302. Punishment of qatl-i-amd.--Whoever commits qatl-i-amd shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, be--
(a) punished with death as qisas;
(b) punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta'zir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in Section 304 is not available; or
(c) punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years (but shall not be less than ten years), where according to the Injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable:
[Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to offence to qatl-i-amd if committed in the name or on the pretext of honour and the same shall fall within the ambit of clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be.]
COMMENTARY
1. Scope. Accused can come within the mischief of this section only if death is direct result of the injury. PLD 1976 S.C. 377. Ingredients of the offence are felonious intention and an injury causing the death. PLD 1976 S.C. 377. Mere altercation not sufficient to bring exception in operation. PLD 1962 Dacca 424. Culpable homicide may not be murder where the mental state is not of the special degree of criminality required by S. 300 PPC, 1981 SCMR 329. No culpability in putting a person to death in execution of legal punishment. PLD 1980 FSC 1. Section 302 (As amended) a compoundable offence. 1992 PCr.LJ 982. Substitution of charge u/S. 302 with that u/S. 308. Not warranted by law. NLR 1999 Cr.S.C. 36. Corroboration can be gathered from the events. PLD 2001 S.C. 333. Accused aging 16.1/2 years. Child within the meaning of Juvenile Court. PLD 2001 Lah 479.
2. Administration of justice. Justice is not only to be done but should be seen to have been done. Leniency not to be shown at the cost of justice. 2000 PCr.LJ 1956.
3. Qatl-i-Amad. Qatl-i-Amd has three categories:
(i) Qatl-i-Amd which is punishable with death as Qisas;
(ii) Qatl-i-Amd punishable with death or life imprisonment as Ta'zir; and
(iii) Qatl-i-Amd punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the Injunctions of Islam the punishment of Qisas is not applicable.
Section 302 of the P.P.C. contemplates plainly clearly a category of cases which are within the definition of Qatl-i-Amd but for which the punishment can, under the Islamic Law, be one other than death or life imprisonment. As to what are the cases falling under clause (c) of S. 302, the law maker has left it to the Courts to decide on a case to case basis. PLD 1996 S.C. 274. Qatl committed on account of Ghairat is not equivalent to qatl-i-amd, pure and simple and cannot be punishable with qisas. 1997 PCr.LJ 1411. Charge of common intention to murder in pursuit of a family vendetta. Immaterial at such stage as to whose shot proved fatal. 1999 PCr.LJ 9, 1995 SCMR 1765 rel. Offence when proved has to be met with the maximum sentence provided therefor, however, circumstances of each case would justify the severity and leniency in passing the legal sentence. [PLD 2004 Pesh 143]
4. Crime of Karo Kari and Siyah Kari. No one is to be permitted any more to take the law in his own hands on the pretext of punishing infidels. PLD 2003 Kar 655.
5. Abatement. One of the convict dying. Appeal not abated. 1989 MLD 3730. Convict dying trying to escape in jail break up-Sentence of fine not abated. PLD 1987 Kar. 250.
6. Abscondence. Abscondence by itself does not establish guilt unless corroborated by other cogent evidence, 2000 PCr.LJ 2038. An important factor. 1989 PCr.LJ 784. Has to be judged in circumstances of each case. 1989 MLD 4219. Long period-Can be used as corroborative piece of evidence. 1989 PCr.LJ 1511, 1275. By itself not a substantive piece of evidence, 1989 PCr.LJ 2289, nor sufficient for conviction. 1989 PCr.LJ 2100; PLD 1986 Pesh. 150. Not a corroboratory evidence. 1987 MLD 1287. Right of hearing forfeited. PLD 1987 Kar. 250. Accused can evade arrest on account of false implication. 1986 SCMR 982. Absconding by far weakest corroborative evidence. PLD 1977 S.C. 41. Duty of the Court to sift evidence. 1989 PCr.LJ 2336; 1987 SCMR 1. Not proved. 1989 MLD 3108. For some days per se not helpful. 1989 PCr.LJ 2038. Warrant not placed on record. 1989 PCr.LJ 2315. Benefit can be extended to accused even if plea not taken. PLD 1986 Lah. 382. Abscondence alone is not enough to sustain conviction. 1997 PCr.LJ 961, 1453. In determining the effect of abscondence, the antecedents of the' absconder, his occupational habits and limitations, period of abscondence and specific explanation for abscondence have to be considered in juxtaposition with other evidence on the record. 2003 PCr.LJ 64. Absconding alone cannot be a substitute for real evidence. 2002 PCr.LJ 1914.
Abscondence per se not sufficient for conviction, 1994 MLD 590 to adjudge accused guilty, 1993 PCr.LJ 1118, has never the effect of remedying the defects in the evidence led by prosecution. PLD 1995 Lah 229. Conduct plays an important part in determining guilt. A corroborative evidence. 2001 SCMR 177. Abscondence alone cannot be a substitute for real evidence. [PLD 2004 Pesh 1] Mere abscondence per se is not sufficient for establishing the guilt of accused person unless prosecution is able to establish its case through unimpeachable evidence. [2004 PCr.LJ 788] At the most can be taken as corroboration of charge and not as evidence of the charge. [PLD 2004 Pesh 143]
7. Accomplice. Solitary statement cannot form basis for conviction. PLD 1994 S.C. 314.
Accused. Underage. PLD 1987 Kar. 110; 1987 MLD 1953. Accused deaf and dumb. 1987 MLD 1016. No reason not to award legal sentence. PLD 1964 S.C. 801.
8. Amnesty. Claim of. PLD 1993 S.C. 17; 1994 SCMR 1216; 1993 SCMR 1940. Appeal pending in the Supreme Court. Benefit of general amnesty allowed. 1974 SCMR 271.
9. Remission. Remission granted to accused through notifications prior to his conviction not admissible. [PLD 2004 Quetta 1]
10. Right of self-defence. Accused even in the absence of his own evidence in his defence is entitled to support his plea of right of self-defence from the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. 2003 YLR 1369.
11. Medical evidence. Medical evidence can furnish corroboration but can neither establish identity of assailant nor connect him with the crime. 2003 PCr.LJ 1847. Medical evidence is always treated to be of confirmatory nature and it does not identify the accused involved in the commission of offence. [PLD 2004 S.C. 663] Medical evidence if in conflict with the ocular testimony will not discard the latter if the same is true, reliable and confidence-inspiring. [PLD 2004 Quetta 123] Various pieces of prosecution evidence cannot be considered in isolation but a cumulative effect of whole prosecution evidence is to be considered. [PLD 2004 Quetta 123]
Ocular account corroborated by medical evidence. Fatal injury attributed to accused. Prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt-Appeal was dismissed. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1043.
Medical evidence had supported prosecution case. Deceased lost his life due to fire-arm injuries, but it did not lead to the assailant. Deceased was involved in a number of cases including those of murder and had many accounts to settle and it could not be said that only accused had the motive against the deceased. Alleged pistol of .30 bore recovered at the instance of accused, was never sent to F.S.L. nor any empty was recovered from the spot. No independent witness was produced during trial to prove the recovery. Recovery evidence, could not be used against accused. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 398.
Medical evidence, in no way was inconsistent with prosecution story. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, crime empties had matched with the Kalashnikov recovered from the accused. PLJ 2008 SC 360.
Medical evidence and the recoveries of the crime empties and the weapon of offence to connect the appellants with the commission of offence. Prosecution proved his case beyond shadow of doubt. PLJ 2008 SC 396.
12. Injured witness. Not sufficient to hold that he had spoken the whole truth. [PLD 2004 Pesh 1]
13. Retracted confession. May be treated to be sufficient to sustain a conviction if found voluntary and true, but as a rule of prudence, the same should not be acted upon unless corroborated by some other reliable evidence. [2004 PCr.LJ 677]
14. Presence of eye witnesses doubtful. Presence of eye witnesses on the spot being highly doubtful and their testimony having been belied by medical evidence positive report of the ballistic expert will not improve the prosecution case where bullet recovered from the dead body not sent to Serologist. [2004 PCr.LJ 813] Conviction u/S. 302 on sole statement of eye witness whose credibility is not to be based but Court should look for independent corroboration. [NLR 2004 Cri. (Quetta) 96] If evidence of solitary eye witness satisfies conscious of the Court and is found confidence-inspiring, conviction can be based. [NLR 2004 Cri. (Quetta) 107]
15. Accused. A minor. Accused less than 16 years old, a juvenile, capital punishment not to be imposed, entitled to benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., being mandatory. [2004 PCr.LJ 874] Accused less than 18 years of age not sufficient to withhold normal penalty unless it is specifically established that there were some surrounding circumstances justifying award of lessor sentence. [NLR 2004 Cri. (Quetta) 107].
16. Blood stained earth not taken. Three eye witnesses receiving grievous fire arm injuries which could not be fabricated or self suffered, if the I.O. had not taken the blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence it might be due to his inefficiency and cannot belie ocular account which is fully corroborated by medical evidence. [2004 PCr.LJ 805]
17. Absence of enmity. Not sufficient to stamp the statement of a witness with truth. [2004 PCr.LJ 1308]
18. Non-recovery of weapon. No help in the absence of ocular testimony in line with medical evidence. Bail refused. 2001 PCr.LJ 134. Role of causing injury on the left lank of deceased. Bail not allowed. 2001 PCr.LJ 180. Accused armed with .12 bore gun. Pelted brick blood stained. Bail declined. 2001 PCr.LJ 185.
19. Benefit of doubt. Reasonable doubt not an imaginary but which having regard to the circumstances of the case would be entertained by a person of common prudence. 1974 SCMR 215. Conclusion reached without taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. Benefit of doubt given to accused. PLD 1973 S.C. 469. Evidence of approver-unworthy of credit. PLD 1971 S.C. 447. Evidence of eye-witnesses inconsistent with medical evidence. 1972 SCMR 74; 1972 SCMR 221. Prosecution witnesses interested and inimical towards accused. 1970 SCMR 840. Enmity between the parties. Possibility of the accused being falsely implicated not ruled out. 1970 SCMR 220. Incident in a busy market. No independent evidence. Benefit goes to the accused. 1973 SCMR 12. Neither the prosecution nor the defence coming out with true version. Discrepancies of serious nature-Benefit given to the accused. 1973 SCMR 26. No evidence as to which of the accused were responsible for the fatal injury. Benefit of doubt goes to all the accused. 1968 SCMR 18. Plea of accused also be considered. PLD 1977 S.C. 15. Unseen murder. PLJ 1979 S.C. 172. Discrepancies between statements of eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence. 1977 SCMR 393. Mere suspicion. 1990 MLD 2374. Prosecution and defence version equally plausible. 1990 MLD 1023. Acquittal, does not mean that accused falsely implicated. 1990 SCMR 1277; PLD 1959 S.C. 480. Bride burning. 1987 PSC 713. No direct motive. 1994 MLD 1432. Extra judicial confession. 1994 PCr.LJ 281-1901. Contradictory statement by P.Ws. 1994 PCr.LJ 935. Misreading of evidence. 1994 PCr.LJ 1631. Eye witnesses conflicting with medical evidence. 1994 MLD 849. Weapon not found stained with blood. PLD 1994 Lah 187. Deceased not proved to have been last seen alive in the company of accused. 1994 MLD 387. Defence plea may be raised or not. PLD 1994 S.C. 679; PLD 1994 S.C. 128. No bullet mark noticed by police. PLD 1994 Lah 430. Single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt sufficient. 1996 PCr.LJ 1575. Interested witness one who has motive to falsely implicate accused. Evidence can be believed if corroborated. 1996 PCr.LJ 1652. Prosecution has to stand on its own legs and the conviction is certainly not to be based on weakness of defence. 1996 PCr.LJ 136. Complainant and eye-witness improving prosecution by exaggerating the matter beyond the contents of F.I.R. PLD 2003 S.C. 14. Presence of the deceased, a stranger, in the house of accused in the night hours, a sufficient extenuating circumstance in favour of accused. PLD 2003 S.C. 26.
20. Absence of postmortem report. Unnatural death of deceased by the pistol shot fired by the accused having been proved by the ocular testimony, failure to conduct postmortem not fatal. [2004 P.Cr.L. 1326]
21. Police statement. Statement of I.O. being merely an opinion cannot be substituted for any piece of evidence. [2004 PCr.LJ 1710]
22. Testimony of minor girls. Testimony of minor girls sustaining injuries having no motive to falsely implicate accused, honest and straight-forward, High Court not justified to give over due-importance to the defence plea, judgment of acquittal set aside and that of conviction restored. [PLD 2004 S.C. 403]
23. Contradiction/improvements. Any contradictions/improvements or other factors made by witness reflecting adversely on his credibility, would not by itself, be sufficient to reject his testimony as a whole. Court can rely upon a portion of the testimony of such witness if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence or circumstances. [2004 SCMR 477]
24. Approver. Exculpatory statement cannot be used against another co-accused. 1989 PCr.LJ 1262. Accomplice evidence. 1989 MLD 1271. Evidentiary value. 1989 SCMR 1375. Lacking corroboration. 1989 MLD 1638. Tests. 1987 PCr.LJ 631. Approver cannot corroborate himself. PLD 1979 S.C. 53. Evidence of approver-Unworthy of credit. PLD 1971 S.C. 447.
25. Bail. Basic concept. PLD 1953 F.C. 170. Merit of the case should not be gone into. 1968 SCMR 728. Bail should not be withheld as a punishment. PLD 1968 S.C. 349. Heinousness of offence not by itself sufficient to take away the discretion. PLD 1962 S.C. 495. Inordinate delay in prosecution amounts abusing the process of law. PLD 1968 S.C. 353. Charge of murder. Not an insuperable bar. PLD 1962 S.C. 495. Uttering of lalkara. PLD 1966 SC 658. On medical ground. 1980 SCMR 305. Japha only attributed. 1981 SCMR 850. Deceased had earlier eloped with the wife of accused. 1984 SCMR 1557. Case of further inquiry. 1984 SCMR 1559. Ineffective firing. Case of further inquiry. Bail allowed. 2001 PCr.LJ 80. General allegations of pelting stones on the house. Bail allowed. No overt act proved bail Lalkara. Bail allowed. 2001 PCr.LJ 1. No specific role. Bail allowed. 2001 PCr.LJ 41.
26. Two versions. The case of prosecution has to stand squarely on its own legs and has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts; the case of defence has to be accepted even if it is only probable and not proved beyond doubt. 1997 PCr.LJ 1. The version which is more plausible and nearer to realities and common sense is to be accepted. 2002 PCr.LJ 270.
In the following cases benefit of doubt given to accused:
1. Identity of accused as killer of the deceased not established. 2002 PCr.LJ 34.
2. Single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent man, benefit has to be given to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. 2002 PCr.LJ 34.
27. Burden of proof. Conviction certainly not to be based on the weakness of the defence. 1993 PCr.LJ 541. Defence plea how to be considered. 1993 SCMR 417. Prosecution has to succeed on its own merits. 1995 PCr.LJ 25; 1995 PCr.LJ 510. Even if defence plea is raised burden on prosecution never lessened. PLD 1994 S.C. 679. Accused may or may not take any defence. PLD 1994 S.C. 178. Conviction on defective charge. Case remanded. 1997 PCr.LJ 1663. Burden of proof always on prosecution does not change or vary even where the accused has taken defence. PLD 1999 Lah. 56. Accused tried on a special charge there has to be evidence of unimpeachable character. 2002 PCr.LJ 915.
28. Charge. Charge once framed not rigid, can be altered or changed by the Court under S. 227, Cr.P.C. 2000 PCr.LJ 576.
29. Chemical Examiner. The duty is to indicate the number of bloodstains found on each exhibit and the extent of each stain. PLD 1956 S.C. (Ind) 59.
30. Common intention. Some overt act must be established. PLD 1970 SC 316. Can be formed at the spur of moment 1973 SCMR 503. Absence of common intention-Each of the accused can be found guilty. PLD 1957 S.C. (Ind) 390. Knife taken from `dab' on the spur of moment-Individual act. PLD 1964 S.C. 177. All the accused acquitted except one, common intention disappears PLD 1956 S.C. (Ind) 59. Vicarious liability. 1970 SCMR 576; PLD 1977 S.C. 446. Role not convincing. 1990 PCr.LJ 1. Source of light. 1990 MLD 1110. Allegation of holding deceased. 1990 PCr.LJ 2074. No overt act attributed. 1989 MLD 1716. Attack neither premeditated nor preconcerted. 1989 MLD 4900. No premeditation or sharing of common object. 1989 PCr.LJ 1431. Immediate cause of occurrence not known. 1989 MLD 2701: Vicarious liability. PLD 1985 Sh.C. AJ&K 18.
Complaint. Complaint case instituted on being dissatisfied with the police. Investigation. Challan case to remain dormant. 1993 MLD 1395. Complaint case to be taken first. 1993 MLD 1395. Complaint case to be taken first. 1993 PCr.LJ 2435; PLD 1979 S.C. 531; PLD 1966 S.C. 708.
31. Compounding of offence. Offence under S. 302, PPC has been made compoundable by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, 1992 PCr.LJ 443; w.e.f. 2.10.1990. All walis/legal heirs of deceased can enter into compromise. 1992 PCr.LJ 1655. Compromise entered into by father, mother and widow on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children is competent. 1993 PSC (Cr.) 108; 1992 PCr.LJ 1664. Compounding of Qisas and compounding of offence are two separate terms. Compounding of offence is provided by S. 345, Cr.P.C. while compounding of Qisas is provided under S. 310, PPC. 1992 PCr.LJ 1960. The saving provisions of Ss. 309, 310 and 338E and 338 H, PPC apply to pending cases. PLJ 1992 Cr.C.(Pesh) 392. Legal heirs of the deceased may forgive the accused in the name of Almighty Allah, 1994 SCMR 1262 - 1247+ 1994 PCr.LJ 980; in appeal 1993 SCMR 1989; 1994 PCr.LJ 2472; 1994 SCMR 1145, after conviction. 1992 ALD 298. Interest of minors should be safeguarded. 1993 SCMR 1574. Amount may be deposited in the name of minor. 1994 MLD 1294. Partial compromise. 1994 PCr.LJ 1587. A mitigating circumstance. 1989 ALD 558(2); 1989 PCr.LJ 1628, 1289, 869; 1989 SCMR 176. Heirs receiving Rs. 2.00 lac. 1992 PCr.LJ 1473, 1457, 1655. Compromise effected' between complainant and co-accused, legal descendents not compromising, order of acquittal set aside. [2004 PCr.LJ 1341] Concession of compromise available to accused where sentence has been awarded as qisas and not where awarded as ta'zir. PLJ 2004 SC 500.
