ANWAR vs State appreciation of evidence — 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ANWAR VS State appreciation of evidence---Principle---Mere conjectures and probabilities can not take the place of proof---If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or nonexistence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving benefit of the doubt to the accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice, will be reduced to a naught. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused--- Doubtful--- Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their further intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Iron rod allegedly used in the commission of offence by the accused was recovered on his pointation---On scanning the evidence of prosecution in respect of recovery, it was established that iron rod was foisted upon the accused to strengthen the case of complainant---Mashir of recovery deposed that he along with Investigating Officer, two Police Constables and accused proceeded on police mobile from police station and accused led them into his place and took out an iron rod from its ceiling and produced the same before Investigating Officer by disclosing that it was the same iron rod with which he had committed murder of deceased---Iron rod was wrapped in plastic and it was blood stained---Said witness had not deposed a single word to establish that after the recovery said iron rod was sealed, but he identified the iron rod present in court in sealed condition as same---Investigating Officer had not stated a single word in his examination-in-chief that the iron rod was wrapped in plastic and it was blood stained nor that he sealed the iron rod at the time of its recovery---Investigating Officer also did not disclose the names of other Police Officials who were with him at the time of recovery of the iron rod---Investigating Officer also admitted that the date of recovery was not mentioned on sealing cloth of iron rod---Said iron rod was not sent for Forensic Science Laboratory nor was any report produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court---All the said facts and the circumstances made the recovery of iron rod from the accused as doubtful---Incident took place on 01.04.2017 and the accused was arrested on 11-04-2017 whereas recovery of iron rod was shown on 16-04-2017, i.e. after about 16 days from the incident and 5 days from the arrest of accused---Importantly, it was not expected from an accused person to keep a weapon (stained with blood) as souvenir because during the intervening period there was ample time to destroy or at least washout the weapon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Inconsistency---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Prosecution witnesses stated that accused caused iron rod blow to the deceased which hit his head and then other accused caused lathi blow to the deceased on the same place of the head---No one could believe such type of evidence of prosecution witnesses as according to them the incident took place at night hours and they had seen the incident in torch lights from a distance---In such circumstances, it was not possible to witnesses the incident in the manner as deposed by the prosecution witnesses---As per the evidence of Medical Officer, the deceased received solitary injury on his head showing fracture on the skull ---From the evidence produced by the prosecution it was also not clear as to whose blow hit the deceased out of two accused---If the blows of both the accused hit the deceased then there must be two injuries on the person of deceased but as per postmortem report deceased received only one injury---Ocular account was in conflict with medical evidence, in circumstances---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Prosecution is under obligation to prove its case against the accused person on the standard of proof required in criminal cases, namely, beyond reasonable doubt standard---Prosecution canot be said to have discharged such obligation by producing evidence that merely meets the preponderance of probability standard applied in civil cases---If the prosecution fails to discharge its said obligation and there remains a reasonable doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the guilt of the accused person, the benefit of that doubt is to be given to the accused person as of right, not as of concession. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three days in lodging FIR---Unwitnessed occurrence---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their further intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that the incident took place on 01-04-2017 at about 11:00 p.m. of the night and the deceased was brought before the doctor for examination and postmortem on 02-04-2017 at 12:25 a.m.---Postmortem was conducted between 1:45 to 2:45 am (as per postmortem report), however the FIR was registered on 03-04-2017 with the delay of about three days---Said delay had not been explained by the prosecution properly---Complainant during cross-examination stated that the delay was caused as they were hoping that the matter would be settled out side of the court in jirga---Complainant during cross-examination stated that dead body was taken directly to the hospital and Police Officer had come at the hospital for completing formalities of the dead body---Complainant had not deposed a single word that any entry in respect of incident was recorded by the police---However, Investigating Officer deposed that on 02-04-2017 he was duty officer and at 12:50 a.m. complainant appeared at police station and informed that his brother had been murdered and further informed that they had shifted the dead body to the hospital for which he recorded such entry No.13 which was also exhibited in his evidence---Investigating Officer during cross-examination admitted that the complainant had not disclosed to him the name of the accused persons who committed the murder---Entry No.13 had been examined carefully and therein the names of the accused persons the manner in which incident took place (as stated in FIR), the names of the witnesses who as per FIR witnessed the incident, were not mentioned---However, it was mentioned in station entry that FIR would be registered after the funeral ceremony---Investigating Officer during his cross-examination stated that on the date of incident, the complainant did not disclose the names of the accused persons on his first appearance at police station---On the next day of the incident, the complainant did not appear at the police station---Complainant had disclosed that the incident occurred at night time and if the names of accused persons would be cleared, then he would disclose the same---Perusal of the said evidence produced by the prosecution showed that the incident was an un-witness incident and the FIR was registered after consultation and deliberations---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Recovery of weapon of offence---Scope---Recovery of weapon of offence is only a corroborative piece of evidence---In absence of substantive evidence, it is not considered sufficient to hold the accused person guilty of the offence charged---When substantive evidence failes to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence can not by itself prove the prosecution case. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence neither pinpoints the accused nor establishes the identity of the accused, and at the most can depict the locale of injury, duration, the weapon used etc.---Medical evidence can never be considered to be a corroborative piece of evidence and at the most can be considered to be supporting evidence only to the extent of specification of the seat of injuries, the weapon used, duration, the cause of death etc. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Identification of the accused persons at the time and place of incident doubtful---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their further intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Identification of the accused persons at the time and place of incident in the present case was doubtful---Admittedly, the incident took place at 11:00 p.m. in the night and the complainant party after hearing the cries of deceased reached there and witnessed the incident in torch lights---Complainant stated during cross-examination that they all had torches with them and other two eye-witnesses also deposed the same but surprisingly during the investigation such torch lights were not taken into possession by the Investigation Officer nor were the same produced before him or before the court by the prosecution witnesses which made the identification of accused as doubtful---Further doubt was visible in identification of the accused persons from the evidence of witnesses---Complainant stated that he identified the accused persons from a distance of 20/25 paces; eye-witness stated that he identified the accused persons from a distance of 4/5 paces; and an other eye-witness stated that he identified the accused persons from a distance of 30/40 paces---Identification of three accused persons amongst six with specific weapons and role during the night hours with torch lights from the distance stated by the witnesses created very serious doubt in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

ANWAR vs State appreciation of evidence — 2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR