reliability of their testimonies. Despite the length and intensity of this cross-examination, nothing has emerged that could be construed as favorable to the prosecution case. The accounts of the defence witnesses have remained consistent and unshaken, which further undermines the position of theprosecution.In light of these observations, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is lacking in evidentiary support, and the defence version of events remains uncontroverted. The absence of a rebuttal from the prosecution, coupled with the steadfast testimonies of the defence witnesses, may very well tilt the scales in favor of the petitioner-side. We find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the peitinoeors that no cause of abduction or kidnapping is made out and ingredients of offences punishable under section 365-A, P.P.C. and 7(e) of the ATA are not attracted in this case.Moreover, the prosecution presented no evidence to show that the petitioners were previously involved in similar crimes or had ever been convicted of any such offence. This situation necessitates careful consideration by the court, as the principles of justice and fairness demand that no individual should be convicted without sufficient evidence.
J.P.431/2016
Asmat Ullah Khan v. The State
Under the law, a criminal appeal abates on the death of an appellant, but section 431, Cr.P.C. provides an exception to this general rule. It provides that an appeal against a sentence of the fine shall not abate by reason of death of an appellant, because it is not a matter, which affects his person, it would certainly affect his estate. Thus, upon the death of an appellant, his appeal to the extent of a portion of the sentence of imprisonment, abates whereas, the appeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of an appellant,shall not abate and is to be heard on merits and in accordance with the settled principle of the criminal justice.
J.P.431/2016
Asmat Ullah Khan v. The State
PLD 2024 SC 1119
0 Comments