32. Sentence awarded for murder as ta'zir. Sentence awarded for murder as tazir can be compounded but by all the legal heirs of the deceased with permission of the Court concerned. 2003 YLR 1358. No compromise can be termed as a valid compromise unless and until the same is executed between the parties at their own, voluntarily with free consent and without any fear, influence, coercion and deception. Compromise can only be executed with free will of the party. No compromise will be accepted, authenticity and genuineness is not above board. Badl-i-Sulh cannot be accepted if the sentence is admittedly awarded by way of tazir and not qisas. PLD 2003 S.C. 547.
33. Award of compensation. Accused acted in grave and sudden provocation when the deceased was found to be indulging in immoral activities, such as sexual intercourse, normally compensation not to be granted to legal heirs of the deceased. PLD 2003 Lah 559.
34. Confession. Confession retracted. PLD 1990 S.C. 484.; 1987 PCr.LJ 1364. Presence found doubtful. 1990 ALD 46(1). Recoveries unreliable. 1990 SCMR 669. Confession-Judicial. 1987 MLD 1465. Exculpatory. 1990 MLD 581. Retraction. Effect in Islamic Law. PLD 1990 S.C. 484. Cannot be relied if necessary formalities not complied with. 1992 PCr.LJ 1963. Extra-judicial confession not by itself sufficient to sustain conviction'. 1987 PCr.LJ 1469. Out of inducement. 1987 PCr.LJ 576. A week type of evidence. 1987 P.Cr.L. 676; 1987 MLD 959. Joint extra judicial confession-Not admissible. 1993 PCr.LJ 23; 1994 PCr.LJ 346. Retracted. 1993 PCr.LJ 1118. In police custody. 1993 PCr.LJ 1231; 1995 PCr.LJ 313. Conviction cannot be based. 1995 PCr.LJ 339. A weak type of evidence. 1995 PCr.LJ 905. Conviction on the basis of retracted confession of co-accused. Against the spirit of law. 1997 PCr.LJ 163. Conviction can be based on a retracted confession provided it is proved to be voluntary. 1997 PCr.LJ 169. Magistrate not assuring accused that in case he did not make confession he would not be remanded to police custody. For safe administration of justice confessional statement ruled out from consideration. 2002 PCr.LJ 1463.
35. Extra-judicial confession. Extra judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence needs corroboration without which it would not be sufficient to base conviction thereon. 2002 PCr.LJ 34. Extra judicial confession being a weak type of evidence cannot be made basis to determine the question of guilt or innocence of accused till the same is corroborated by any other incriminating and confirmatory evidence. [2004 PCr.LJ 587] Judicial or extra judicial confession, retracted or not can legally be considered against its maker and if the same is found to be true and voluntary then no further corroboration is needed at all. [PLD 2004 S.C. 342]
36. Judicial confession. Retracted judicial confession of accused was not in conformity with the ocular evidence with regard to the time and circumstances of the occurrence and it was also not in consonance with medical evidence especially about the number of shots fired at the deceased and was not corroborated by material particulars. Acquitted. PLD 2003 S.C. 70. Alleged confessional statement inconsistent with prosecution version. Not voluntary, not safe to record conviction. 2004 PCr.LJ 1239.
37. Confession before police. Inadmissible. 2004 YLR 206.
38. Confessional statement of co-accused. Accused cannot be convicted for the offence on the basis of statement/confessional statement made by co-accused. [PLD 2004 Kar 582.
Confessional statement, belated and retracted. Recoveries. Effect. Such confessional statement and evidence of recoveries only, being purely of corroborative in nature are not capable to bring home charge against accused in absence of direct evidence. 2009 SCMR 4.
39. Contributory negligence. Accused intending to shoot but causing death of a child due to provocation. Death of child accidental. 1969 SCMR 855. Attack not justified. PLD 1973 S.C. 332(346); 1969 SCMR 405.
40. Deceased last seen. In the company of accused. PLD 1977 S.C. 515; PLD 1978 S.C. 21. PLJ 1972 S.C. 129: PLJ 1977 S.C. 352; PLJ 1976 S.C. 258; 1977 SCMR 20.
41. Discharge of accused by Magistrate. Magistrate has no authority or jurisdiction to discharge accused whose case exclusively triable by Sessions Court. 2000 PCr.LJ 43.
42. Dying declaration. Has a degree of sanctity but the case ought to have been considered in all its physical environment. PLD 1970 S.C. 13. Incomplete not admissible. PLD 1949 P.C. 299. All the eye-witnesses present in the hospital. PLD 1970 S.C. 406. Dying declaration can be used as FIR. 1971 SCMR 516 ; 1969 SCMR 85. Dying declaration uncorroborated. PLJ 1977 S.C. 481. Not necessary to have been made under immediate apprehension of death. 1975 SCMR 289. Dying declaration lacking integrity. PLD 1984 S.C. 433. Recorded at Police Station in presence of relative. 1984 SCMR 1094. Deceased not in full control of faculties. PLJ 1980 S.C. 377. After mortal injuries. 1984 SCMR 263; PLJ 1981 S.C. 90. Value. 1994 SCMR 1852; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. Corroborated by medical evidence. 1994 MLD 1046. Conviction on. 1994 MLD 1046; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. A weak piece of evidence. 1995 PCr.LJ 179. Relevant consideration for determining the evidentiary value of dying declaration are whether the deceased then injured, was capable of making a statement; that whether he did make a statement orally or it was recorded by someone, that whether the statement made by him was corroborated by independent evidence. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Imminent apprehension of death not necessary. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Dying declaration made soon after the incident or at a time when the deceased expected death deserves great weight and cannot be discarded on the assumption of being the result of consultation. [PLD 2004 S.C. 367]
Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by I.O., has fully supported the prosecution case. Vital piece of evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded at the Hospital. Deceased in his statement has provided detail of the motive behind occurrence. No illegality or infirmity has been found in the dying declaration which was recorded by the deceased at hospital under the apprehension of impending death. During the investigation, weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant and on his pointation from his residential house. PW, ASI in his statement has furnished a credible account of recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant. Although, PW, ASI was a police witness best his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone as a police witness is a good witness as any. Testimony furnished by the witness was fully supported by report of Chemical Examiner in which it is stated that chhurri was stained with human blood. Factum of recovery of chhurri from the appellant established at the trial. Ocular account furnished by witnesses has received further corroboration from the medical evidence. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 996.
43. Empties and crime weapons. Delay simpliciter in dispatching. Not fatal. PLD 1987 Quetta 77; See PLD 1982 S.C. 92; 1982 SCMR 531. No crime weapon recovered from possession of accused at the time of his arrest. Ballistic Expert Report cannot be used against him. 1997 PCr.LJ 280
44. Evidence. Mere personal opinion of a police officer-No longer evidence. 2001 PCr.LJ 9. Not inspiring the confidence. No evidence. 1971 SCMR 256. Witness found to be false in parts. 1969 SCMR 132. Evidence conflicting and contradictory. PLD 1973 S.C. 469. Prosecution evidence rejected. Conviction cannot be based on the statement of the accused. 1969 SCMR 839. Evidence of approver. Unworthy of credit. PLD 1971 S.C. 447. Accomplice's evidence. PLD 1973 S.C. 595; 1978 SCMR 685. Medical evidence 1968 SCMR 428. Ocular evidence must be of an unimpeachable character. 1973 SCMR 245. Prosecution evidence disbelieved qua the acquitted co-accused. Same set cannot be believed qua the accused without corroboration. 1990 PCr.LJ 1840. Last seen evidence-Not sufficient to earn conviction. NLR 1987 Cr. 846; 1987 PCr.LJ 676. Medical evidence can provide corroboration of confirmatory nature but cannot be used as corroboration qua accused. PLD 1994 S.C. 178. Quality and not quantity worth consideration 1995 PCr.LJ 189. Court to see whether the witness was in a position to witness the crime. 1995 PCr.LJ 74. Suspicion, however, strong not by itself sufficient. 1995 PCr.LJ 25. No direct evidence. 1994 PCr.LJ 1901. No person from vicinity included. 1994 PCr.LJ 566. Medical evidence only a corroborated piece of evidence. 1994 MLD 352. Value. PLD 1994 S.C. 178; PLD 1994 Lah 408. Doctor's opinion cannot prevail over the direct evidence. 1994 SCMR 1614. Eye witnesses compromising his integrity. PLD 1993 S.C. 251. Real cause of murder shrouded in mystery. PLJ 1994 S.C. 549. Must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 1993 PCr.LJ 2225 - 2954. Tainted evidence. 1993 SCMR 1602. Mere presence of a person on the spot not sufficient to saddle him with criminal liability. 1993 PCr.LJ 55. May confirm nature of injury. 1994 SCMR 1928; PLD 1994 Lah 430. Opinion not conclusive. PLD 1994 Pesh 176; 1993 PCr.LJ 1011. Only a corroborative piece of evidence. 1994 MLD 352. Cannot overweight direct evidence. PLD 1994 Lah 430. Prosecution version not supported by any independent evidence whereas that of the defence appear to the conscious of man of ordinary prudence. Sentence altered. 2000 PCr.LJ 175. Ocular testimony in a very sharp conflict with medical evidence. Three months delay in sending the crime empties to Ballistic Expert, accused acquitted. 2000 PCr.LJ 191. Bullets not proved to have been fired from the recovered fire-arm. Accused acquitted. 2000 PCr.LJ 127.
45. Circumstantial evidence. Can be considered sufficient provided the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 1993 PCr.LJ 168. Qisas takes place only when the person murdered is not liable to be murdered or is Masoom-ud-dam. 1992 SCMR 2047. Press reports-Hearsay evidence. 1995 PCr.LJ 313. Direct evidence would prevail over medical evidence. PLD 1996 Lah 360. Site plan-Not substantive piece of evidence. PLD 1996 Lah 360. While appraising the circumstantial evidence the Court is to keep in mind the location of the incident. If the place of incident is a place where no witness was available and the accused and the exclusive knowledge about the incident, the simpliciter denial on the part of the accused will not be sufficient to nullify the circumstantial evidence of the nature which directly connects him with the commission of the offence charged with. But he should raise a plea of the nature which on being tested on the touchstone of probabilities warrants a reasonable hypothesis of the accused's innocence. PLD 1996 S.C. 305 (p. 316). Ocular evidence-Assessment and valuation of. 1997 PCr.LJ 321. If statement of eye-witnesses recorded with delay having no explanation cannot be accepted against accused. 1993 SCMR 550. Evidence to be evaluated as a whole even if benefit goes to accused. 2001 SCMR 424. Court is duty bound to be on guard while appraising such circumstantial evidence and to see that each circumstance is proved independently and is so connected with the other circumstance that it constituted as unbroken chain and leads to no other inference but to the guilt of the assailant. 2002 PCr.LJ 149.
46. Clash in medical evidence. Testimonies of eye witnesses worthy of credence. 2002 PCr.LJ 113.
47. Corroborative evidence. Used to support the statements of witnesses when the Court reaches the conclusion that the version of the prosecution witnesses is prima facie correct. Conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of corroboratory evidence. 2002 PCr.LJ 1541.
48. Cross-examination. Statement not challenged, in legal presumption to have been admitted. 1993 PCr.LJ 1632 +1994 PCr.LJ 2102.
49. False implication. 1969 SCMR 936; PLD 1964 S.C. 26; 1971 SCMR 432 ; 1968 SCMR 912. Witness found to be false in part cannot be disbelieved in whole. 1969 SCMR 132. Benefit of reasonable doubt arising from discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence. Cannot be denied to accused on hypothesis. 1984 SCMR 1092.
50. Grave and sudden provocation. Provocation is a psychological matter and it mainly consist of three elements, namely, the act of provocation, the loss of self control both actual and reasonable and retaliation proportionate to the provocation. There are five conditions for bringing the case of an accused person under the ambit of provocation, which are, (i) the deceased must have given provocation to the accused, (ii) the provocation must be grave, (iii) the provocation must be sudden, (iv) the offender by reasons of the said provocation should have been deprived of his power of self control and killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of power of control, (v) the offender must have caused the death of a person who gave provocation. It is necessary that the accused should take this plea in the cross examination to the witnesses and in his statement recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. [2004 PCr.LJ 1518]
"Grave". Involving or resulting in serious consequences. "Sudden". Happening of fact without previous notice or with very brief notice. PLD 1979 S.C. (AJK) 88. Abuses of being loafer, goonda, and vagrant, extreme penalty not awarded. Immorality not ground for sudden provocation. PLD 1979 S.C. (AJK) 130. Accused not taking undue advantage in sudden fight. PLD 1979 S.C. (AJK) 56. Seeing of woman (sister) in the company of stranger at odd hours. PLJ 1979 S.C. 371; PLD 1965 S.C. 366. Incident taking place after 8 hours of the quarrel not a sudden provocation. PLJ 1978 S.C. 386. Person is fully protected in law to maintain custody of trespassing cattle by the use of minimum force. PLJ 1976 S.C. 208. Killing of wife alongwith her paramour found in a compromising position. PLD 1977 S.C. 153. Person denied access to his legally-wedded wife. Case does not fall within exception. PLD 1979 S.C. (AJK) 44. Proposal for girl's hand refused. No justification for inflicting bodily injury. 1976 SCMR 199. Immoral demands. Denial. No ground for sudden provocation. 1978 SCMR 114. Sudden. Spontaneous. Act committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without any intention to kill or injure. PLD 1975 S.C. 607. Qatl committed on account of Ghariat. PLD 1994 Lah 392.
Sudden fight. Both sides using firearms. 1982 SCMR 291. Free fight. No right of self-defence available to any member. 1983 SCMR 648. Fatal shot attributed. Sentence under S. 304 maintained. PLD 1983 S.C. 390. Free fight. Complainant party found to have contributed to its origin. Sentence of fine sufficient. PLD 1981 S.C. 127= PLJ 1981 S.C. 394 = NLR 1981 Cr. (S.C.) 261. Distinction between knowledge and intention. PLD 1979 S.C. (AJK) 56; PLD 1971 S.C. 720; PLD 1973 S.C. 327. Lapse on the part of police to send confiscated articles to examiner. PLD 1984 S.C. (AJK) 21. Knife blow on back. 1981 SCMR 663. Absence of premeditation. 1981 SCMR 1248. Chance encounter. 1980 SCMR 247. Hitting by back side of the hatchet. 1980 SCMR 225. More proper to impute knowledge than intention. 1981 SCMR 663. Provocation-Test. PLD 1977 S.C. 153; 1983 SCMR 53; PLD 1984 S.C. (AJK) 21. 1984 SCMR 646; 1983 SCMR 969. Case of altercation. 1979 SCMR 589. Guilty intention. Test. 1973 SCMR 327. Sudden fight. Accused party also armed. Sudden fight. Question of self-defence of an academic nature. PLD 1958 S.C. 251. Plea supported by evidence. 1989 PCr.LJ 1445; 1989 MLD 2728. Not an exception per se. Punishment of Qisas. Where Qatl-i-Amd is committed can be mitigated only if proof of Zina is produced. 1992 PCr.LJ 1596. Accused to prove plea. 1992 MLD 2196. Illicit relation with daughter. 1992 PCr.LJ 1478. A stranger seeing a woman in the arms of another. Losing control. Entitled to benefit of exception. PLD 1993 Lah 848. Provocation must be direct, sudden and grave. 1993 MLD 1391. Plea can be taken into consideration even if not specifically raised. PLD 1993 Lah 527. Accused is Judge of his own danger, 1993 PCr.LJ 1646, cannot be expected to modulate his role. 1993 PCr.LJ 1333. Right of self defence cannot be claimed by aggressor or by an offender committing non-bailable offence. 1993 PCr.LJ 255. Act committed in free fight. PLD 1993 S.C. 1; 1994 PCr.LJ 1558 - 1640. Sudden fight in heat of passion. 1994 PSC (Cr.) 774. Intentional act. PLD 1993 S.C. 35, 1993 SCMR 189; 1993 PCr.LJ 1962. Grave and sudden provocation. Concept. Not recognized under S. 330, P.P.C. as amended. PLD 1996 S.C. 1. Law not concerned with the brain but with mind-Provocation must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self-control, as a result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death. In deciding the question whether this was or was not the case, regard must be had to the nature of the act by which the offender causes death, to the time which elapsed between the provocation and the act which caused death, to the offender's conduct during that interval, and to all other circumstances tending to show the state of his mind. PLD 1996 S.C. 274 (p. 282). Right to defend the honour of one's wife falls under S. 302(c), P.P.C. PLD 1996 S.C. 274.
51. Ghairat. Murder committed on account of ghairat. No offence. NLR 1999 Cr. Lah. 11. In case involving element of ghairat, there is a tendency to justify imposition of lesser penalty. 2000 PCr.LJ 175. Vindication of family owner and extenuating and mitigating circumstance. 2000 PCr.LJ 139.
52. Self-defence. Self-defence proved on record. Sentence converted from S. 302-B to S. 302-C PPC. 2002 PCr.LJ 908.
53. Identification. Dark night. Vain attempt to take the occurrence from dark to dark. Not possible. 1989 PCr.LJ 2100; 1989 PCr.LJ 1041. Statement made before Magistrate. 1989 MLD 1738. I.O. silent about presence of lantern at spot. 1989 PCr.LJ 1098. Accused shown to eye-witness. 1987 MLD 839. Night time incident. Visual. One of the categories of "subject evidence". Not safe to convict. PLD 1995 S.C. 475; PLD 1995 S.C. 1. Midnight occurrence. Identification without noting particular features. Doubtful. 1993 PCr.LJ 1849. Identification by voice doubtful, 1994 PCr.LJ 1057, in torch light not sufficient. 1994 PCr.LJ 1057. Real test. Testifying in the Court. 1994 PCr.LJ 150. Identification proceedings suffering from infirmity and illegality. 1995 PSC (Cr.) 181. Court insists having the ratio of dummies 8 to 10 for accused. 1995 PSC (Cr.) 186. If a witness gets a momentary glimpse of accused, the identification test becomes essential. 1995 PSC (Cr.) 186. Delayed, always looked upon with maximum caution by Court of law. 2002 PCr.LJ 349. Holding of identification test is not a legal requirement where identity can be established from other evidence on record, non-holding of identification test would not be fatal. [PLD 2004 Quetta 123]
54. Gun fire. Empties recovered from the spot were not found to have been fired from the weapon recovered from the accused as per report of fire arms expert. Such recovery is of no consequence. 1995 PSC (Cr.) 254.
