Murder cases | Prosecutor General

Murder cases

S. 302(b)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 6---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Motive not proved---Recovery of crime weapon inconsequential---Quantum of sentence may be reduced from death penalty to imprisonment for life if the prosecution fails to establish motive---This principle is in conformity with Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)---In the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is not proved by the prosecution, the same may be considered as a mitigating factor in order to reduce the quantum of sentence in cases involving capital punishment---In the present case the High Court had correctly concluded that the motive was not proved by the prosecution and the recovery of the crime weapon was inconsequential---As such the respondent (convict) was entitled to the benefit of reduction of sentence and the High Court rightly altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. : 2024 SCMR 128

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 364-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a minor---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Investigation carried out incompetently---Counsel for the petitioner (accused) stated that it was reported to the police on 5 August 2022 that deceased minor aged about 9/10 years was missing, and on 8 August 2022 after the recovery of his body the FIR was registered wherein the petitioner was nominated, however, he was not mentioned when it was first reported to the police that minor was missing; that statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('the Code') of two relatives of the deceased were recorded which stated that they had last seen the minor with the petitioner, but this did not stand to reason because they would have not permitted a young boy to be taken with an adult and not have informed the boy's father---Validity---Investigation of the case showed that the police report (challan) had only relied upon the two statements of relatives of the deceased---It was most unfortunate that a young boy died but proper investigation did not take place to ascertain what had happened let alone who was responsible---Present case was a classic example of an incompetently handled investigation---Case of further enquiry was made out - Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was admitted to bail. PLD 2024 SC 73

. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 302, 34, 118, 120-B, 109 & 506---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---After registration of FIR, the complainant recorded four supplementary statements---In the first three supplementary statements, the complainant did not nominate the petitioner as an accused---However in her fourth supplementary statement, recorded after a lapse of more than four months of the occurrence, she did nominate the petitioner for the first time---Bare look of the crime report and the subsequent four supplementary statements recorded by the complainant shows that she kept changing her stance---It appears there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and the prosecution case hinges upon circumstantial evidence---Petitioner is behind bars for the last more than 20 months---Case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and petitioner was admitted to bail. 2024 SCMR 205

-According to the witnesses, the accused fired at the deceased from a distance of 3/4 karams but the medical record shows that there was blackening and charring around the wounds, which suggested that the injuries were caused from a close range, which further negated the ocular account---There were only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who admittedly, had been disbelieved to the extent of the acquitted co-accused, who was alleged to have played a similar role in the occurrence, then the same evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused on capital punishment unless there was an independent corroboration and some strong incriminating evidence to the extent of his involvement in commission of the offence but the same was lacking in the instant case---Recovery of weapon from the accused was inconsequential because admittedly no crime empty was collected from the place of occurrence---Motive had also rightly been disbelieved by the High Court by holding that it was a vaguely formulated motive and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. 2024 SCMR 156

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 302, 34, 118, 120-B, 109 & 506---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail, grant of---Call Data Record (CDR)---So far as the Call Data Record (CDR) is concerned, in absence of any concrete material the CDR is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and petitioner was admitted to bail. 2024 SCMR 205

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Reappraisal of evidence---Petition seeking enhancement of sentence, dismissal of---Inconsequential recovery---High Court through the impugned judgment has rightly termed the recovery as inconsequential keeping in view the fact that crime empties secured from the place of occurrence were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of the petitioner/convict---Judgment passed by the High Court, whereby it reduced the death sentence awarded to petitioner/convict into imprisonment for life, is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence available on the record---Petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was dismissed and leave was refused. 2024 SCMR 67

---Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not show the place of incident in the site plan through the prosecution claimed that the incident occurred near a hotel; I.O. also admitted that he had not demarcated the place from where the accused had fired at the victim in the rough site plan, nor had the prosecution witnesses shown him the specific place of death of the deceased at the site of the occurrence; I.O. further admitted that he had called upon the inhabitants of the place of occurrence i.e. owners of the nearby haveli and service station, but they could not provide any detail of the occurrence or any description of the assailants---As per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained two firearm injuries, however the postmortem report revealed that only one firearm injury was found on the deceased's body---High Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the case against the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. 2024 SCMR 51

