MANSAB ALI vs State Chance witness — 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MANSAB ALI VS State Chance witness---Scope---In ordinary parlance, a chance witness is the one who in the normal course is not supposed to be present on the crime spot unless he/she offers cogent, convincing and believable explanation, justifying his/ her presence there. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Motive as alleged by the prosecution was that the deceased had quarreled with the accused persons, due to which accused had a grudge with him and committed his murder---Record showed that no detail of the quarrel which was the motive part of the occurrence had been given either in written complaint or inquest report---It was not discernible from the record that what was the cause of that quarrel, who was the witness of that quarrel and who had separated them---Neither the matter was reported to the police nor any Panchayat was convened for patch-up---Motive part of the occurrence, being word of mouth, could not get corroboration from any other independent source of the evidence, which remained unproved and shrouded in mystery as well---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Blood stained clothes of eye-witnesses not produced---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Both the witnesses had claimed that while handling the deceased their clothes had been smeared with the blood of the deceased but admittedly no such blood-stained clothes of the said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced which otherwise could prove conveniently that they took the deceased to the hospital---Significantly both the said witnesses during the cross-examination stated that their clothes were smeared with blood but in the same breath they took somersault by stating that they washed the same---Said omission on the part of the eye-witnesses struck at the roots of the case of the prosecution and spoke volumes about their dishonest and false claim---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Record showed that the co-accused of the present accused was acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court by extending benefit of doubt to him, as such the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were capable of falsehood---Case of present accused was based on the same set of evidence and further the acquittal of the co-accused had not been challenged---Once prosecution witnesses were disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then they could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they were corroborated by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and unimpeachable in nature, but this was not available in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Driver of vehicle used to shift dead body to the hospital not presented as witness---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---According to the medical evidence the deceased died instantaneously, but in spite of that they took the deceased to hospital who had already died instead of reporting the matter to the police for setting the machinery of law in motion, which spoke volume on the veracity of the eye-witnesses---During the cross-examination both the eye-witnesses claimed that they shifted the deceased to the hospital on a car/wagon, but they could not disclose the registration number of the car or wagon or name of the driver of that vehicle which made the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence doubtful---Though Investigating Officer claimed that the complainant had produced one driver who shifted the deadbody to hospital along with the complainant party, but astonishingly the driver of the said wagon had not been produced by the prosecution during the trial which gave rise to an adverse inference that had he been entered the witness-box he would have deposed against the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Motive---Scope---Once motive is setup by the prosecution, but thereafter it fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defence. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of incriminating articles---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased---Record showed that the attesting witness to all the recoveries of incriminating articles, i.e. recovery of pistol 30 bore, recovery of empty cartridges and possession of blood of the deceased secured from the place of occurrence through cotton, was Mr. "A" whose testimony had already been disbelieved as a whole---Corroboratory evidence must come from independent source providing strength and endorsement to the account of the eye-witnesses, therefore, eye-witnesses, in the absence of extraordinary and very exceptional and rare circumstances, could not corroborate themselves by becoming attesting witness/witnesses to the recovery of crime articles---In other words, eye-witnesses could not corroborate themselves but corroboratory evidence must come from independent source and should be supported by independent witnesses other than eye-witnesses---Thus, the recoveries in the present case were equally of no judicial efficacy--- Furthermore, in column No. 23 of the Inquest Report no crime empty had been shown present there, albeit in the recovery memo and in the site plan, the said empties had been shown recovered lying very close to the dead body of the deceased---Said deliberate omissions created reasonable doubt about the recovery---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 6/7 hours in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased not explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Record showed that the occurrence took place on 30.08.2016 at about 10:00 a.m. in an area situated at a distance of 6-miles towards south from Police Station---Detail of crime was reported by complainant through written application presented before S.I. in the Police Station at about 11:45 a.m. which shortly thereafter was transcribed into FIR---Though, it appeared that the case was arising out of a prompt FIR, however, review of record reflected that it was not so---In that regard, it was noticed that although dead body of the deceased was received in the dead house at 12.00 p.m. on 30.08.2016, but postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted at 4.00 p.m.---As per postmortem report the time between the death and postmortem examination was 6-7 hours---So it was a case of delayed postmortem, which casted serious doubt that the FIR was recorded with promptitude, and an inference could be drawn that the intervening period was consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after the preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification for submitting the documents at 3.30 p.m. and conducting the postmortem examination with the delay of 6-7 hours instead of conducting the postmortem examination at 12.00 p.m. when the dead body of the deceased was received in the hospital---Noticeable delay in post mortem examination of the dead body was generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses before preparing police papers necessary for the same---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradiction between ocular account and medical evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---According to the theory of crime advanced by prosecution, deceased fell prey to inescapable clutches of death after receiving only firearm injuries---Eye-witnesses remained consistent while deposing so, however, they did not utter even a single word qua the receiving of blunt weapon injuries---On the other hand, postmortem report of deceased revealed that as many as fifteen injuries were found on the person of the deceased, out of which nine were firearm injuries while six were caused by blunt weapons---Question arose that if at all the occurrence was witnessed by complainant and eye-witness then why no reference was made to those blunt weapon injuries---So much so, neither in the crime report nor in their depositions before the court, any accused was alleged to be armed with any club, rod stick, etc---Said fact gained more importance when seen in the context that the alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned either in column No. 4 or at page 4 of the inquest report as being the ones who were present at the time of preparation of the said inquest report by the Investigating Officer---Said witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the postmortem examination---All the said omissions were conspicuous by their absence---In absence of physical proof or the reason for the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene, the same could not be relied upon--- As per site plan of the place of occurrence point No. 1 was the place where the deceased had received injuries, whereas, point No. 4 was the place from where the deceased was fired at by the accused---Distance from point No. 1 to point No. 4 was six feet, whereas, as per postmortem report blackening and burning on all the entry wounds was visible, therefore, ocular account furnished by the two eye-witnesses was not in consonance with the medical evidence which clearly contradicted the statements of the eye-witnesses---Blackening appeared on the dead body in case the deceased had received injuries at a distance of 4 feet according to medical jurisprudence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MANSAB ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Ocular account of the incident in issue was presented before the Trial Court by complainant and another witness---Both the said witnesses were not only very closely related to deceased but they were also chance witnesses---Complainant was the real mother of deceased whereas other witness was a brother of the complainant and a paternal uncle of the deceased---Said witnesses failed to bring any evidence on the record establishing their presence close to the deceased at the relevant time---Occurrence in the present case took place far away from the houses of the said witnesses which was apparent from the statement of complainant---In such circumstances, presence of the eye-witnesses on the crime spot at the fateful time seemed to be per chance as they were not supposed to be present on the spot at the early hours of the day but at a place where they resided, carried on business or ran day to day life affairs---Even otherwise, the stated reason for presence of the eye-witnesses with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the Trial Court through any independent evidence---In such circumstances, the presence of both the eye-witnesses appeared to be a laboured story to justify presence at place of occurrence, more importantly when the acclaimed presence of both eye-witnesses was out of their routine, rather was a sheer coincidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

MANSAB ALI vs State Chance witness — 2024 PCrLJ 617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