55. Intention. Can be gathered from the nature of injury. 1969 SCMR 641. Squeezing testicles of victim. 1989 MLD 1119. Sudden flare up. 1989 SCMR 901.
56. Investigation. Although ipsi dixit of police not binding but has its effect. 1994 PCr.LJ 999.
57. Lalkara. Accused making lalkara. Acquitted. 1989 SCMR 1105.
58. Last seen evidence. Last seen evidence a weak type of circumstantial evidence cannot be made basis for conviction on murder charge when the witnesses were related to the deceased and his testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence. 2003 YLR 1364. Not sufficient to earn conviction. NLR 1987 Cr. 846; 1987 PCr.LJ 676. Wife of the accused met her death in his bed room when he was alone-Burden heavily on the accused. 1993 MLD 281. Conviction solely based is not sustainable. 1994 PCr.LJ 956. Deceased not proved to have been last seen alive in the company of accused. 1994 MLD 387. Last seen evidence. Not sufficient to earn conviction. NLR 1987 Cr. 846; 1987 PCr.LJ 676. Last seen evidence not enough to sustain conviction, independent corroboration required. 2003 YLR 1364. Last seen evidence though mentioned in FIR declared hostile, solitary statement of the complainant who was real uncle of the deceased could not be made basis to maintain conviction on capital charge. 2003 YLR 1447. Widow of the deceased not stating before the police at the initial stage that her deceased husband had left the house with the accused and she had dishonestly improved her statement at the trial, simply to link the accused with the missing deceased. Evidence of last seen of no consequence. Judicial confession made jointly, not admissible. [2004 PCr.LJ 586] Last seen evidence of deceased in the company of accused only available evidence free from any independent source to connect accused with commission of offence. The principle that no link in the chain should be broken, not proving the guilt. Accused acquitted. [2004 PCr.LJ 1161]
59. Motive. No motive to kill. PLD 1977 S.C. 462. Value of. 1977 SCMR 175. May be gathered from the choice of weapon and seat of injury. 1975 SCMR 289. Not a sine qua non for bringing offence home. 1983 SCMR 806. Failure to prove-immaterial if reliable inculpatory evidence available. 1984 SCMR 646. The moment trigger is pulled, intention becomes manifest. 1989 PCr.LJ 402. Dislodging of. 1989 MLD 1567. Not proved. 1989 PCr.LJ 2416. Ocular evidence consistent. 1989 MLD 825. No motive of crime given. 1987 SCMR 1246. Motive set by prosecution not proved. 1990 ALD 262(1). Where there is clear proof of motive for crime it lends additional support. PLJ 1976 S.C. 283. Atrocious crimes are committed from slight motive. PLJ 1976 S.C. 234; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 905; 1994 SCMR 1928. Prosecution not always bound to prove motive. 1994 MLD 1278. Failure to prove. 1994 PCr.LJ 300; PLD 1993 Lah 434. No evidence led. 1994 PCr.LJ 300. Not necessary ingredient. 1993 PCr.LJ 690; 1994 MLD 1278. No proof by itself. 1993 PCr.LJ 310. Cuts both ways. 1993 PCr.LJ 753. Not necessary to set up but once made so prosecution legally obliged to prove. 1996 PCr.LJ 1652. Motive, if set up necessary to establish 1997 PCr.LJ 1646. By itself not adequate for conviction. 1997 PCr.LJ. 1628. Once alleged will have to be proved. PLD 1999 Kar. 212. Motive not proved, a double edged weapon. May cut either way. PLJ 1999 PCr.LJ Lah. 203. Absence not a ground for acquittal. PLD 1999 Lah. 56.
Motive set up by prosecution was not proved and the immediate cause for the occurrence was not unfolded. No doubt motive was not always an essential element of murder and weakness or absence of motive by itself might not be a valid reason for lesser punishment but the prosecution had not brought on record the material facts relating to the manner and the immediate cause of the occurrence, therefore apart from the motive, the mystery in the circumstances leading to the occurrence would create a sufficient mitigation in favour of accused for lesser punishment. PLJ 2008 SC 370.
Prosecution able to prove its case through ocular evidence of unimpeachable character, weakness or complete absence of motive wholly immaterial. 2000 PCr.LJ 47. Motive proved, conviction maintained. 2000 PCr.LJ 11. Motive and recovery disbelieved, conviction reduced. 2000 PCr.LJ 147. A double edge weapon. Has its own importance, cannot be over-looked. 2001 SCMR 177. Absence or weakness of motive immaterial if the case of prosecution proved. 2002 PCr.LJ 773, 149. Triviality of motive not a ground for reduction in sentence. 2002 PCr.LJ 222. Motive standing proved through admission of accused himself. Plea of sudden provocation not substantiated. 2002 PCr.LJ 1299. While motive can be a sufficient reason for commission of offence, it can equally be a reason for false involvement of accused in the crime. 2003 PCr.LJ 1847. Prosecution under an obligation to prove motive alleged by it, failure would adversely affect. [2004 YLR 206] When prosecution proves its case through reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond any doubt, inadequacy or weakness of motive or where motive alleged but not proved becomes immaterial. [PLD 2004 S.C. 44] Capital sentence. Motive shrouded in mystery, not a mitigating circumstance. [PLD 2004 S.C. 44] Motive reflected from the confession not credible. Retracted confession cannot be made sole basis for conviction. [2004 PCr.LJ 754] Motive having not been proved by the prosecution cannot be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence to the dying declaration. [2004 PCr.LJ 578] Even without the proof of motive conviction can be recorded on a capital charge provided case is otherwise proved by prosecution. [2004 PCr.LJ 1684] Insufficiency of motive does not bar imposition of normal penalty. [2004 YLR 1096] Mere absence no ground to doubt the truth of prosecution case. [PLD 2004 Pesh 143]
60. Not a ground for awarding lesser punishment. Weakness or absence of motive is no ground for awarding lesser punishment. 2004 PCr.LJ 805; 2006 SCMR 1744. Expectancy of life is per se not a valid ground for awarding lesser punishment. PLD 2006 SC 354. Absence for awarding lesser punishment. PLD 2006 SC 354. Absence of motive is also no such ground. 2006 SCMR 1744.
61. Opinion of Police. Not binding on Court. 1989 PCr.LJ 732. Yet the factum of impact of such an opinion cannot be thrown away. 1990 PCr.LJ 1607. Police opinion not sufficient for conviction or acquittal. [2004 YLR 978] Accused requesting summoning three police officers who had investigated and declared him innocent. Application not allowed on the plea that such officers can be summoned in defence. [2004 YLR 978]
62. Plea of alibi. Failure of the accused to prove. 1969 SCMR 584. PLD 1976 S.C. 283. Credibility not to be taken at the stage of grant of bail. PLD 1974 S.C. 83. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt if not challenged. PLD 1969 S.C. 293. Plea in the light of ocular testimony not to be considered reliable. PLD 1989 S.C. 20; 1989 SCMR 144; 1989 SCMR 977. Plea not to be ignored. Observation of Court to be objective. 1987 PCr.LJ 1728.
63. Postmortem. Postmortem and discovery of dead body has no effect upon the gravity off offence. PLD 1996 FSC 1.
64. Provocation. Section 300 as amended does not provide any exceptions. PLD 1995 Quetta 83. However, it may be a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser penalty. PLD 1996 SC 1 (p. 41).
65. Recovery. Recovery of gun at the instance of accused of no avail if not founded wedded with the empty recovered from the spot. 1998 MLD 299. Crime weapon recovered from a corner of a room of a person other than accused. Doubtful. 1968 SCMR 98. Recovery of incriminating items does not by itself prove the offence. 1971 SCMR 756. No recovery memo. 1972 SCMR 435. Empties not sent to Expert. 1970 SCMR 527. Joint recovery. 1989 ALD 554; PLD 1989 Kar. 466; 1989 PCr.LJ 2234. No reports of forensic science laboratory about matching of crime empties available. 1989 SCMR 1099; 1989 PCr.LJ 2038. Currency neither claimed by accused nor by witness. 1989 MLD 4016. Residents of locality not associated. 1989 MLD 4712. Mere recovery without empty. 1987 PCr.LJ 1728; 1987 MLD 1866. Recovery memo not proved. PLD 1987 Lah. 162. Fact of recovery never put to the accused. 1990 Law Notes 1050, 1991 PCr.LJ 122. Recovery of weapon of offence not proved. 1994 MLD 1700. Recovery of rifle. No shot fired. Of no consequence. 1993 PCr.LJ 1849. Empties not proved to have been recovered. 1994 PCr.LJ 2305. Recovery of fire-arms. No consequence if no empty is recovered. 1995 PCr.LJ 1676. Recovery of gun has no consequence if empty recovered from the spot not found to have been fired. PLD 1995 SC 526. Corroborative piece of evidence. 1994 MLD 849. No empty recovered. Recovery of fire-arm of no consequence. 1994 SCMR 1928. Recovery of gun at the instance of accused in the police custody has no corroborative value. 1993 PCr.LJ 2024. Recoveries of blood-stained churris when there was ample opportunity to accused to get rid of them should ordinarily be given no credence. NLR 1999 S.D. 239. Evidence of recovery would be unreliable when no person from place of occurrence was called and joined at time of recovery. NLR 1999 Cr. Mul. 217. Recovery of rifle at instance of accused would in no way support prosecution version when there was nothing on record to prove that the said weapon had been used in commission of offence. NLR 1999 Cr.L.J. 328. Recovery of empty cartridge from the spot not shown in the relevant column of the inquest report. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. 2001 PCr.LJ 51. Recovery of pistol etc. not put to accused in his statement recorded u/S. 342, cannot be taken as an incriminative piece of evidence against him. 2001 PCr.LJ 72. Witnesses police officers, one of them totally omitting to state that pistol was recovered at the pointation of accused. Eye-witness not stating fact with regard to recovery which allegedly taken place in his presence. The statement of I.O. is not sufficient for believing such recovery. 2002 PCr.LJ 149. Rifle recovered in the case not sealed into parcel at the place of recovery and its safe transmission to the fire-arm expert having not been established on record, recovery doubtful. 2003 YLR 1481.
Recovery of weapon from accused is credit worthy and deserves to be relied upon as a corroboration piece of evidence. Blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence and sealed into a parcel was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner. Report received from Chemical Examiner as well as Serologist establish the place where occurrence had taken place. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 72.
66. Trace dogs. Trace dogs leading to house of accused, whole family brutally tortured to extract evidence, evidence not reliable. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lah) 834.
67. Right of private defence. Law does not permit injury which is out of all proportion to the danger. 1982 SCMR 1239. A single blow with a blunt weapon. Requirements of section not proved. PLD 1981 SC 243. Injury caused though of substantial dimension, not on vital part. Offence falls under Section 304. 1983 SCMR 1165.
68. Self defence. A fundamental right. PLJ 2001 (Cr.C.) Lah. 953. Not to be weighed in golden scale. PLD 1987 Lah. 603. Suspicion. PLD 1987 Pesh. 104. Lapse of three days. 1987 SCMR 681. Apprehension of abduction of sister. PLD 1987 Lah. 432.State of panic covered. PLD 1987 S.C. 25 = 1987 Law Notes 1147. Plea taken at the time of arrest. 1989 MLD 4069. Material available on record proving sufficient. 1989 PCr.LJ 2107. Deceased aggressor. 1989 SCMR 1973. Victim unarmed. 1989 SCMR 144; 1989 SCMR 1973. Benefit-Test. 1987 SCMR 1979; 1987 MLD 1859. Can create reasonable doubt in prosecution case. NLR 1987 Cr.L.J. 487. Risk of encounter. 1987 MLD 2649. Right of. 1989 MLD 1083. Undue advantage. 1987 PCr.LJ 1817. Alteration of conviction. 1987 SCMR 746. Grappling in fight. 1987 PCr.LJ 2211. Requisite intention not present in mind. 1969 SCMR 637. Trespasser cannot claim right of private defence. PLD 1983 S.C. 135. Injury on vital part. Intention to kill. 1981 SCMR 578. Right of self-defence exceeded. 1981 SCMR 206; 1983 SCMR 969; 1983 SCMR 796.
69. Settlement. Parties reaching amicable settlement. 1983 SCMR 631.
70. Site plan. Loses its evidentiary value if not prepared on the pointation of witnesses. 2001 SCMR 424. Not a substantive piece of evidence, PLD 1994 Pesh 176; can be ignored when contradicted by straight-forward, trustworthy and confidence inspiring ocular evidence. [PLD 2004 Pesh 175]
71. Substitution of accused. A rare phenomenon. 2000 PCr.LJ 47.
72. Summoning of accused. Accused found innocent can be summoned by Court. 1993 PCr.LJ 1585. Statement of accused has to be taken into consideration in its entirety. 1993 PCr.LJ 1663. Statement under S. 342. Not confession. PLD 1993 Lah. 345. Statement under S. 340(2)-Adverse inference cannot be drawn if accused declines to make statement on oath. PLD 1993 S.C. 251.
73. Suspicion. However, strong cannot be a basis for conviction. 1993 PCr.LJ 2060.
74. Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. Ingredients:
(i) There must be evidence of victim followed by at least two witnesses;
(ii) In case of discrepancies on vital aspects between two witnesses both shall be rejected;
(iii) Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood is a condition precedent to impose the sentence of Hadd;
(iv) There should be one or more 'Muzakki' (a person who testifies about the truthfulness of the witness);
(v) The `Muzakki' should be present when the witness gives evidence;
(vi) The `Muzakki' should also be questioned about antecedents, character and dealings;
(vii) It is the responsibility of the Court to satisfy itself about the credibility of a witness and it can for that matter select open or secret modes of inquiry or both;
(viii) The Court may frame a questionnaire on which the `Muzakki' should collect information to supply to the Court;
(ix) The Court should also examine the `Muzakki' after he submits his report;
(x) The Court should ask searching questions from the witness and cross-examine him, to discover facts which might show his credibility, piety or otherwise. PLJ 1996 Pesh 228; PLD 1990 FSC 38.
75. Qatal bis Sabab and Qatle Amd. Distinction. 2001 PCr.LJ 1548.
76. Venue of trial. Only Court can determine. 1993 PCr.LJ 1678.
77. Vicarious liability. No active role attributed to the accused persons. Death caused by fire-arm attributed to another co-accused. Accused acquitted. 2000 PCr.LJ 47.
Different parameters and principles to re-appraise the evidence qua conviction awarded by the Courts below to convict and acquittal of the convict by High Court or acquittal by trial Court. Accused party had come at the spot alongwith their respective weapon. Accused and principal accused had inflicted to the deceased with their respective weapon, therefore S. 34 of PPC is attracted in the case. To determine the intention of a person qua the commission of offence, it is very rare phenomenon that one can expect to find positive affirmative evidence, generally speaking, the intention is to be gathered from the conduct of the person and the attending circumstances. PLJ 2008 SC 197.
78. Witness. Failure to examine independent witness 1989 MLD 3695. Witnesses not found `Adil'. 1989 Cr.L.J. 303. Witness as a rule are weighed and not counted. 1990 PCr.LJ 73. Inherent value of evidence to be seen and not the relationship. 1990 PCr.LJ 431. Non-examination of disinterested witnesses. 1992 PCr.LJ 2092. Witnesses not mentioned in FIR. Not to be relied. PLJ 1976 S.C. 29.
79. Chance witness. Should be carefully scrutinized. 2001 PCr.LJ 524. Passerby not a chance witness. [2004 P.Cr.L.J. 1326] Even a chance and interested witness can render truthful version and his testimony can be believed. [2004 PCr.LJ 1728]
80. Eye witnesses. Eye witness who claimed the presence on the spot must satisfy the mind of the Court by some physical circumstance or corroborative evidence in support of his presence. 2002 PCr.LJ 163. Not only closely related to the deceased and inimically deposed towards the accused but being chance witness, cannot be believed without independent corroboration. 2002 PCr.LJ 1914.
81. Child witness. Testimony has to be considered with great care and caution and has to be seen that child was intelligent enough, possessed good memory and had not acted under any influence. 1998 MLD 299.
82. Witness interested/Related. Is he who has a motive to falsely implicate the accused. 1997 PCr.LJ 46. Witness closely related inter se. Statement of one of the P.Ws. recorded after two/three days in the absence of any explanation. Motive flimsy and inadequate. Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2000 PCr.LJ 1786. It is necessary that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. 2000 PCr.LJ 47. Testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration if it seems to be natural, convincing and truthful. 2000 PCr.LJ 1484. Relationship of the witness with the complainant party alone is not sufficient to discard his evidence unless he is proved to have an ulterior motive to involve the accused in the case. [PLD 2004 S.C. 663]
83. Inimical witness. Testimony not to be set aside with a stroke of pen. 2002 PCr.LJ 113.
84. Number of witness. Law does not fix any particular number of witnesses for establishing the guilt of accused. Quality of evidence and not the quantity of witnesses does matter. [2004 PCr.LJ 1684]
85. Single witness. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness if same is found reliable by the Court. [PLD 2004 S.C. 663]
86. Recording of statement. Statement recorded after delay and without explanation ruled out. [2004 PCr.LJ 1306]
87. Retrial. Principles. Observation of High Court not binding. PLD 1996 S.C. 152. Review. Reappraisal of evidence not permitted. PLD 1996 S.C. 97. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. Application. PLD 1996 S.C. 138. Belated recording of statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. outcome of deliberation. 1996 PCr.LJ 130. Extra-judicial confession not supported. 1996 PCr.LJ 1621. Judicial confession made by main accused not relied upon. 1996 PCr.LJ 189. Two versions of the incident to be kept in juxtaposition and the one favourable to the defence to be performed. 1996 PCr.LJ 790; Cross case PLD 1996 Lah 30. Death sentence by way of tazir-When can be awarded. PLD 1996 FSC 1. Case tried as Ta'zir Black warrant under S. 381, Cr.P.C. be issued. PLJ 1996 Pesh 228. Lessor penalty when accused succeeds in invoking some sympathy. PLD 1996 Lah 373.