302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Witnesses of the ocular account related to the deceased---Mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Minor discrepancies--- As long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence---Test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence---If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can take advantage of the same---While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth---Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety --- Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored.2023 SCMR 117

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused---Reappraisal of evidence---Name of the accused was not mentioned in the crime report, and his name was brought in through a private complaint, which was lodged after a lapse of three months wherein his name was mentioned for the first time---Statement of one of the witnesses of the ocular account recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. also did not disclose the name of the accused---Alleged confessional statement on the part of all the accused was of no avail as the same was made jointly, which had no legal sanctity---Even otherwise, the same was inadmissible in evidence---High Court while adjudicating the matter and taking into consideration all the material placed on the record gave a finding of acquittal in favour of accused, which seemed to be well reasoned and the same did not invite any interference on judicial premises---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.2023 SCMR 190

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Minor discrepancies in ocular account and medical evidence---Not significant---Casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons---During occurrence when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to correctly mention the location of the fire shots with exactitude---Minor discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account---Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with medical evidence being not material and not imprinting any dent in prosecution version would have no adverse effect on prosecution case. 2023 SCMR 478

--When the accused had taken a specific stance and in support of the same had placed on record the relevant documents, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C.---Except for his oral assertion the complainant did not produce any independent evidence to substantiate the motive part of the prosecution story, therefore the prosecution had failed to prove motive---So far as recovery of blood stained hatchet was concerned, the same was allegedly recovered on the pointation of accused from a thoroughfare, which was easily accessible to everyone, therefore, the same was inconsequential---Facts and circumstances of the present case were sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitled the accused to the right of benefit of the doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---2023 SCMR 566

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Heinous offence---Mere heinousness of the offence, if not proved to the hilt, is not a ground to punish an accused.2023 SCMR 566

--Both witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in the case, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not paint out any plausible reason as to why the complainant had falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real brother---Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon---According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the crime empties matched with the weapon recovered from the accused---In these circumstances, there was sufficient material available on record to sustain conviction of the accused---Conviction of accused under section 302(b), P.P.C was maintained---Appeal was partly allowed.2023 SCMR 596

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Related witness, evidence of---Scope---Related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances---Related witness can also be a natural witness---If an offence is committed within the presence of the family members then they assume the position of natural witnesses---In case, their evidence is reliable, cogent and clear, the prosecution case cannot be doubted---However, a related witness would become an interested witness when his evidence is tainted with malice and it shows that he is desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting evidence---Evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized by the Court. 2023 SCMR 1375

Ss. 34, 148, 149, 302(a), 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Multiple assailants---Common intention or common object---Duty of court to ascertain the aspect of common intention or common object at the time of framing of charge and sentencing of accused persons stated. 2023 SCMR 750

302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Heinousness of offence---Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to punish an accused. For the accused to be afforded the right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused.2023 SCMR 670

302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Medical evidence---Recovery evidence---Conviction---Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.2023 SCMR 723

--Contents of FIR, statement of prosecution witnesses of ocular account were corroborated by the medical evidence---Accused was apprehended at the spot by the police officials soon after the occurrence leaving no ambiguity qua his involvement in the crime---Weapon of offence recovered from the accused was transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory without any delay in its dispatch---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory further confirmed that the empties recovered from the spot matched with the weapon recovered from the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed.2023 SCMR 2016

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Medical evidence---Discrepancies---Minor discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account. 2023 SCMR 723