88. Sentence. Court is bound under the law to have specified the relevant clause of S. 302, PPC under which it has convicted and sentenced the accused and its failure to do so may result in miscarriage of justice. 2002 PCr.LJ 578. Lack of motive by itself is not a mitigating circumstance. 2002 PCr.LJ 1091. Young age of accused no ground to provide a mitigating circumstance when the deceased also a young man and the only educated son of the complainant. 2002 PCr.LJ 1690. Commission of murder in order to vindicate family honour, a mitigating circumstance. 2002 PCr.LJ 636. Motive having not been proved, capital sentence cannot be given. [2004 YLR 206] Notwithstanding compromise with one of the legal heirs of deceased, which later on resiled, the sentence of death awarded under Ta'zir qua the murder executable. [PLD 2004 S.C. 911] Reluctance has been shown by Supreme Court to interfere with the sentence awarded by High Court unless it is against law or is not in consonance with sound judicial principles. PLD 2000 S.C. 62; 1997 SCMR 1527; PLD 1994 S.C. 259; 1998 SCMR 317. Offender not an adult can still be awarded sentence of death not as qisas but as tazir. 2003 PCr.LJ 35.
Circumstantial evidence. Death sentence can be awarded to accused on circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances constitute a continuous chain without missing any link, combined effect of which establishes the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt. 2009 SCMR 135.
89. Conviction. Conviction can be ordered or maintained on the solitary statement of a witness if it is found reliable, [2004 PCr.LJ 1697] or is corroborated from an unimpeachable source. [2004 PCr.LJ 1706] Normal sentence for the offence of murder is death which is to be awarded as a matter of course, except where the Court finds some mitigating circumstance which may warrant imposition of lesser sentence. [2004 PCr.LJ 1697] Conviction can be recorded even on the statements of the eye witnesses alone without there being any corroboration provided their evidence inspires confidence, [PLD 2004 S.C. 371] but cannot be based on contents of FIR. [PLD 2004 S.C. 342]
90. Acquittal. Accused being a young boy of 15/16 years, his collaboration with his maternal uncle to abduct the deceased for illicit purpose not appealing to reason. Accused had no motive to abduct the deceased or thereafter to murder her. Medical evidence or motive not directly connecting the accused with the commission of offence, acquitted. [2004 PCr.LJ 1199]
91. Lesser sentence. Benefit of lesser sentence would be available to accused when it is not shown whether accused is alone responsible for murder or his companions also contributed to murder. By extending this benefit to convict, death sentence reduced into life imprisonment. NLR 2004 SD 645. Absence of motive-no ground to award lesser punishment. 2006 SCMR 1744.
92. Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Referring matter to Medical Board mandatory. Verification of police as to the age of accused not binding on the Court. 2003 YLR 1983. Reliance of the Court on some entry in the police record to resolve the issue of age is misconceived. Normal course is to have the accused medically examined by a competent medical board. PLD 2004 S.C. 758.
91A. Suicide. Death of deceased admitted by a person but he had claimed that the death did not take place in the manner as stated by the prosecution, but it took place in some other manner then onus lies upon him to prove as such. PLJ 2007 SC (AJ&K) 43.
92. Act of terrorism. Act to fall within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must be an offence with the primary object of causing panic amongst the general public or a particular section of society in order to restrain them from going about their normal and routine activity or to achieve any object enunciated in Section 6(1)(b) of A.T.A. 1997. Act of terrorism caused by an unknown hands or for apparently unknown reasons as causing wide spread damage to life, limb or property can justifiably be called a terrorist act subject to provisions of Special Law. PLD 2004 Lah 726.
93. Review. Review in criminal proceedings can be made on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record which manifestly would be of nature that if ignored, complete justice would not be done. PLD 2004 S.C. 32.
94. Appreciation of evidence. Defective investigation not to demolish prosecution case. 1998 PCr.LJ 114. Conviction can be based on evidence of solitary witness if it is found to be reliable. NLR 1999 A.C. 289. Fact deposed not challenged. Shall be presumed to be correct. 2000 PCr.LJ 216. No crime empty recovered from spot, recovery of pistol during investigation inconsequential. 2000 PCr.LJ 264. Mere personal opinion of police official is no longer evidence and inadmissible in evidence. 2001 PCr.LJ 9. Apart from dying declaration, qualitative and quantitative ocular testimony furnished by two eye witnesses. Sufficient for conviction. 2002 PCr.LJ 1454. Occurrence taking place in the `abadi' but nobody who could be a natural witness nearby the place of occurrence introduced as a witness. Conduct of eye witnesses doubtful. Ocular account not in conformity with the medical evidence, possibility not to be ruled out that two persons had participated in the killing of the deceased. Prosecution failing to bring home guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt. 2003 YLR 1327. Two versions palpable and plausible, version favouring accused to be accepted. 2003 YLR 1309. Medical evidence not in line with the ocular evidence. One of the eye witnesses a chance witness and failed to show plausible explanation regarding his presence at the time of occurrence, benefit of doubt to go to accused. 2003 YLR 1333. Consistent stand of accused that he was kept in police station where shown to eye witnesses, identification parade had lost its sanctity due to the reason that it was held after more than three months and feature of the culprits were not mentioned in the statements before the police by the witnesses. Sufficient to believe that the witnesses were not in a position to correctly identify the accused. 2003 YLR 1327. Where the prosecution version fails or is disbelieved, the defence version comes into the picture and the statement of the accused is taken into consideration not in fragmentation but in its entirety. 2003 YLR 1369. Court while passing an order of conviction of an accused of murder has not only to be satisfied that the murder has been committed, but it must also be satisfied that the accused has committed the murder. 2003 YLR 2666. Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of his guilt. Any doubt arising be resolved in favour of accused. 2004 YLR 216 It is the quality of evidence and not quantity which matters. 2004 YLR 216.
Evidence of identification of accused at trial, for the first time is inherently of a very weak character. Prosecution in order to carry conviction must establish that accused was correctly and properly identified by the witness at the time of occurrence and such goal could not be achieved unless evidence furnished by prosecution at trial was capable to provide answers to certain questions e.g. as to how long did the witnesses have the accused under observation; that what distance and in what light; was observation impeded in any way; had the witness ever seen the accused before and; if so how often, if only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused etc. Needful cannot be done unless the suspect is put to identification test at the first opportunity because human beings have their own limitations and memory fades by lapse of time. 2009 SCMR 4.
Tentative assessment of evidence on record would show that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons came to place of incident, duly armed with pistols and one of them made firing resulting in death of deceased. Applicant had connived, participated and facilitated in commission of offence, and thus, no case was made out for grant of bail. Superior Courts are very slow for grant or examining bail matters, particularly when statements of material witnesses have already been recorded and trial was ripe for conclusion. No ground for grant of bail have been made out, bail was dismissed. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 993.
Circumstantial evidence corroborated by very strong piece of evidence against appellant. Father of deceased when cross-examined by defence counsel gave reply in affirmative that appellant had committed murder of deceased only to grab entire land of father of deceased who had no male issue. Defence counsel had thus, himself got admitted that appellant had committed murder of deceased due to grabbing of land for the reason that father of deceased had no other male issue. Court had no other option but to maintain conviction of appellant on basis of positive circumstantial evidence corroborated by very strong piece of evidence. Evidence on record clearly indicated that appellant had committed murder of deceased. Sentence of death was confirmed. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1018 (DB).
Case being of two versions, prosecution suppressed injury on the person of appellant. Version of appellant cannot be ignored lightly when he was got medically examined by police on day of occurrence and lacerated wound was found in his abdomen. Conviction of appellant was converted from S. 302(b) to S. 302(c) P.P.C.. Appellant having been arrested on 3.4.1998, seven years had already passed that he has already behind the bar. Sentence which appellant had already undergone, was treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Appellant having acted in self defence amount of compensation awarded by trial Court was set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1023 (DB).
Participation of accused in the commission of the offence was proved on record, who had caused repeated `Chhuri' blows on the persons of both the deceased and murdered his wife and mother-in-law a callous manner. Ocular account furnished by complainant was fully corroborated by medical evidence, motive, recovery of `Chhuri' at the instance of accused and positive report of serologist. Brutal and atrocious manner in which the accused had committed both the murders did not call for any leniency in the sentence. Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld accordingly. 2009 SCMR 135.
Where eye-witness account was worthy of credence, un-impeachable, confidence inspiring and accusation was established beyond shadow of doubt, weakness of motive or absence thereof, or where alleged but not proved, would hardly make any difference in awarding death sentence and would not constitute mitigating circumstances. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1026 (DB).
No doubt PW had blood relation of deceased but their evidence could not be disbelieved on account of being closely related to deceased. They were natural witnesses of occurrence. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 279 (DB).
Mere relationship with complainant party was not sufficient to discard evidence unless it was proved that the witness has ulterior motive to involve the respondent in commission to involve the respondent in the commission of offence. Appeal allowed. PLJ 2004 SC 812.
Concession to accused on the basis of compromise is applicable only in a case where sentence has been awarded as Qisas and not in a case where death sentence has been awarded as Tazir, therefore convict having been sentenced as Tazir, was not entitled to such concession. PLJ 2004 SC 500.
Court cannot lose sight of a glaring fact that at the time of her death, deceased lady was bearing pregnancy of 20 week, and quite mature foetus was found dead alongwith the bearer lady. No mitigating circumstance was thus found in favour of convict, therefore, death sentence awarded to him was maintained. PLJ 2004 SC 500.
Prosecution had fully proved its case by bringing on record ocular testimony furnished by eye-witnesses and fully corroborated by medical evidence. Besides, appellant having remained fugitive from law for a number of years, such fact was also strong corroborative piece of circumstantial evidence to connect him with commission of crime. As regards quantum of sentence, complainant had admitted that deceased was a man of questionable character having been challenged in 5/6 cases, which is a sufficient extenuating circumstance to reduce sentence of appellant from death to imprisonment for life. Order of compensation was however, maintained. PLJ 2004 SC 517.
Demand of bribe money by petitioner, its payment to his clerk on petitioner's direction and its recovery from petitioner's clerk has been corroborated by independent and reliable witness who had no ill-will or any animous against petitioner, therefore, his testimony cannot be disbelieved. As for passing of bribe money was concerned same was admitted by petitioner's co-accused that he had received bribe money on direction of petitioner. Plea of alibi stressed by petitioner was negated by his own statement that he returned to his office at 1.30 p.m. and found complainant and his companion waiting for him. Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence had rightly convicted and sentenced petitioner. PLJ 2004 SC 509.
Acquittal cannot be set aside unless impugned judgment was perverse or ridiculous or artificial or shocking. No such element has been pointed out on behalf of appellant. Incorrectness or error alone does not equate with perversity etc.. View taken by High Court as regards existence of doubt in prosecution case being possible view, the same cannot be described perverse or shocking. Acquittal was maintained in circumstances. PLJ 2004 SC 642.
If Court is satisfied and believes that such confession, whether judicial or extra judicial, is true and voluntary and has not been obtained by torture of coercion or inducement, it can under law, be validly made basis of conviction. PLJ 2004 SC 313.
Factum of minor age being question of fact had rightly been determined by trial Court as well as by Appellate Court so could not be reversed by Supreme Court without any sufficient & lawful justification. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2004 SC 313.
A nomination form issued by petitioner in favour of accused alongwith a notice informing transfer of membership of Stock Exchange in favour of accused. High Court observed that words one million on disputed cheque were not pre-fixed or suffixed by words U.S. Dollars. View taken by High Court is unexceptionable. Petition dismissed. PLJ 2004 SC 878.
Where accused pleads any of exceptions to Section 300 PPC like self defence, he has to establish such plea either from prosecution evidence or by leading his own evidence. Failure to establish such plea, however would not necessarily prove case of prosecution which has to stand on its own legs. PLJ 2004 SC 642.
Concession to accused on the basis of compromise is applicable only in a case where sentence has been awarded as Qisas and not in a case where death sentence has been awarded as Tazir, therefore convict having been sentenced as Tazir, was not entitled to such concession. PLJ 2004 SC 500.
Right of liberty of individual should not be curtailed on presumptive grounds. Case against respondent was neither of misreading or non-reading nor of drawing incorrect conclusions nor finding of High Court could be termed as artificial, shocking or ridiculous so as to warrant interference therein. Finding of acquittal was thus maintained. PLJ 2004 SC 504.
Matter was reported on same day at 12.30 p.m.. There was no question of false implication. Accused who have been acquitted by trial Court was for the reason that no injury was attributed to them. Learned trial Court was right in acquitting them. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medial evidence. Even then there are some mitigating circumstances in favour of appellant and this is the reason that Legislature has provided two sentences under Section 302-B PPC i.e. death sentence and life imprisonment. Keeping in view. PLJ 1995 SC 684 conviction of appellant maintained but converted the same to life imprisonment with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 190 (DB)
No explanation for presence of eye-witnesses at the spot has come on record. None from place of occurrence has been cited or produced as a witness. Both alleged eye-witnesses had no business on agricultural land near place of occurrence so their presence at the spot at time as alleged by prosecution is doubtful and not confidence inspiring. Moreover, Patwari a PW admitted in cross-examination that he had not mentioned names of eye-witnesses and accused in site-plan prepared by him. It was a glaring omission on part of prosecution. FIR was not recorded at Police Station but was recorded at the Adda. According to post-mortem report, stomach was containing semi digested food and fecal matter was also available in intestine. It shows that occurrence had taken place in early hours of morning and was unwitnessed one. Weapon used in commission of offence according to prosecution case was rifle 7 MM. Diameter of. Injury on person of deceased was 1 cm x 1 cm injury with such diameter could not have been caused by a 7 MM rifle. As far as recovery is concerned, no crime empty was taken into possession from spot and rifle allegedly recovered on pointation of appellant was his licensed rifle. Motive having not been proved, presence of eye-witnesses at place of occurrence being doubtful, they being chance witnesses, conflict between ocular account and medical evidence and no crime empty having been recovered from spot, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt rather defence has been able to create dents in prosecution story. On basis of evidence of such a nature conviction on a capital charge cannot be maintained. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 306 (DB).
Both eye-witnesses were residents of same locality and had explained their presence at spot satisfactorily. They had no motive to falsely implicate respondent. Mere relationship with deceased was not sufficient to declare them interested witnesses and discard their evidence which otherwise was trust-worthy as they remained consistent on material points with each other. Mere non-collection of blood-stained earth from spot could not be held fatal to prosecution case as doctor had clearly stated that 1/2 liter of dark blood was removed from abdominal cavity and about one liter was removed from right chest cavity. One wad and four small pellets were recovered from abdominal cavity and death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries and probable time between injury and death was 12 hours. In such circumstances, injury was also found on abdomen and medical evidence was in corroboration with ocular account. Recovery effected from respondent was not believed as no empty was recovered from spot but learned trial Court has omitted to take into consideration that only single shot was fired and it being not repeated, there was no possibility of recovery of empty from spot. Both eye-witnesses have explained each and every detail of occurrence consistently and could not be contradicted with each other on material points. Delay in lodging FIR is sufficiently explained. Minor discrepancies in statements of two eye-witnesses are not sufficient to affect prosecution case. Appeal accepted and acquittal orders of respondent set aside. As motive remained in mystery and shot was not repeated. Sentence of life imprisonment with compensation to legal heirs was sufficient. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 301 (DB).
Keeping into consideration recording of FIR with promptitude, ocular account, motive, medical evidence, recovery of empties of Klashinkov and number of injuries suffered by deceased with two fire-arm weapons and failure of defence side to prove plea of alibi, held, learned Judges of Division Bench of High Court have committed a grave error in basing their decision on conjectures and surmises. Appeal accepted and impugned order of High Court set aside. PLJ 2003 SC 133.
Place of occurrence was at a distance of 18 kilometer from Police Station. Occurrence had taken place at 12.30 a.m. but statement was recorded outside police station at about 8.00 a.m. next day. This delay in lodging FIR remained meaningful. Therefore, there are circumstances on record which favours plea of alibi advanced by appellant. Motive advanced by prosecution was dis-believed by learned trial Court. Occurrence was admitted by appellant but in his own way. Learned trial Court should have either believed statement in toto or disbelieved entire statement. Point for examination is that when motive advanced by prosecution is in mystery then why alibi advanced by accused should not be given importance when it finds support from circumstances of case. Certainly alibi advanced by accused supported by circumstances on record could be given preference. Consequently, it could be believed by learned trial Court that incident had taken place but on question of Ghayrat same attracted provisions of Section 302(c) PPC. Appellant is convicted u/S. 302(c) for 7 years R.I. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 215.
Occurrence had taken place around 7.30 a.m. whereas FIR was lodged at 9.15 a.m. on the same day. Post-mortem examination on dead-body of deceased was delayed because of non-availability of father of deceased. No case of substitution. Both eye-witnesses cannot be considered as chance witnesses. Testimony of both P.Ws which otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be excluded from consideration merely on the account of their relationship with deceased. One accused/appellant had also got recovered weapon of offence from Baithak of his house. Existence of motive is fully established. Prosecution has fully established charge under Section 302(b) PPC against Appellant No. 1 and he has been thus rightly convicted by learned trial Court. So far as second appellant is concerned, according to prosecution story he was present at place of occurrence armed with revolver at time of occurrence and had fired a shot at deceased but no injury on person of deceased is attributed to him. Had he common intention with his co-accused to cause Qatl-e-amd of deceased, he could have fired second shot and there was nothing that could have prevented him from doing so. Conviction recorded against him is liable to set-aside. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 195 (DB).
Two prosecution witnesses have no previous enmity for false implication of appellants or their substitution by letting off real culprits. Mere relationship is no ground to discard their testimony as it is very common in the society that impartial people do not come forward to depose against criminals. They have sufficiently explained their presence where occurrence took place. Motive alleged by complainant in FIR was not proved and matter of beating was not came in the notice. Complainant party compromised with other co-accused and had sworn affidavits wherein it has been clearly stated that they do not want to prosecute complaint. Both appellants are in continuous incarceration and are in death cell since impugned judgment was passed and they have expectancy of life, therefore, it is a fit case to maintain capital punishment so while maintaining conviction, same is altered from death to imprisonment for life by extending benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.. Appeal is dismissed with above modification. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258 (DB).
Ocular account has not been corroborated by medical evidence or recovery of weapon of offence and according to statement of doctor possibility cannot be ruled out that Injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could be result of one fire shot (not fired by appellant), therefore, benefit of doubt is to be extended his appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentence set aside. He is on bail, his sureties are discharged. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258 (DB).
Admittedly murder had remained unwitnessed and prosecution had failed to fix any date, time or place of said murder. Dead-body of deceased was received from sugarcane field which was neither owned nor possessed by appellants and said recovery had not been effected at pointing out of appellants. Nobody had appeared before Police or before trial Court to maintain that he had seen appellants throwing dead-body at the place from where it was recovered. In absence of any direct evidence incriminating appellants, prosecution had relied only upon last seen evidence, recoveries and medical evidence to establish charge against appellants, but each one of these pieces of evidence to be utterly unreliable to establish alleged guilt of appellants. Alleged recovery of car driven by deceased had, according to prosecutions, own showing, come out upon joint disclosure and pointing out of appellants and such joint recovery, it is settled law, is of little evidentiary value. Apart from that said recovery had been witnessed by PW-2 who lived about hundred miles away from place of such recovery and no person from locality in question had been associated with that recovery despite availability. Alleged recovery of blood-stained Chadar belonging to deceased from possession of appellant has also failed to inspire confidence. Witnesses produced by prosecution in respect of last seen evidence had never claimed that deceased was carrying any Chadar with him when he had statedly left with appellants. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 427 (DB).
Where accused had earned acquittal in his favour, he enjoys double presumption of innocence. Courts while examining case of such accused must be very careful and cautious in interference with acquittal order and normally should not set aside same, merely for the reason that some other view was also possible. However; interference can be made in exercise of powers conferred upon Court under S. 417 Cr.P.C. if it was proved that Court whose judgment was under scrutiny had misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally. High Court having considered case of prosecution from all aspects had rightly concluded that no case was made out against respondents. No interference was warranted in judgment of acquittal rendered by High Court. PLJ 2003 SC 767.
A case of two versions; one put forward by appellant and other introduced by complainant. No doubt appellant has not taken specific plea of self defence in his statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. but fact remains that three persons from side of appellant including appellant were seriously injured. One injury on person of one appellant convict was serious in nature. One injury on person of appellant was with fire-arm. Seen from all angles, injuries on persons of appellants convicts were suppressed by prosecution. Both parties have not come to Court with clean hands and they have suppressed real facts. As a sequel of above discussion, it can safely be held that appellant and other convicts acted in right of self defence, so case of appellant is covered by provisions of Section 302(c) PPC and not u/S. 302(b) PPC. Accordingly conviction of appellant is altered from Section 302(b) PPC to one u/S. 302(c) PPC and he is sentenced to undergo RI for fourteen (14) years with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 310.
Abscondence could be treated as a valuable piece of corroboration if supported by other evidence on record. Abscondence by itself does not constitute substantive evidence, but same can be used and relied upon as corroborative piece of evidence, if it provides supports to other evidence. Conduct of appellant would indicate that he had a hand in murder of deceased and therefore, he absconded and remained fugitive from law and explanation offered by him in his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. was not plausible. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1387.
Abscondence of accused would not furnish corroborative evidence where presence of prosecution witnesses on the scene of occurrence was un-natural and highly doubtful. Charges against appellant were, thus, not proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence of death awarded to appellant for offence of murder were set aside and he was ordered to be released forth with if not required in any other case. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 898 (DB).
All convicted appellants were specifically named in F.I.R. and specific roles have been assigned to them. Injuries attributed to all three appellants were present in Medico-Legal Reports. Ocular account to the extent of all appellants was corroborated by medical evidence. Ocular evidence being trustworthy, coherent, consistent and confidence inspiring, minor discrepancies cropping up in prosecution evidence without touching intrinsic value thereof, were of no avail to defence. Prosecution has thus, proved its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against them. Evidence produced by prosecution against appellants was trustworthy, reliable and upto the standard fixed by law of the land. Conviction and sentence, awarded to appellants were, thus, maintained in toto. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1026 (DB).
Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence to the extent of acquitted accused to the effect that he was stated to be armed with .12 bore gun and had fired shot which hit one of witnesses while medical report relating to such witness stated that he was injured by sharp edged weapon. Said accused was thus, rightly acquitted from case by trial Court. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1026 (DB).
Delay of 12 hours in lodging FIR. Delay in lodging FIR was indication of fact that same was lodged after deliberation and consultation. Postmortem examination was conducted on next day of occurrence. Appellant having taken plea of self defence produced evidence in support of his defence version. If both versions of prosecution and defence were put in juxtaposition, defence has been successful in proving its possession over land in question, where occurrence had taken place. Out of accused persons, 6 were acquitted by trial Court. Plea of self defence advanced by appellant was although accepted yet he had exceeded his right of self defence as none from side of appellant received even a scratch. Conviction of appellant from S. 302(b) P.P.C. was converted to S. 302 (c) P.P.C. and his sentence was modified from death to 10 years with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. Sentence of compensation was set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1047 (DB).
F.I.R. was got lodged with delay of two days by real brother of deceased while distance between place of occurrence and Police Station was only fifteen kilometers. Complainant was not eye-witness of occurrence. Two eye-witnesses were admittedly close relatives of deceased and complainant. Bare perusal of such witnesses examination-in-chief would show that they were not present at the spot. Three co-accused were acquitted on same set of evidence. In such like situation where ocular account was disbelieved qua some accused and was going to be believed qua other accused, then strong and independent corroboration was required which was lacking. Prosecution had thus, failed to prove its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellant was set aside and they were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1043.
Statement of acquitted accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C. coupled with extra-judicial confession of convicted accused clearly established that offence of murder had been committed by appellants. Counsel for defence had himself introduced new motive regarding alleged illicit relations of deceased with sister of accused "F" and wife of accused "Y", thus, motive part of prosecution story was itself proved by defence. Evidence on record did not indicate that any of prosecution witnesses was inimical towards anyone of appellants. Case against appellants was neither of false implication nor of plantation. Last seen evidence corroborated by extra judicial confession and factum of blood stained daggers at the pointation of appellant alongwith positive reports of chemical examiner and serologist clearly indicated that offence of murder was committed by appellants. Quality of evidence would suggest that trial Court had rightly overlooked technicalities and had taken lenient view qua quantum of sentence. No further lenient view was warranted. Conviction and sentence, were maintained, however, benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to appellants. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1068.
Occurrence was admittedly unseen. No eye-witnesses were cited or produced. No extra-judicial confession was on record. Nothing incriminating was recovered from appellants to connect them with alleged commission of offence. Sons of deceased even did not know names of those persons whom their deceased father had given his house on rent and who were alleged to have put him to death. Prosecution story seemed to be concocted and fabricated. Motive behind occurrence was not believable. Only piece of evidence on which reliance was placed by prosecution was recovery of "Chaddar" allegedly belonging to one of accused persons. No mention of such "Chaddar" was, however, made in F.I.R. nor the same was produced before Police. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. Conviction and sentence of death was set aside and they were acquitted of the charge of murder. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1084 (DB).
Omission to depute medical officer well conversant with handwriting of doctor who made rapat. Effect of. Omission on the part of Court has materially prejudiced, the interest of the appellant and resulted in complete miscarriage of justice. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1098 (DB).
Defence version appears to be more plausible and based on reasons for murder of their own girl at the hands of the appellants. Close relatives and friends of the main accused are also named in the occurrence by attributing different roles to them by widening the net, so that non should be left behind to prosecute version. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1112 (DB).
Prosecution version is disbelieved and conviction is based on defence version, the same has to be believed or rejected in toto and it cannot be accepted in piece-meal to suit the prosecution version. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1112 (DB).
Compromise by only one legal heir of the deceased would not advance the case of the convict especially when conviction would be under Tazir and not under Qisas. There was nothing in favour of convict. Partial compromise could not be taken place in present case. PLJ 2005 Lahore 1520 (DB).
Evidence on record unfolded two versions i.e., one narrated by prosecution and the other by defence. If both versions were kept in juxtaposition coupled with findings of trial Court then version of appellants seems to be more plausible and convincing. Appellants had suffered ten injuries while complainant side had suffered 9 injuries. Trial Court had not believed recovery of weapons of offence and so is the position of positive report of Fire Arm Expert. Trial Court had in fact believed defence version in totality, therefore, benefit of the same is right of appellants. Prosecution has thus, failed to prove its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. Conviction and sentence awarded to appellants cannot be maintained on basis of such shaky evidence. Impugned judgment awarding conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was set aside and accused was ordered to be released forth with if not required in any other case. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1040.
Case is of single accused and in such cases substitution is rare phenomenon, however, as per claim of prosecution occurrence had taken place at 7.00 a.m., matter as reported to Police at 9.20 a.m and post mortem was conducted at 12.45 p.m.. Duration given by doctor between injury and death was 2/3 hours and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours, which fact casts doubt on prosecution story regarding date and time of occurrence especially when Rigormortis was fully and completely developed. In original post-mortem report in column of death neither doctor had given date nor time which fact indicated that till preparation of the same neither F.I.R was registered nor time of death was available, thus, doubt is cast on prosecution version. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1088 (DB).
Medico legal report of injured witness was not brought on record. Doctor had observed that at the time of post-mortem examination, there was bandage on the wound of deceased and so many injections were given to him. Prosecution, however failed to explain that from where those bandages were applied and who had given those injections. Such facts create doubt in prosecution story. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1088 (DB).
Motive was stated to be land dispute regarding which suit between parties was stated to be pending in Court and stay order was stated to have been issued by Court. No copy of stay order was produced. Prosecution thus, failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Conviction and sentence of death awarded to appellant was set aside and accused was ordered to be released forth with if not required to be detained in any other case. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1088 (DB).
Four crime empties recovered from spot were sent to Fire Arm Expert, alongwith licensed pistol of appellant. However, prosecution did not produce report of Fire Arm Expert. Un-exhibited report of Fire Arm Expert found on record is however, negative one, that is why prosecution did not got exhibited that report, the same was exhibited and placed on record by High Court. Investigating officer was also not produced with malafide intention. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1088 (DB).
Contradiction was found regarding electric light at the place of occurrence. Cross-examination of PW-2 supports story given in FIR instead of complaint. The doubts of trial Court regarding acquittal of both co-accused are understandable but he should have applied the same reasoning in the case of the appellant also. Appellant and co-accused have been attributed exactly a similar role of causing dagger blows. Only distinction is that recovery of dagger is attributed to appellant. All other considerations like presence of co-accused to attend funeral rites of the deceased, occurrence of dark night and doubt on presence of complainant equally apply to all accused but only co-accused has been acquitted. While extending benefit of doubt appellant was acquitted and conviction and sentence set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1012.
Dead body of deceased lady was found lying in the house of father of accused but there was no direct evidence on record to show or establish that house from where dead body was recovered was possessed or owned by father of accused. Place of occurrence was surrounded by inhabited houses and the same was situated in Chowk of the village. Occurrence i.e. dragging of deceased lady by appellant would go unwitnessed or unnoticed by other villagers. Admittedly. The day of occurrence was Nikah ceremony day of one accused at Faisalabad. It is difficult to believe that appellant wold commit such offence on the day of his Nikah ceremony. Facts were sufficient to doubt the credibility of prosecution case and appellants were entitled to get benefit of doubt. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1003.
No crime empty was recovered. Appellant fired in air apart from shot which hit into abdomen of deceased but no crime empty was recovered from spot. Mere recovery of pistol which was licensed weapon does not advance the case of prosecution further. Merely of accused having been identified in identification parade conviction could not maintain in absence of independent corroborative evidence against appellant. Prosecution failed to prove case against appellant beyond shadow of doubt. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1095 (DB).
Appellant committed murder of his wife, therefore, case would fall u/S. 306 PPC punishable u/S. 308 PPC. Appellant's conviction and sentence is converted from Ss. 302(c) to 308 PPC read with S. 306 PPC and appellant is sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment with further to pay diyat amount to legal heirs other than appellant. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1080.
Blood stained "Chhurri" recovered at the instance of appellant and his blood stained clothes coupled with extra-judicial confession of appellant. Appellant being closely related to deceased, no question of his being falsely involved would arise. Appellant's plea relating to his tender age having never been raised during trial was of no consequence. However, question of mitigating circumstance did arise inasmuch as, prosecution has failed to state about motive which is shrouded in mystery, benefit of which would go to appellant. While appeal was dismissed, sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1136 (DB).
Perusal of record showed that important prosecution evidence was not put to accused persons, particularly to convict appellant herein. Object of examining accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C. is that all relevant evidence and material produced against him by prosecution to establish ground for criminal penalty may be put to him so that he may explain his conduct in respect of such incriminating material. Conviction of accused person cannot be based on such material or evidence which was not put to him when his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by Shariat Court was set aside and case was remanded to trial Court with direction to put evidence and incriminating material to accused persons in their statements to be recorded under S. 342 Cr.P.C. and to proceed in accordance with law. PLJ 2005 SC (AJ&K) 253.
Statement of prosecution witness that he had fired at appellant who was running away with a bag containing looted money and that he was hit by his fire could not be proved inasmuch as, no injury was found on his person. No description of appellant was given by witnesses as to how they identified appellant. In absence of any description, no reliance can be placed on identification parade. Nothing had come on record as to how witnesses identified appellant which impeaches their testimony. In identification parade legal formalities were not complied with. Prior to reaching of Magistrate to Police Station, witnesses were already present in Police Station where accused were confined, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant was shown to witnesses, before conducting identification parade. Analysis of entire evidence would indicate that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against appellant, thus, he was acquitted of charge. PLJ 2005 (Quetta) 1128 (DB).
Ocular version stood further corroborated by recovery of pistol, recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased, evidence of medical officer who conducted post-mortem of deceased and deposed that deceased was killed by .30-bore pistol fire, which resulted into death of deceased instantaneously. Reports of chemical examiner, Serologist and Director Forensic Science Laboratory were also in nature of supportive evidence of ocular version. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 83.
Offence of murder. Un-explained absconsion of appellant for about one year provides sufficient corroboration of ocular account. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 83.
In presence of thick clothing worn by deceased it was possible that blood might have not falling down on earth. However, non-recovery of blood stained clay was not sufficient to destroy prosecution story which otherwise had been proved by trustworthy ocular version supported by other sufficient corroboratory and confirmatory evidence. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 83.
Prosecution story stands supported by three independent eye-witnesses, who were unanimous on point that deceased was put to death by shot of .30-bore pistol fired by appellant, which hit him, he fell down and died spontaneously. Presence of eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence who made consistent statements in line with each other supporting on all material points about place of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence. Eye-witnesses being independent witnesses and their testimony being natural, convincing and truthful can be relied upon without any further corroboration. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 83.
Where there appears reasonable ground for believing that accused claiming bail was guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he would not be released on bail unless his case was covered by any of provisions contained in S. 497(1) Cr.P.C. Where Court finds at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial that reasonable grounds, exist for believing that accused had committed non-bailable offence but that there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, he must be released on bail in terms of S. 497(b) of Cr.P.C.. Court has to ascertain as to whether there exist any reasonable grounds upon which its belief can be founded to be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered. Accused respondent having not been attributed any overt act, his case was covered under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C. and he was entitled to bail. PLJ 2005 SC (AJ&K) 258.
Opinion of police was based on material collected during investigation. Police had showed innocence of accused with proper reasons. Exercise of power by trial Court under such circumstances could not be declared as illegal by High Court in absence of any good reason. High Court dismissed revision. 2005 PCr.LJ 828.
Complainant had admitted that appellant had sustained injuries during occurrence but he failed to mention such fact in F.I.R. as well as during trial. Statements made by prosecution witnesses when put in juxta-position with defence version of appellant. Trial Court had rightly concluded that defence version was more plausible and proved on record. Two versions of same incident, one which was favourable to accused/appellant must be preferred. Appellant, however, had exceeded his right of private defence by stabbing in the most vital part of body resulting death of deceased. Case against appellants falls within ambit of S. 302 (c) PPC. Sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to ten years. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 760.
It was borne out from occurrence that culprit was having his face muffled and he could not be identified and his name was also not known to witnesses till preparation of inquest report. Ocular version had thus failed to establish to identify actual culprit. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 273 (DB).
Abscondence cannot be a substitute for real evidence. Abscondence would be taken as corroborative piece of evidence only when there was convincing and un-challenged evidence led by prosecution. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 294 (DB).
Charge of abetment against co-accused was not proved as there was no evidence against them to show that in fact they had extended any help to other accused in their criminal act and made any abetment. Impugned judgment of trial Court against co-accused was thus, set aside and they were acquitted of the charge of abetment. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 438.
High Court found that convicts had been wrongly convicted/sentenced as prosecution had failed to bring home guilt to convicts well beyond any shadow of doubt. Appeal was accepted. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 444.
Motive alleged by prosecution remains shrouded in mystery and it cannot be positively maintained that deceased was fired upon just for refusing to negotiate compromise. There was something else which had actually enraged accused to attack deceased. Keeping in view facts, surrounding circumstances and detail of case, extreme penalty of law would not be imposed upon. Death sentence converted into sentence to life imprisonment in circumstances. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 62.
One of eye-witnesses was brother of deceased lady while the other was her brother-in-law. Post mortem examination was conducted with a delay of more than one day. Two co-accused had been acquitted by trial Court on basis of same evidence. Presence of eye-witnesses at place of occurrence was highly doubtful. Prosecution had thus, failed to prove their case beyond any shadow of doubt. Appellant was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 298.
Prosecution witness had stated that appellant had purchased "Churri" in question, from him. He, however, admitted that there were other "churries" with him which were of the same size and kind and that there was no special mark on "churri" in question. Other witnesses stated that "churri" in question was recovered from appellant in their presence which was stained with blood. However, no report from Serologist with regard to determination of origin of blood and the same matching with blood of deceased was placed on record. Clothes of appellant were claimed to have been taken in possession by Police but no report of Serologist was brought on record to show that the same were blood-stained. "Chappel" recovered at instance of appellant was not shown to have any link with commission of offence. Doctor was produced to state that fingers of accused were injured, however, no evidence was brought on record to show that accused/ appellant received injuries at the time he inflicted injuries to deceased. Certificate of injuries of accused showed that date put on that certificate was tampered with. PLJ 2005 SC (AJ&K) 198.
Accumulative effect of evidence was that the same did not inspire confidence whereupon conviction could not be based. Evidence on record was not sufficient to hold appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must go to accused. PLJ 2005 SC (AJ&K) 198.
Petitioner as a maidservant of complainant played major role in murder of minors. Counsel for petitioner wanted to re-argue the matter on merits which was not permissible at review stage. It was not case of misreading non-reading or misappreciation of evidence brought on record. Review petition dismissed. PLJ 2005 SC 1193.
Mere absence or weakness of motive would be no ground to suspect truth of prosecution case if the same was otherwise proved by reliable evidence. Evidence of eye-witnesses does not smack any taint. Such witnesses were found "Adil" during purgation. Evidence of witnesses stood corroborated by sufficient confirmatory evidence, thus, prosecution has succeeded to prove case against convict and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by trial Court. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJK) 1.