---Present crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of two days for which not a single word had been put forward by the complainant---Delayed registration of FIR prima facie showed deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant---Trial Court after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the accused and as to whether section 324, P.P.C. was applicable or not---Accused was behind bars for the last more than five months and merely on the basis of bald allegations, the liberty of a person could not be curtailed---Accused had made out a case for bail as his case squarely fell within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.2023 SCMR 857

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Ocular evidence--- Medical evidence---Minor discrepancies---Such discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account---Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with medical evidence being not material, and not imprinting any dent in prosecution version, would have no adverse affect on prosecution case.2023 SCMR 900

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Ocular account provided by a witness---"Contradiction" and "minor discrepancies"---Distinction and effect---Contradiction in the statement of a witness is fatal for the prosecution case whereas minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful---Normal course of human conduct is that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies---Parrot-like statements are always discredited by the courts---In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounts to contradiction, regard is required to be made to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witnesses were making the statement---Normal discrepancies are always present, howsoever, honest and truthful a witness may be---Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, memory due to lapse of time and mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence---Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.2023 SCMR 831

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Ocular account---Preference over medical evidence---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. 2023 SCMR 723

S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Confessional video of accused---Evidentiary value---Such kind of alleged confessionary video is not beneficial to the complainant/prosecution unless it is properly produced before the court of law, its genuineness is established and then the same is proved in accordance with law for it to be treated as evidence in the case---With the advancement of science and technology, it is now possible to get a forensic examination, audit or test conducted through an appropriate laboratory so as to ascertain as to whether an audio tape or a video is genuine or not. 2022 SCMR 1954

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Benefit of doubt--- Scope--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.2022 SCMR 1540

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Minor discrepancies in prosecution case---While appreciating the evidence, the court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies---Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored--- Accused cannot claim premium of such minor discrepancies---If importance is given to such insignificant inconsistencies then there would hardly be any conviction.2022 SCMR 1931

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record---Ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not point out any reason as to why the complainant would falsely involve the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real son---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---So far as the delay of about 2 hours 45 minutes in lodging the FIR was concerned, the complainant in his cross-examination had reasonably explained such delay---Parties were known to each other and no question of mistaken identity arose---Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses of ocular account had clearly mentioned that a tube-light was glowing at the main gate in front of which the occurrence took place---Source of light was also established from the rough site plan as well as scaled site plan, which was essential part of the prosecution case---After the occurrence, the accused also remained absconder for about six months, which was also a corroboratory piece of evidence against him---Sufficient evidence was available to sustain the conviction of the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.2022 SCMR 1931

---So far as the recovery of weapon of offence was concerned, admittedly no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, which could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, therefore, the recovery was inconsequential---High Court had rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life---No further leniency could be shown to the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.2022 SCMR 1931

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Any doubt arising in the prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the defence---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. 2022 SCMR 1328

Question of common intention under section 34, P.P.C. could best be examined during the trial after recording of the evidence---To the extent of the accused the reappeared to be no reasonable grounds for believing that he had committed the non-bailable offence, but there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail. 2022 SCMR 1328

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Quantum of sentence--- Motive not established---Effect---Absence of motive or absence of proof of the same would be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to determine the quantum of sentence.2022 SCMR 1608

S. 497---Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), Ss. 6(3) & 6(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 212 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Juvenile of 'more than sixteen years of age'---Connotation---In the present case the accused was 'exactly' sixteen years of age on the date the offence was committed, and was not 'more than sixteen years of age'---Such fine distinction had to be kept in mind when considering application of section 6(3) and section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 ('the 2018 Act')---Since the accused on the date of commission of the offence was exactly sixteen years of age, and not more than sixteen years of age, therefore, applicable provision of the 2018 Act would be section 6(3), which provides that the accused has to be considered as if 'he was accused of commission of a bailable offence'---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.2022 SCMR 1806

--Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant would falsely involve the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real brother---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---According to the report of the Forensic Science Labo-ratory, the crime empty was found fired from the pistol recovered from the accused---Conviction of accused under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained---Appeal was dismissed. 2022 SCMR 1882