Where murder committed was not premeditated and pre-planned and motive was shrouded in mystery, capital punishment would not be awarded and life imprisonment would meet ends of justice. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJK) 1.
Statement of accused showed that injuries were received by accused persons and damage was caused to complainant party and occurrence having taken place at the Ihata of accused party, version put forth by accused seemed to be near the truth and more plausible than version given by prosecution. On same set of evidence, five co-accused had already been acquitted by trial Court. Case was of right of self-defence which was not exceeded by the accused party. Impugned judgment of trial Court was set aside and accused were acquitted of the charge. 2005 YLR 436.
Prosecution was not bound to produce all the witnesses cited in the calendar, but defence could avail the opportunity of producing those witnesses if in its opinion they did not support prosecution version. 2005 YLR 584.
Mere relationship of prosecution witness with deceased, could not make him as interested witness unless he was shown to be inimical towards defence. Evidence of any interested witness could not be thrown away, but it had to be appreciated with care and its corroboration had to be insisted. 2005 YLR 584.
Where eye-witnesses were available and their evidence rang true after cross-examination, any variation in medical evidence would not affect their evidence which had to be relied upon. 2005 YLR 584.
Occurrence appeared to have taken place at the spur of moment. Even the motive was not directly attributed to accused and deceased was not the main bone of contention, who had only come for rescue of the complainant when was given injury by accused. Award of capital sentence of death was not warranted. Sentence altered with life imprisonment. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 451 (DB).
Identification parade was not held in jail but in police station which has no evidentiary value. Recovery of .222 rifle from the appellant was also at a much belated stage. Case against the appellant is of doubtful nature. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted from the case in circumstances. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 533.
Needless would be to refer to evidence of prosecution touching all aspects because convicted candidly conceded factum of conviction. Quantum of sentence on two grounds. Firstly, Punishment as Qisas u/S. 302(a) PPC was not proved at all, that witnesses for prosecution were not subjected to Tazkia-ul-Shahood, secondly, conviction could be based on S. 302(b) PPC where punishment could also be for imprisonment for life. Proper punishment would have been imprisonment for life and not death. PLJ 2005 SC 832.
Independent corroboration is not always to be insisted upon while relying upon interested witnesses. Value attached to the statements of interested witnesses depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 2005 PCr.LJ 811.
Uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon in context with other relevant circumstances of a particular case. 2005 PCr.LJ 811.
No crime empty of .30 bore pistol was recovered from the spot. Two crime empties of .12 bore gun were recovered from the spot but those were not sent to fire-arm expert. Even state counsel has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case. Appeal accepted. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 397.
Articles belonging to deceased having been recovered from open space would be of no significance having not been recovered at pointation of appellants. Such evidence being inadmissible could not be considered as exception to Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Besides, such weak piece of evidence cannot corroborate another similar evidence. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against appellants rather there are doubts floated on surface of record. Benefit of doubt was extended to appellants and conviction and sentence recorded against them was set aside resulting in their acquittal. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 317 (DB).
No legal requirement that there would be an identify test of accused if eye-witnesses can identify accused before trial Court, that was enough. When there was other evidence on record from which the identify of an accused person can be established non-holding identity test would not be fatal. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 214 (DB).
Medical opinion was not conclusive and inviolable and must be invariably tested on touchstone of the wellknown treatise of medical jurisprudence and form. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 214 (DB).
When ocular evidence was confidence inspiring and Courts consider the witness to be truthful, then merely on ground that medical evidence contradicts the ocular account was not sufficient to discard the testimony of such reliable witness. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 214 (DB).
Post-mortem examination ordinarily was though treated as an authentic and credible evidence regarding cause of death of deceased, but if in remote areas where facility regarding post-mortem examination was not available, it would be unjust to let off all culprits merely due to lack of facility of post-mortem available to prosecution. 2005 PCr.LJ
Independent witness having no previous enmity to falsely implicate accused in crime, witness cannot be termed as interested witness merely due to relationship with deceased. Presence of witness at place of occurrence was not denied by defence. PWs proved presence of accused at place of occurrence and taking out pistol as well as quarrelling with complainant is established beyond any reasonable doubt. Pistol recovered and sent for comparison but same was returned due to Micro Scope Machine being out of order. Such piece of evidence cannot be used against accused yet there was ample evidence to connect with crime. No extenuating circumstances to award lesser punishment. Appeal dismissed and death sentence confirmed. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 214 (DB).
Mere relationship with deceased was not sufficient to discard testimony of an eye witness who was otherwise found truthful and confidence inspiring by Court. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 214 (DB).
Accused persons being trespassers had no right under law to use force to the extent of killing lawful occupant and claim benefit of right of private defence of property in question. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 36.
Versions of both parties when taken into juxtaposition and appraised into their true respective version set up by defence would seem to be improbable, concocted and after thought as per view of evidence and circumstances. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 36.
Medical examination/post-mortem of deceased is made for limited purpose, only to corroborate and support the substantive & circumstantial evidence. Failure to conduct such examination would not disbelieve the factum of unnatural death of the deceased. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 647 (DB).
Despite weakness of investigation, regarding non-preparation of inquest report, non-performing of medical examination/post-mortem, chemical examination of blood-stained earth & clothes of the deceased, mere statements of two PWs fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt the pistol firing resulting the unnatural death of the deceased. High Court dismissed appeal, by upholding the conviction & sentence. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 647 (DB).
High Court confirmed the lesser sentence of life imprisonment, granted to the accused on the basis of his unrebutted younger age. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Quetta) 647 (DB)
Complainant was the real brother of deceased while other was brother-in-law, who had been disbelieved by trial Court. Improvements in statement of complaint. Such like cases, corroboration was not only rule of prudence but also necessary to award conviction and sentence and also to maintain the same. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 583.
Mere abscondence of accused in absence of any other evidence against him cannot be considered enough to sustain conviction of accused. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 103 (DB).
Medical evidence was not corroborated with the prosecution evidence except the cause of death. Recovery and motive not believable. Conviction and sentence recorded by Courts below were set aside and the appellants were acquitted. PLJ 2008 SC 385.
Medical evidence did not corroborate with ocular, according to complainant, appellant gave three churri blows on thigh of the deceased and also cut her throat, while there were two injuries on chest and one with blunt weapon. Doctor gave the duration between postmortem and death as 36 to 48 hours which did not fit in with the prosecution time of occurrence. Appellant was found innocent during the course of investigation. Complainant improved the motive before trial Court. Appeal accepted. Conviction and sentence set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 473.
Conflict between ocular account and medical evidence to the extent of acquitted accused to the effect that he was stated to be armed with .12 bore gun and had fired shot which hit one of witnesses while medical report relating to such witness stated that he was injured by sharp edged weapon. Said accused was thus, rightly acquitted from case by trial Court. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1026 (DB).
Prosecution evidence is not such confident inspiring which can lead to the only conclusion that the appellant is guilty of murder of the deceased. Furthermore on the same evidence co-accused have already been acquitted by trial Court. Appeal accepted, conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 640.
Recovery was not made out on the pointation of the appellant but those who were brought from the houses of the appellants i.e. by PWs. Being not satisfied with prosecution story. Appeal accepted, conviction and sentence set aside. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 594.
No cavil to the proposition that conviction can be ordered or maintained on the solitary statement of a witness if it was corroborated by other evidence and has come from an unimpeachable source, but in the instant case when accused was empty handed and fire-arm was being carried out by the complainant. Lastly as there is defence version also, it will not be in safer administration of justice to maintain the conviction. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 589.
Conviction u/S. 302 PPC rightly set aside but sentence u/S. 436 PPC was not legal because mandatory provisions of S. 544-A Cr.P.C. were totally ignored. Petition partially accepted as appeal and ordered to compensation. PLJ 2005 SC 707.
Ocular testimony, coupled with circumstantial evidence as also medical evidence fully supports prosecution witnesses. Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding pistol used in crime and empty recovered from place of occurrence furnished strong corroboration to version of prosecution witnesses. Mere delay of 10 days in dispatching recovered articles to Forensic Science Laboratory would not be fatal in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of case. Motive also stood proved by evidence of prosecution witnesses. Respondent was thus, responsible for commission of murder of respondent. PLJ 2005 SC 724.
Right of defence of property cannot be used as pretence for justifying murder when in fact complainant party was owner and in occupation of land in question. Mere non-recovery of plough which accused person had taken with them to plough land in question, could not be made basis for mitigation of sentence. Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record awarded death penalty to appellant, same would warrant no interference on appreciation of evidence on record. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 36.
Interested witness is not always a liar so also an independent or impartial witness is not always reliable, however value of testimony would matter. Where conscious of Court was satisfied that deposition of a witness was probable, natural, convincing and worthy of credence, such deposition can always be relied upon without any further corroboration. PLJ 2005 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 36.
Deceased had illicit relations with sister of appellant. Human frailty over powers a person because of society surroundings, ear poisoning, provocation, incitements and scandal mongering, therefore, such act attracts principles of diminishing liability/extenuation. Keeping in view entire background, circumstances and judicial standards used for choosing appropriate sentence, sentence awarded to appellant was reduced from death to 14 years rigorous imprisonment. Conviction with respect to payment of fine was however, maintained. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 782 (DB).
No recovery was effected from appellant during the course of investigation. No specific motive was alleged against appellant. Complainant has tried to improve his version in complaint which speaks of mala fide on his part to implicate appellant because of previous enmity between parties. On basis of evidence led in the case by prosecution, conviction on a capital charge cannot be maintained. Appeal accepted. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 669.
Occurrence had taken place in dark hours of night. After seeing medical report, time of occurrence also does not fit in with prosecution version. It is a case of circumstantial evidence but claims are not connected of appellants beyond shadow of doubt. Appeal accepted. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 705.
Evidence of police officials who are natural witnesses cannot be discarded without considering the same on merits. 2005 PCr.LJ 794.
Identification parade held without observing the necessary formalities is not a safe piece of corroboratory evidence. 2005 YLR 405.
Mere absence of enmity of a witness with the accused cannot stamp him as truthful person. Real and crucial test is whether the witness had seen the occurrence and his evidence rang true and inspired confidence. 2005 YLR 405.
Occurrence took place at 3 a.m. and matter was reported only after an hour. It was murder of 2 persons occurred in the house of accused without any explanation by him. One eye-witness was brother of a deceased and other was wife of accused who was the most natural witness. Motive was that the accused had suspicion that her sister, who was married in watta to one of the deceased persons, and died by taking poison 2 years prior to occurrence was unfortunately murdered by the deceased person. Accused was not willing to send her wife with the deceased person who came to take her. Reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist were positive in nature. Conviction & sentence of death maintained. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 489.
Petitioner from stage of framing of charge has all along admitted to have killed deceased persons due to "ghairat". Petitioner's defence plea in juxtaposition to case of prosecution stands at better footing, truthful and confidence inspiring. Ocular evidence of injured witnesses stands fully corroborated by motive, medical evidence and evidence of recovery of weapon of offence and matching of such weapon with empties recovered from place of occurrence. Concurrent findings of two Courts below do not justify interference with the same. Cruel, gruesome and brutal manner in which petitioner had taken lives of seven deceased and seriously injured prosecution witnesses does not deserve any leniency. Leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 631.
Medical evidence was in conflict with ocular testimony. Deceased had died in the village after 23 days of the occurrence, but he was not proved to have died due to the injuries received by him in the incident. Ten accused had been acquitted on the same evidence, whereas case of accused was not distinguishable from their case. Eye-witnesses had also contradicted each other on material points. F.I.R. was got registered after a delay of five days and possibility of due deliberation and concoction of story could not be ruled out. Complainant party being inimical towards accused, the latter appeared to have been falsely implicated attributing to them the exaggerated roles in the occurrence. Injuries sustained by the accused had been suppressed by the prosecution and eye-witnesses had not spoken the whole truth. Accused were acquitted in circumstances. 2006 PCr.LJ 718.
Ocular straight forward and consistent testimony furnished by complainant and other prosecution witness was found to be credit-worthy by trial Court and First Appellate Court. No inherent defect or material lacuna was found or pointed out in evidence of eye-witnesses whose presence at site of occurrence has been established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt being material and natural witnesses. Prosecution has fully proved its case by producing cogent evidence. No extenuating circumstances have been shown to take lenient view and for award of lesser penalty. Concurrent findings of two Courts below being based on cogent evidence do not justify interference. Leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 616.
Occurrence of murder of a person already confined in lock-up, took place in the premises of Police Station. FIR was lodged without delay. Motive was that the deceased had committed murder of the father of accused 3 years prior to occurrence in order to take revenge. Accused was apprehended at spot. Crime weapon & crime empty were also found at spot. Fire arms expert gave positive report. PWs though police officials, yet were natural ones. Post-mortem report corroborated the other evidence. No mitigating circumstance in favour of accused. Conviction & sentence of death maintained. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 494.
Four accused out of six have been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal preferred against their acquittal. High Court held that the presence of both accused at the spot had been proved by the prosecution, as one witness received fire-arm injury on his left leg and his tibia bone was fractured. No previous enmity between parties. Parties are known to each other. No mistaken identification. However, there were mitigating circumstances in the case. A witness during cross-examination stated that he was not present at the time of earlier incident and he was told about the earlier incident by deceased but this fact was not mentioned either in the FIR or before the trial Court. No crime empty was recovered from the spot, so no report of Fire-arm Expert was obtained. Case was of single shot. High Court while maintaining the conviction accused, reduced sentence to life imprisonment with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. but the order of compensation and default was maintained. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 588.
Mitigating circumstances for lesser punishment were not justifiable inasmuch as heinous rather abhorrent offence by killing an 8 years girl after subjecting her to lust had been committed by appellant sentence of death for offence of murder and sentences awarded for offences of Zina and unnatural offence were maintained. PLJ 2006 FSC 144.
No motive behind the occurrence. No previous enmity between the parties. It was sufficient to prove existence of mitigating circumstances and as a result to accept the defence plea of lesser punishment. Defence story was highly improbable, illogical, and unbelievable. Prosecution had proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 969.
Other accused was armed with a gun. He fired a shot which hit on the leg of witness and caused bone's fracture. He was rightly convicted u/Ss. 324 and 337-F (v) PPC. It was not a case of grave and sudden provocation. Trial Court held that it is a case of common intention, which attracts the provisions of S. 34 PPC but the appellant was convicted u/S. 302 (c) PPC. No appeal against acquittal u/S. 302(c) PPC was filed either by the complainant party or by the State. In the circumstances, High Court set aside the conviction u/S. 302(c) PPC. However, all other convictions were maintained. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 588.
Ocular account culminating into death of deceased was given by two eye-witnesses which was consistent and straight forward. Ocular version finds corroboration from medical evidence and also from other circumstantial evidence. Evidence in defence to dislodge prosecution evidence was not sufficient to create dent in evidence of prosecution. Evidence qua guilt of appellants have also been believed by trial Court and the High Court. Supreme Court agreed with both Courts on point of holding appellants guilty. PLJ 2006 SC 701.
F.I.R. was lodged after nine hours of occurrence while distance between place of occurrence and police station was one and a half Kilometers. Incident was an unseen occurrence and no eye-witness was mentioned in the case and there was no extra-judicial confession. Nothing incriminating was recovered from accused to connect them with alleged commission of offence. Prosecution had stepped forward with concocted and self-fabricated story. Motive alleged behind occurrence was that father of deceased had some dispute about rented house with accused, but same was not tenable for the reason that according to prosecution's own case, accused had taken house on rent only 10/15 days prior to occurrence. No question regarding rent dispute could arise within such a span of time, when, ordinarily property was given on rent after getting advance rent at least for one month. Law required high standard of evidence which was very much lacking in the present case. In absence of strong evidence corroborated by other unimpeachable piece of evidence, accused could not be hanged in the manner as had been found in the present case. No mention that `Chaddar' which allegedly belonged to accused was found in the F.I.R. If there was a `Chaddar' alongwith deceased and especially upon which name of accused had written, then same must have been produced before police and there must have been mention of same in F.I.R. Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction of accused. Prosecution case was full of doubts and on basis of such a shaky evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to accused could not be maintained because same having not come through impeachable source, was unreliable and could not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accused were acquitted. 2006 PCr.LJ 382.
Prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove case of prosecution. Defence version has been disbelieved by High Court and trial Court for cogent and plausible reasons in juxta-position with prosecution case in the light of well settled principles of administration of criminal justice. Prosecution has thus, fully proved its case against appellants. PLJ 2006 SC 728.
Besides ocular testimony of PWs, act of sodomy with 12 years old boy had also been proved by M.O.. Recovered Churri was opined by chemical examiner to be stained with human blood. Swabs taken out from the anus were proved to be stained with semens. Concurrent finding about commission of unnatural lust with the boy and then his brutal murder by cutting his throat with churri could not attract any leniency. Conviction & sentence maintained. PLJ 2006 SC 825.
Apart from confessional statements of appellants prosecution has established its case by bringing on record un-impeachable circumstantial evidence of recovery of weapon from petitioner lady and matching of the same with empty recovered from spot. Recovery of matching of piece of bullet from body of deceased further corroborates that he was fired at by weapon recovered by police. Petitioner lady had admitted about killing of deceased with weapon in question which was given to her by other appellant. Son of deceased also testified killing of his father at relevant time and place. Petitioners failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, misreading, non-reading of evidence from judgments of both Courts below. Evidence of judicial confession and recovery against petitioner fully established guilt of appellants. Leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 612.
Accused was caught red-handed alongwith kalashnikov used in the commission of the offence. Presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence could not be doubted as they had also sustained bullet injuries during the incident. Kalashnikov recovered from the possession of accused had matched with the crime-empties recovered from the spot. Chemical Examiner's report qua the blood-stained articles was positive. Prosecution witnesses had rightly identified the accused. Medical evidence had also corroborated the prosecution story. Eye-witnesses were independent witnesses and they had no motive for false implication of accused in the offence. No leniency was deserved by the accused who had committed cold blooded double murder. Convictions and sentences of accused were maintained in circumstances. 2006 PCr.LJ 304.
Double murder by single accused. Complainant was the first cousin of accused. No blood feud between parties before or at the time of occurrence. Defence plea that accused had acted under a provocation due to molestation of his sister by the deceased a few days ago was absolutely misconceived and absurd one. Act of murder was not only brutal but also in a very planned and calculated way. Conflict between medical evidence and the site-plan was of no importance as it was not a substantial piece of evidence and also that it was not prepared at the instance of the single eye-witness. Recovery of crime empties, crime weapon, positive report of fire-arms expert and the medical evidence clearly showed that prosecution had proved its case without any shadow of doubt. Conviction & sentence maintained. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 611.
Burden of proof lay on prosecution from first to last and would not shift to accused, irrespective of the position as to whether accused took a defence plea or not or that defence plea was found to be false or was not proved. 2006 PCr.LJ 338.
Where the occurrence resulting in a murder had taken place at the spur of the moment and even where only one shot was fired and the same had not been repeated, the only sentence deserved by the accused was the normal punishment of death prescribed for the offence. 2006 PCr.LJ 304.
Ocular evidence furnished by complainant and other eye-witness stood fully corroborated by medical evidence. Scrutiny of evidence would show that petitioner has been changing his stance. Petitioner had changed his defence version taken earlier during his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C.. Motive put forth in F.I.R. is stated differently which has no nexus with theory put forth by petitioner. Petitioner did not ask any question on motive as mentioned in F.I.R. during cross-examination. Prosecution has thus, fully established its case against petitioner. Leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 619.
Petitioner's plea that he had attained expectancy of life inasmuch as his appeal was being disposed of after a considerable time and that on that basis his request for lesser punishment be considered, was not a valid ground for awarding lesser punishment. Sentence of life imprisonment was converted to that of death. PLJ 2006 SC 815.
Defence counsel had challenged the sentence of death awarded to the accused on the only ground that the eye-witnesses had not stated with certainty as to who, out of the accused or the acquitted co-accused, had fired the fatal shot at the deceased. Accused and his co-accused according to record, had fired one shot each which hit the deceased child and the injured lady witness. Co-accused had been acquitted on the basis of compromise. Deceased as well as the injured lady had received one fire-arm injury each could not be ascertained with judicial certainty as to who, out of the accused and the acquitted co-accused, had caused the fatal shot to the deceased, with whom the accused had no enmity. Conviction of accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was consequently maintained, but his sentence of death awarded thereunder was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances. Lady injured witness had herself attributed her injury to acquitted co-accused, therefore, accused was acquitted of the charge under S. 324, P.P.C. Appeal was disposed of accordingly. 2006 PCr.LJ 572.
There appears to be no inherent defect or material lacuna in evidence of both witnesses whose presence at site has been established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Prosecution has fully proved its case by producing cogent and convincing evidence to the extent that it was accused who fired at deceased. Though witnesses were cross-examined yet their evidence was not shattered at all. High Court has already taken lenient view by reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. Petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. PLJ 2006 SC 1123.
Had deceased not died as result of firing by accused, there was no occasion or reason for complainant the real brother of deceased to falsely involve accused. No inherent defect or material lacuna in evidence of both witnesses whose presence at site has been established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Case of accused is distinguishable and not at par with that of his co-accused since acquitted, therefore trial Court neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily in extending benefit of doubt to them. Prosecution has fully proved its case by producing cogent and convincing evidence to the extent that it was accused who fired at deceased which hit on his chest. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2006 SC 1050.
Deceased child died on account of sodomy and then strangulation. Unseen occurrence. Prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence but miserably failed to prove the case against accused. Moreover, accused was not provided a copy of the statement u/S. 161 of a material witness before his statement u/S. 164 which was legally necessary. Conviction & sentence set aside. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Karachi) 619.
Case of accused and co-accused who was acquitted, was distinguishable and was not at par with him. Accused had caused fatal fire-arm injury to deceased while acquitted co-accused was empty handed, therefore, accused could not claim that his case was at par with acquitted co-accused and he was also not entitled to mitigation of sentence of death as he had caused death of deceased by his callous and brutal act. No illegality and material irregularity having been pointed out in impugned judgment, Leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 806.
Ocular, straight forward and consistent testimony furnished by complainant and her sister was found to be trustworthy by trial Court and Appellate Court. No inherent defect or material lacuna in evidence of both witnesses whose presence at place of occurrence was established was pointed out. Prosecution has fully proved its case by producing cogent and convincing evidence to the extent that accused had fired at deceased. Recovery of weapon of offence with one empty cartridge stood established prompt recording of statement of victim lady u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had implicated accused, was corroborated by Magistrate who had recorded the same. Case of murder against accused thus, stood established. PLJ 2006 SC 806.
Prosecution on basis of circumstantial evidence has established presence of deceased with accused in the morning time when both of them left together. Recovery of different parts of human body on pointation of accused was identified to be that of the deceased. Medical evidence alongwith other incriminating pieces of evidence would lead to presumption that accused is guilty for commission of offence. Most important piece of evidence against accused in his confessional statement which he got recorded before judicial Magistrate. Accused in his confessional statement had admitted presence of two ladies at the spot when he had committed murder. On the same day confessional statement of ladies were recorded wherein they admitted that accused had committed murder of deceased. Confessional statement of accused having been recorded immediately after his arrest was voluntary and the same was corroborated by confessional statements of ladies concerned which can be considered against accused in terms of Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Mitigation of sentence of death to that of life imprisonment without assigning any reason was not warranted. PLJ 2006 SC 815.
It was a case of two versions. According to the defence version accused having come to know about immoral act of deceased with his daughter lost self control and due to ghairat under grave and sudden provocation, fired at the deceased. It could hardly be suggested that accused was provoked and instead of setting the machinery of law at motion, took the law in his own hands, on the excuse of grave and sudden provocation. Conviction and sentence not interfered. Leave refused. PLJ 2006 SC 1126.
Since counsel appearing on behalf of accused, frankly conceded that both Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused after evaluating and appreciating the ocular testimony, motive, recovery of weapon of offence and medical evidence while discussing same in detail, Irrespective of above High Court also called Forensic Science Expert in Court who after examining the doctor's testimony and details of injuries categorically stated that both these injuries were caused from same weapon dispelling the contention of defence counsel raised before High Court that injuries were result of two different type of fire-arm weapons. No reason to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below which were recorded on proper appraisal of evidence. Petition, accordingly dismissed. PLJ 2006 SC 1119.
Scrutiny of evidence would indicate that accused after committing murder of accused had in a most brutal and desperate manner cut into pieces the dead body of deceased and threw parts thereof to different places. No mitigating circumstances thus, existed warranting lesser punishment. Besides, accused having taken plea to claim lesser punishment, burden was on him to establish the same which he failed to discharge. PLJ 2006 SC 815.
Prosecution had deliberately suppressed voluntary judicial confession though retracted by accused in his statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C.. Motive as alleged in F.I.R. was not proved in evidence. Deceased had sustained only one inlet wound on back upper portion of right hip causing exit on frontal part of upper thigh. Crime weapon recovered from accused was containing five live cartridges and he did not repeat his fire which fact brings case of accused within ambit of lesser punishment provided for Qatl-e-Amd. Facts and circumstances of case would justify awarding life imprisonment to accused instead of sentence of death. Compensation payable to legal heirs of deceased would, however remain the same as determined by trial Court. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 629.
Prosecution put its case on the basis of confessional statements, last seen evidence furnished by wife of deceased, recovery of crime weapon and crime empties, medical evidence, Ballistic Expert's Report and other circumstantial evidence. All such pieces of evidence lead to guilt of accused persons and was incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of their innocence. Conviction & sentence upheld. PLJ 2006 FSC 192.
Prosecution has successfully proved case against accused by producing cogent evidence. Prosecution has successfully brought on record evidence of complainant, extra-judicial confession, recovery of dead body on pointation of accused and recovery of string. Complainant and PWs had categorically stated that accused voluntarily confessed to kill deceased by strangulation because he suspected her to be lady of bad-character. To substantiate his stance, accused could not even refer to single person with whom she had earlier eloped or any person from whose custody she was recovered. Petition devoid of force is accordingly dismissed and leave declined. PLJ 2006 SC 1111.
Extra-judicial confessions must be proved by evidence of very high and un-impeachable character but there was no evidence of that character in circumstances of case. High Court had also after scanning evidence on record came to conclusion that discovery of dead body on pointation of respondent was highly doubtful as prosecution failed to bring on record any memo about disclosure of respondent before witnesses or to bring on record any memo about seizure of dead body on pointation of respondent coupled with fact that memo was prepared for recovery of blood stained earth from place of occurrence but same had not mentioned about recovery of dead body of deceased on pointation of respondent accused and prosecution did not corroborate such piece of evidence brought any independent piece of evidence. It is settled principle of law that accused in criminal trial is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise and when he is acquitted by High Court on his appeal earns double presumption of innocence. Burden heavily lies on prosecution to rebut said presumption. Principle of Criminal jurisprudence that finding of guilt against accused cannot be based only on probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in given case and finding of guilt should rest firmly on evidence produced. High Court was justified to give benefit of doubt to him keeping in view golden rule of benefit of doubt. Petition dismissed. PLJ 2006 SC 1014.
Non-recovery of weapon of offence Investigating Officer failed to recover weapon of offence from accused who absconded after commission of offence as also seizure of one empty from place of occurrence per se would not by any stretch have an adverse effect on prosecution case in view of un-impeached ocular account of incident medical evidence, such as, seizure of blood-stained earth from place of incident, blood-stained clothes of deceased and injured, seizure of crime empty emitting fresh discharge of gun powder and report of serologist coupled with absconsion of accused after incident. No case for leave to appeal having been made out, leave to appeal was refused. PLJ 2006 SC 788.
Three witnesses were natural witnesses. One had no reason to doubt their presence. Two witnesses were provably injured by pellets from .12 bore shotgun. Being injured witnesses, their presence was all more fortified. Testimony, status and credibility of eye witnesses is such that it does not even need corroboration. As many as three natural eye-witnesses including two injured, one does not normally require corroboration and conviction can be based solely on such testimony. Ocular testimony is fully supported by post-mortem report indicating pellet injuries on front chest area of deceased. Distance involved between assailant and victims is again relevant in connection with spread of pellets, seen in view of site-plan where three victims are standing next and close to each other. Petitioner is single accused charged by his own wife where possibility of substitution is highly improbable. Prosecution version initiated by eye-witnesses is fully supported by independent evidence as well as strong attending circumstances including motive. It was case of premeditated murder. Petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. PLJ 2006 SC 1018.
Though, in absence of any previous enmity, no corroboration is required yet testimony of as many as four eye-witnesses is fully supported by medico-legal report of injured persons and postmortem reports of deceased persons. Blood was recovered from their respective places. Accused remained absconder for nine days and during investigation he led to recovery of crime pistol Ex.P-9 that matched with empties of .30 bore recovered from spot. It does not appeal to reason that within view of accused victims would be kissing and embracing each other in house of her own maternal aunt who happened to be her uncle's wife as well. One fails to comprehend as to how real culprits were left alive by any assailant. It is not sufficient and forceful enough to dislodge unimpeachable version of eye-witnesses especially injured one whose injuries are admitted to have been caused by accused. Accused had acted in highly desperate manner justifying no leniency. Petition dismissed. PLJ 2006 SC 1057.
Dead body of deceased, real sister of Complainant, was traced from maize crop owned by "M" and Lambardar but those persons had not been produced by prosecution as witnesses. Motive could play vital role against accused if same had been coupled with unprobable evidence in shape of ocular account, or last seen evidence. So in absence of any supporting evidence, motive alone cannot be used against accused. As far as accused and co-accused are concerned, there is no motive against them and even no suspicion was made against them. Only extra-judicial confession is available against them in shape of statements of PWs. It is strange as to how such version put forth by said witnesses can be made valid basis for conviction for accused. Accused are not found involved as there is no material available on record to connect them with this offence. Appeal accepted. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 989.
No witnesses were produced before police or before the trial Court to substantiate the plea of alibi, so it would be an abortive attempt to make such plea before the High Court. PWs were most natural and their presence at relevant time could not be disbelieved. During trial PWs were subjected to cross-examination but nothing could be shaken from testimony. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 571.
Facts and circumstances of case completely ruled out any consultation, therefore, delay would not adversely affect merits of prosecution case. Even otherwise, delay or promptness in lodging F.I.R. would be hardly relevant to assess truth or falsity of case set up in F.I.R.. Such fact is only a circumstance to alert Court to make close scrutiny of evidence and to judge intrinsic worth of statements of witnesses. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 515.
Accused were not previously known to the PWs. Descriptions were not given in FIR. No attempt for any identification parade had been made by the prosecution. Neither detail of arrest nor of the confession of the accused was given by the I.O. in his statement. All the pieces of evidence produced by prosecution were defective. Appeal allowed. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 926.
While determining and awarding adequate sentence to accused involved in capital offence existence of motive is not necessary. PLJ 2006 SC 815.
Two prosecution witnesses were injured and their injuries as per medical report were fresh. Eye-witnesses fully supported prosecution case. Injured witnesses being inmates of the house where occurrence took place are natural witnesses. One of accused who was 13/14 years of age at the time of occurrence and 17/18 years of age when he made statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. has been given benefit through presidential order and his death sentence has already been converted into life-imprisonment. Co-accused was attributed specific role of having criminally trespassed into house of complainant alongwith co-accused and committed murder of two persons with dangerous weapons which they were carrying and caused injuries to three eye-witnesses. Quantum of false-implication into case does not arise. Prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Co-accused has been rightly convicted and sentenced to death by trial Court. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 706.
According to complainant at first he brought his pregnant mother for delivery to Hospital alongwith his father and then after having left her there would go to graveyard for Fatehah is quite unnatural. So, motive is shrouded in mystery. High Court has already believed ocular account against accused. Prosecution has fully proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt. FIR was delayed, motive is shrouded in mystery, there is difference of opinion qua fatal injury on person of deceased and it has come on record that deceased had done something wrong with daughter of co-accused. These are extenuating circumstances which go in favour of accused. It is case of mitigation and not capital punishment. Sentence of death converted into imprisonment for life with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 684.
FIR was recorded by the deceased himself which was declared as dying declaration. Incident took place over a minor dispute between the parties. Ocular testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. Dying declaration was corroborated by the person who had recorded the statement of deceased. Prosecution proved its case with cogent, convincing and unshattered evidence. Concurrent finding having no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence. Conviction and sentence upheld. PLJ 2006 SC 828.
Statement of deceased was not recorded by S.I. in presence of any doctor or other hospital staff which cannot be considered as dying declaration. Conviction and sentence set aside. PLD 2006 SC 255 + PLJ 2006 SC 1002.
Recoveries of pistols alongwith bullets were effected from the possession of accused which were not sent to forensic science laboratory. Conviction and sentence set aside. PLJ 2006 SC 647.
Reliance cannot be placed upon dying declaration in an unseen night occurrence where the identity of the accused could not be established. PLJ 2006 SC 1415.
Presence of PW at spot was highly doubtful. Plea of alibi was wrongly rejected by two Courts possibility of somebody else responsible for murder of deceased cannot be ruled out due to the fact that deceased had other enemies. 2006 SCMR 1707 + PLJ 2006 SC 1211.
While determining and awarding adequate sentence to accused involved in capital offence, existence of motive is not necessary. PLJ 2006 SC 815 + PLD 2006 SC 354.
Weak evidence cannot corroborate another week evidence. PLD 2006 SC 427 = 2006 SCMR 1106.
Abscondence. Abscondance alone is not sufficient to award conviction under S. 302 PPC. Factum of abscondance is only a corroborative piece of evidence. 2006 SCMR 1886.
Conviction based only on joint extra-judicial confession which was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence defective in law. Accused acquitted. 2006 SCMR 463.
Accused neither participated in crime nor he used lathi in any manner. Participation of the accused in crime doubtful. Accused acquitted. 2006 SCMR 1466.
Trial Court as well as High Court withheld benefit of doubt available to the accused. Conviction and sentence awarded to accused set aside by Supreme Court. 2006 SCMR 1846.
The presence of witnesses as well as the alleged time of occurrence was highly doubtful, accused acquitted. PLJ 2007 SC 12.
Nature of injuries caused to deceased belied the prosecution version as to distance from which deceased was fired at. Accused acquitted in circumstances. 2007 SCMR 108.
Evidence of eye-witness in view of the answers given by him in his cross-examination suffered from substantial discrepancies inconsistancies and material doubts. Accused were acquitted. Appeal allowed. 2007 SCMR 162.
Supreme Court (in the larger interest of justice and supremacy of law) set aside the view taken by High Court and restored capital punishment awarded by trial Court. PLD 2007 SC 80.
Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to consider that death sentence could not be awarded to him as his case fell under Sections 306(c) and 307(c), P.P.C. read with Section 308(2), P.P.C. 2009 SCMR 135.
Grounds for transfer of petition being that petitioner was in constant danger of being attacked by contesting respondents and that no counsel from the province was ready to appear on behalf of petitioner and defend him in present petition and that counsel of petitioner from the other province was attacked and seriously injured. Respondent Government of Province has no objection to the transfer of case from the High Court, of the Province to any other High Court of Pakistan. Respondent having sought enhancement of sentence of petitioner, interest of justice would be to transfer petition in-question, from the High Court of Balochistan to the High Court of Sindh at Karachi for its disposal in accordance with law. PLJ 2008 SC 336.
Supreme Court, would not interfere in judgment of acquittal unless, very strong reasons appeared on record regarding perversity of judgment. Mere fact that witnesses were natural and occurrence took place in day-light would not be sufficient to believe or disbelieve evidence. Real test would be whether witnesses were truthful and confidence inspiring in the particular fact, of case to be relied upon for conviction. Prosecution evidence however, did not fulfil such test to the satisfaction of two Courts. No reasons were pointed out to differ with the judgment of High Court. PLJ 2008 SC 324.
When an accused person is acquitted from the charge by a Court competent jurisdiction then, double presumption of innocence is attached to its order, with which the superior Courts do not interfere unless the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record. PLJ 2008 SC 687.
Motive was available to complainant party to involve the appellant and his family members. No recovery of empties or of any weapon even allegation was of reckless firing. Medical evidence does not furnish corroboration to the case of the prosecution. Seat of injuries negates the story of prosecution. Four other co-accused who were attributed effective firing shots were acquitted. Appeal accepted. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 787.
The most logical and natural witness not produced. PW stated that he himself had not witnessed the incident. No evidence as to which one of the accused had rented the wagon from the deceased. Place and time of doing so is also conspicuously missing. Motive behind the occurrence could not be established by the prosecution. No weapon recovered from the possession of the appellant. Mere recovery of some empties and that too from a busy place one day after the occurrence is of no consequence. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 724 (DB).
On the date of occurrence co-accused was armed with a stay order regarding the land in-question. Defending the property, accused had caused a single fire-arm injury to the deceased. After considering pros and cons, the defence version was more probable than the prosecution. Prosecution has laboured in vain to prove the case in the manner as alleged by it and while extending the benefit of doubt to co-accused and holding that murder of deceased was committed by accused in exercise of right of defence of property. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 123.
Accused was less then 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, he was going to be tried under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, but such Ordinance was set-aside by High Court and later on, that judgment of High Court was also set-aside by the Apex Court and such has not been denied by either of the party that he was Juvenile Offender at the time of occurrence so trial Court was right in not awarding death penalty to him. As the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, so present appeal to his extent was dismissed. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 262.
Statement of PW/eye-witness showed that he alongwith his son had seen the accused and co-accused had set the deceased lady on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her but strangely they never bothered to interfere or made any attempt to save her, rather left the place to inform the complainant and other witnesses. Allegedly accused had confessed his guilt on the day of occurrence before a PW who never informed either to complainant or to police immediately but made the statement before police on the next day. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 697.
Whether the accused, who appeared to be a desparado standing in the "Chowks" at night, carrying fire-arms weapons and who get flared up to the extent of causing death of others on trivial matters and for petty reasons, would deserve any mercy and leniency, and whether the factum of non-repetition of the blow which used to be treated as a mitigating circumstance in the by-gone days, when the weapons used were "Dangs" and "Sotas", would be a valid consideration even today when the weapons used are automatic and semi-automatic guns and rifles. PLJ 2008 SC 485.
Allegation against respondents was that they had facilitated, added and assisted real offender and thus, were equally liable for the murder of deceased. No evidence suggesting instigation, conspiracy or planning of respondents for committing offence of murder was produced. No solid proof, about abetment being available on record, Courts were not obliged to form any opinion on such type of hypothetical versions. Abetment has to be proved through independent witnesses having no grudge or enmity with accused. Trial Court has, thus, rightly acquitted respondent. PLJ 2008 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 65.
Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. Prosecution case was full of doubts and on the basis of such a shaky evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to accused cannot be maintained because that has not come through unimpeachable sources, is untrustworthy, unreliable and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 251.
Accused have been specified role but in Court statements have been vicariously held liable for causing death of deceased but considering the document thumb impressed by deceased, then injured, High Court only hold appellant responsible for causing of death of deceased but because of absence of previous enmity and occurrence has taken place at the spur of moment and keeping in view the weapon used, sentence of 14 years R.I is reduce to 10 years R.I and for the same reasons conviction recorded under Section 324 PPC from seven years is reduced to three years R.I. Conviction and sentence under Section 337-A (ii) PPC is left intact. Co-accused has been awarded seven years R.I. under Section 324, PPC but for the reasons recorded in case for reduction of sentence, his sentence is also reduced to three years. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 96.
In consequence to the verdict given by the High Court, fresh evidence was not required to be recorded in the re-trial and the petitioners having accepted the remand order in toto, did not earlier raise any objection at any stage to the admissibility of evidence recorded by the special Court. Presiding officer of which was an Additional Sessions Judge, who having fulfilled all requirements of law, provided full opportunity to accused to cross examine the witnesses. Courts established under Suppression of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 were competent to try the offences committed with use of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons and in the present case, the cognizance was taken by the Special Court as T.T. Pistols were used in the crime, therefore, notwithstanding the jurisdictional defect in the trial, the technical objection regarding the admissibility of the evidence recorded by the Special Court, has no legal fore. PLJ 2007 SC 226.
No person was nominated in F.I.R. Appreciation of evidence. No case of motive was set up by prosecution in F.I.R. Clue of motive was given out by accused for commission of such heinous crime of murder of three human beings, when he confessed his guilt before witnesses. Upon circumstantial evidence, one cannot be convicted and awarded penalty of death. No bar or hindrance to pass sentence upon a killer of three human beings when chain of guilt is found not be broken and irresistible conclusion of guilt is surfacing from evidence which connected accused with commission of that offence without doubt. PLJ 2008 SC 886.
Complainant's son who was alleged to have been involved in the previous incident was not produced, so motive remained un-proved. P.Ws. also had suffered injuries during occurrence, was not impressing. Fact of their injuries was not a guarantee that they were truthful witnesses. Recovery of 3 empty shells of bullets from the occurrence i.e. open bazar on the third day could not be believed. No deep rooted enmity between parties existed. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 834.
According to FIR, accused had developed illicit relations with widow of deceased as he wanted to marry with her. Both eye-witnesses PWs had fully supported case of prosecution. They had no ill-will or animus against appellant to implicate him falsely. Court had to see whether evidence, had come from an impeachable source having intrinsic value, it was so in instance case. So there was no earthly reason to disbelieve their testimony. There was sufficient evidence in shape of ocular testimony and motive on record to maintain conviction of accused. Relationship of father of widow of deceased with accused was suggestive of fact that accused was not falsely implicated. Had it been so, father of widow of deceased must had got matter compromised either before or after conclusion of trial when accused was sentenced to death. Prosecution had proved its case against accused to its hilt and beyond any shadow of doubt. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 554.
Delay stands fully explained, as the complainant had been desperately trying to save the life of his young daughter. These facts are supported by the statement of Doctor, who was working at Civil Hospital. Even delay in lodging of FIR matters in cases where previous enmity exists or where a large net is thrown by the complainant or when complainant lives at quite some distance from the place of occurrence. Hence, delay in lodging the FIR would be of no consequence and would not benefit the appellant. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 8.
One of accused who had absconded, was not before the Court when trial commenced and before said accused could be arrested and sent up, prosecution evidence was recorded. Examination-in-chief of two PWs was recorded after about four months of recording of examination-in-chief of other three PWs. After arrest of absconding accused though amended charge was framed, but evidence was not recorded afresh as required u/S. 353, Cr.P.C.; it was also violative of Art. 133 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Such gross irregularity was not curable u/S. 537, Cr.P.C. Another accused was not afforded proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which was legal right of every accused. Said accused, in circumstances was not allowed to defend himself in a proper way. On merits also material infirmities/contradictions existed in the depositions of the PWs and even in the impugned judgment, the facts had not been stated truly and properly. Single barrel gun was allegedly recovered from the house of accused. Such recovery was made in absence of said accused and neither the gun nor the empty cartridges were sealed. Mashirnama of recovery had deposed that hatchets were already secured before his arrival and that cartridges were not sealed in his presence and police obtained his signature on blank paper. Mashir had further admitted that no bloodstain was found on hatchets at the time of recovery. Circumstances had revealed that case was registered after holding the investigation, which was not permissible in law. Ocular testimony was also in conflict with medical evidence. Said defects had caused serious dents in the prosecution case rendering conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants illegal and unsustainable. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Karachi) 808.
FIR was recorded after due deliberation and consultation. Eye-witnesses were not present at the spot and had been cooked up later on, being closely related to the deceased. Story of prosecution was full of doubts. Benefit of doubt was extended to the accused. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 644.
Incident without pre-planning. Incident took place suddenly without pre-planning or pre-meditation. Incident took place due to conversation and at the spur of moment. These are the mitigating circumstances where the lesser sentences can be awarded to accused. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 445.
Contents of FIR and supplementary statement were put in a juxta position that prosecution had taken U-turn from his previous stand. Such fact created doubt in the prosecution story and the fact was not considered by High Court. Validity. It is an improvement made by the complainant in the supplementary statement, the statement of the complainant involving the appellants in the case was obviously false and no reliance can be placed therein in view of all attending circumstances available on the record and High Court was therefore, not justified to upheld the sentence of the appellants. Conviction of the appellants was not sustainable in the eye of law. High Court had erred in law to uphold their conviction. Evidence re-examined in the interest of justice and fairplay. Defence plea appeared to be reasonable and appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right and not as a matter of grace as prosecution has not proved its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. PLJ SC 2008 269.
Judicial confession made by appellant/accused was voluntary in nature and High Court has no coercion or pressure on him to make the statement. Magistrate who had recorded the judicial confession, had appeared before trial Court as witness and proved the confession. No ocular account, no other option but to believe the judicial confession extra judicial confession and his statement recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. in which he had admitted his guilt to have killed the deceased. Sentence which has been awarded to accused is adequate one in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant/accused is legal, just and in accordance with the criminal administration of natural of justice. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 450.
Prosecution proved beyond any doubt that pistol was recovered at the instance of accused/convict and empties recovered from place of occurrence. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Blood-stained clay and blood-stained clothes of both deceased were also recovered and sent to chemical examiner. Validity. Whenever sentence of qisas will be awarded to any offender, then it shall also create a deterrent in the society due to which no other person shall dare to commit the offence of murder. Sentence of qisas is not enforced, then the peace and tranquility of society shall be jeopardised and it shall be enjoinder of debacle of peaceful and harmonious atmosphere. Court and Shariat Court had rightly awarded the sentence of twice qisas alongwith other sentences for the murder of two young men. PLJ 2007 SC (AJ&K) 97.
Accused got recovered identity card, two cheques, a watch, a finger ring and another finger silver ring allegedly belonged to deceased. Such articles were not even mentioned in FIR by prosecution. No accused would be of such foolish type that he would keep these articles for such a long period of one year. Alleged recovery of such articles is of no avail to the prosecution. So far as recovery of "Kassi" which was not blood stained, is concerned, that is not believable because "Kassis" are very easily available in open market, so its plantation on accused cannot be ruled out. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 427.
In the contents of FIR, it was never mentioned about the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of missing. Dead body/skeleton of deceased was pointed out by accused about eleven months after occurrence. Admitted that dead body was in the advanced stage of puterfaction. Deceased found one injury on the heel with a sharp edged weapon. It was just impossible that deceased could have been identified after eleven months of occurrence. Case is full of doubts against the accused, so the matter and while granting benefit of doubt to accused. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 427.
Where accused murdered his mother, the bar of death sentence is provided for cases of Qatl-e-Amd liable to Qisas u/S. 302(a) but not for cases liable to Tazir u/S. 302(b). PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 927.
It was an unseen & blind occurrence. Dead Body was found in an open plot. Complainant had not nominated any culprit in FIR and had declared that he had no enmity with any one. PW of last seen evidence was unable to substantiate the allegation that deceased was in the company of accused. His statement was not corroborated by any other PW. Joint extra-judicial confession by accused with his father was not understandable and seemed to be mere concoction. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 942.
Duration between death and postmortem examination. Doctor stated that time between death and postmortem examination was 7 to 14 hours whereas, according to prosecution the occurrence took place and 7.30 a.m. If time is calculated to 14 hours then occurrence might have taken place at 1.00 a.m. (night) or if the time is started from two hours then occurrence might had taken place prior to sunset. Place where occurrence took place was deserted one because there was no residence of any individual around it and deceased was done to death near Railway line. There was blackening available on injuries whereas no blackening was found on injury but as per statement of PWs fired at deceased from some distance. Description of injuries negates the ocular account. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1014.
Non association of independent witnesses. It is a matter of common knowledge that independent persons/witnesses of a murder case do not come forward to depose against the accused out of fear of reprisals. The mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased does not ipso facto imply that their testimony has to be discarded. The plea of self-defence to the deceased appears to have been introduced by the appellant at a subsequent stage in order to create mitigating circumstance as otherwise this plea was not raised by the appellant during investigation. The number of injuries suffered by the deceased clearly reflects that the appellant had visibly exceeded his right of self-defence. Plea of self-defence advanced by appellant was pre-posterous and cannot be accepted. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 962.
All the legal heirs except one minor legal heir and injured complainant have pardoned the accused in the name of God Almighty. Defence saving certificates against the share of diyat amount of minor, purchased in her name, handed over to her mother. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1034.
Complainant was son of deceased mother and real brother of the accused so there was no question of mistaken identity even if occurrence had taken place at night. Complainant had no previous enmity for false implication. Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained. Accused was not of good character. Ocular account had been fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of empty. Accused remained absconder till his arrest without any explanation. Prosecution fully established its case beyond any shadow of doubt. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 927.
As regards commission of sodomy on the deceased there was unimpeachable medical evidence but there was neither any DNA test nor grouping of seman/swabs to establish whether both the appellants or one of them had committed the sodomy. Due to such uncertain position, the benefit of doubt would go to both the appellants and a case of sodomy was not established against them. PLJ 2008 FSC 21.
Court has to see that which version is more plausible and convicting one when put in juxta position. Injured were got medically examined by police with a delay of 7 hours. Neither complainant nor any injured went to police station for 3 1/2 hours in order to lodge FIR. Prosecution had suppressed fire-arm injuries on two accused/appellants. During cross-examination of Doctor it had come to light that condition of injured appellants' was serious because one got injury on his chest and other got fire-arm injury on his body resulting in a fracture of his shoulder. Trial Court had not believed story of abduction of deceased from his house to tubewell of appellants which observations seems to be correct. Possibility of version of appellant given in reply of a question in his statement u/S. 342 of Cr.P.C. to be correct cannot be ruled out. Trial Court had convicted and sentenced accused on the ground that he exceeded his right of self defence. Evidence on record and facts of the case show that accused had not exceeded his right of self defence. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280.
Different parameters and circumstances for interference in an appeal against acquittal and in appeal for conviction. Question of. Power to enhance the sentence. Determination of. Sentence should be enhanced in cases where the failure to enhance the sentence would lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. Supreme Court might have imposed the capital sentences is not a sufficient reason for enhancement or conviction coupled with fact that defence had taken a defence plea at relevant time of awarding conviction to accused. Decision of High Court in acquittal of accused are well grounded and in back ground of the case discretion exercised by judges is in conformity with accepted principles of criminal justice. PLJ 2008 SC 209.
Place of occurrence being situated close to the residential houses of the parties, the presence of eye witnesses at the barbar shop would not be challengeable. Unconcerned persons present at the seen of occurrence usually hesitate to become witnesses in such cases to avoid enmity, therefore, the non-production of the barbar or any other person present at the spot cannot be considered a circumstance adverse to the prosecution. No misreading or non-reading of evidence causing material defect in the conclusion drawn by High Court regarding the guilt of petitioner. Concurrent finding of the two Courts qua guilt of petitioner would not call for interference of Supreme Court. PLJ 2008 SC 442.
Accused was specifically named in FIR, who had caused injuries to the person of deceased with churri. Presence of injured PWs at place of occurrence was intrinsic and could not be doubted as it was unchallenged. Recovery of blood-stained earth, report of chemical examiner & report of Serologist further proved the prosecution story. PWs had passed the test of lengthy cross-examination but no material discrepancies. PLJ 2008 SC 406.
PWs did not disclose the source of light on which they identified the accused persons. Ocular testimony was not worth-relying with regard to identity of the accused persons. A doubt had been created therefore mistaken identity could not be ruled out. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 689.
No independence witness to prove the motive. Presence of star witness at the spot is no satisfactory. Statement was not corroborated by any inspiring evidence. Statement of other witnesses is also neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring. PLJ 2008 SC 390.
No previous enmity or grudge existed between the parties so as to depose falsely against accused. Statement is supported by medical evidence and circumstances of the case. Evidence of eye witnesses is consistent and trust worthy account of the occurrence. Appellate Court refused to enter into microscopical re-appraisal of the ocular evidence of PW, especially after the scrutiny by Courts below. PLJ 2008 SC 458.
When guilt of several accused proved to be equal and indistinguishable then no distinction could be drawn while awarding sentence to each of them. Sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life and the benefit of 382-B, Cr.P.C. was provided. PLJ 2008 SC 458.
Deceased was done to death at the dark hours of the night and the occurrence was unseen and un-wintessed. Eye-witnesses who were disbelieved qua the acquitted accused, who were attributed specific role of causing injuries to the deceased. No other independent corroboration available. For the purpose of conviction and sentence in case of capital punishment, the evidence must come through an unimpeachable source being worthy of credence which was lacking in the present case. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 738.
In absence of recovery of crime empties of bullets & positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, recovery of licenced pistol from accused could not advance the case of prosecution. Eye-witnesses were found to be chance witnesses as they failed to establish their presence at the spot. Place of occurrence was located near a shrine at distance of 40/50 yards from the road. Allegedly it was time of Fajar Prayer but no person from the locality came there and supported the ocular version. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 795.
Finding of Medical Officer as well as the special Medical Board were concurrent on the weapon of offence used for the commission of offence i.e. the seat of injury on the head of deceased. There was a commminuted of fracture of skull involving the frontal, temporal parietal and occipital bones of the skull especially its upper half of skull was scattered into 15 pieces of different size. Head injury was caused by a fire-arm. Prosecution had established the participation of the accused in occurrence but failed to established his intention to kill the deceased or causing a fatal blow/injury with blunt weapon beyond reasonable doubt. PLJ 2008 SC 694.
Parents of deceased had forgiven the respondents/ convicts but not her husband. Punishment of qisas could not be awarded and proceeded to sentence the respondents u/S. 302(c) of PPC. Respondents were liable to be punished u/S. 302(b), PPC as tazir. Conviction/sentence under tazir can be compounded only if all the heirs forgive the offender. Conviction converted from u/S. 302(c) to u/S. 302(b), PPC and sentenced the respondents to life imprisonment. PLJ 2008 SC 109.
Appellant had acted in the state of grave and sudden provocation to save the honour of his sister from the deceased, who was trying to commit zina with her while removing shalwar. Prosecution except for the oral statements of the eye-witnesses no documentary evidence was produced in support of the claim of sale or purchase of the land by the deceased from co-accused and even no connecting evidence had been produced before police. Prosecution witnesses were capable of making false evidence and they could not be relied upon for maintaining conviction in a case of capital sentence. According to the investigating officer out of the last worn clothes of the deceased, the shalwar was not stained with blood, only qameez and bunyan were specifically written stained with blood. Appellant was medically examined and three blunt weapon injuries were found on his person. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 210.
Occurrence took place in the compound attached to the house of the deceased while the complainant party was sitting in the shade of a tree to protect themselve from heat of lamp of heaven. In broad day-light, one of the colleagues of the complainant could have mistakenly caused fire-arm injuries to deceased. According to the medical evidence deceased had received three injuries on his person, a colleague of prosecution party could not have committed mistake of firing at his own associate thrice. Accused has miserably failed to prove defence version. Ocular version which include the evidence of injured PW, being probable and plausible in the attending circumstances of the case, is believed and the conviction awarded to accused/appellant was maintained. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 239.
No comments:
Post a Comment