Police Officer himself a prosecutor and investigator and other recovery witnesses his subordinates. Held, presence of independent recovery witnesses was necessary in the case. Appellant acquitted for offence u/S. 13-\XX 65 Arms Ordinance. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 475, Rehmat Ali.
A.S.I. himself is complainant and has also acted as Investigating Officer. Legally he could not assume dual function. It was incumbent upon complainant to have entrusted investigation of the case to another disinterested police officer. If such procedure is allowed to continue it would give a licence to police to involve innocent people in fake/false cases according to their whims. This trend is extremely dangerous and is accordingly deprecated with contempt. Recovery memo relied upon by prosecution discarded. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh) 1599,. Ishtiaq Ahmed.
Solitary statement of police officer can prove the fact of recovery. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 6 Islam-ul-Haq.
Only police officer witness of recovery. Not a single independent public witness cited. False implication cannot be ruled out. Accused acquitted 1977 P.Cr.LJ 671. Muhammad Azeem.
Police officials only recovery witnesses for recovery of sten gun. No public witness associated, for recovery of the weapon from the person of the accused although public witnesses were available. Accused acquitted. (DB) NLR 1994 Cr. 321, Muhammad Akram.
Police personnel as recovery witnesses are as competent as any one else in the absence of any material to indicate that they were biased or prejudiced for some extraneous reason. 1993 SCMR 1608, Nur Hussain.
Police official as good recovery witnesses as any other public witnesses unless it is proved that they have animus against the accused. (DB) PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lah.) 47, Gul Mayan.
Investigating Officer alone proving recoveries. Statement of A.S.I. police on oath about recoveries made in the presence of mashirs cannot be disbelieved. PLD 1975 SC 607 Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad etc. ref. (DB) PLJ 1977 Kar. 107. Hussain Bakhsh etc.
Recovery witnesses not supporting I.O. Investigating officer is naturally interested in the conviction of the accused. Recovery evidence of Investigating Officer disbelieved without corroboration. (DB) PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Lah.) 404. Rafaqat Ali.
Recovery witness, the complainant and investigator same Police Officer and other witnesses were his subordinates when the recovery was made on a thorough fare near Octroi Post and public witnesses were easily available. Held, the recovery of Klashnikov and its ammunition were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 938 (DB), Shahbaz Ahmed.
Public witness although declared hostile yet his evidence remained unshaken. The other two witnesses from police could not be relied upon because of contradictory evidence of the public witness about recovery of hand-grenade. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 485. Muhammad Ashraf.
Professional witness of recovery and Police tout. Mere previous instances of acting as a mashir will not disqualify such witness's evidence from being considered it is otherwise cogent and confidence inspiring. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1112 Rustam.
Recovery witness procured by police though respectable lose credibility. Where witnesses are not of the locality Court should examine their statements cautiously. PLD 1992 Kar. 5. Ashiq Hussain Chandio.
Recovery witnesses not supporting prosecution. Mere word of Investigating Officer in support is not enough. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 596. Muhammad Ali etc.
S.I. police only produced as recovery witness. Recovery of crime weapon not relied on. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 436. Faqir Muhammad.
Only police witnessing recovery of crime weapon does not make the recovery unreliable, when otherwise it appears to be genuine. 1991 SCMR 1268. Jiand.
Police officials as recovery witnesses are as good witnesses as any other citizen unless any mala fide is established against them, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they belong to the police department responsible for maintaining law and order. 1992 SCMR 1617, Muhammad Naeem.
Where recovery witnesses not produced but recovery solely supported by I.O. only, held, it is highly risky to rely on such evidence. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 355. Hyder.
Recovery witnesses only police officers. Held, purpose of section 103, Cr.P.C. is to ensure that testimony given in Court regarding search should not depend on police officer alone but also on independent person and also that all possibility of mischief be minimised by independent persons. None should be left to the mercy of investigating officer. PLJ 1987 FSC 22. Abdul Hameed.
When recovery witness won over by accused the evidence of investigating officer regarding recovery cannot be rejected about blood stained knife. (DB) NLR 1987 Cr. 677 Pervaiz Akhtar.
Recovery of heroin, only seizing officer produced. Witness from public not supporting prosecution. Police officers present also not produced. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1987 Cr.C. 61 Zarmash.
Recovery memo attested by police officials and driver of police jeep not relied upon as public witnesses were not joined. PLD 1988 FSC 26. Muhammad Sohail.
Police-man as recovery witness can be relied upon provided his conduct is above board. Where the I.O. gave no explanation for not preparing injury statement of one of the accused and also did not join any independent person for recovery evidence of such witness not relied upon. PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 395. Bashir Ahmed etc.
Recovery of gun, only police witnesses produced as recovery witnesses when witnesses from public were available. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1994 Cr. C. (Kar.) 514, Dur Muhammad.
Only police witness of recovery produced while two witnesses from public though available not produced. Conviction set aside. 1986 SCMR 462. Dost Muhammad.
Recovery witness from public involved in numerous theft case and was effectively under police influence, such witnesses not relied upon. 1985 SCMR 843. Muhammad Akram etc.
Police officer's evidence as a recovery witness alone is sufficient when he is not shown to have conducted the investigation dishonestly. PLJ 1987 SC 602. Safdar Abbas etc.
Search of a taxi car, no doubt taxi car is a place but as it is plying on a road, non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 103, Cr.P.C. is not fatal to the prosecution case. PLJ 1991 FSC 25. Altaf Hussain.
No witness of recovery from bus from where heroin was recovered but only police witnesses supported the recovery. Held, police witnesses are reliable witnesses of recovery as public travelling in a bus are reluctant to appear as witnesses in such a case. (SC) NLR 1986 Cr. 859. Sohail Ahmed.
Solitary witness of recovery a police officer, held, evidence could not be disbelieved because of the witness being a police official 1966 SCMR 17. Malik Khan.
The police officials are good recovery witnesses when no animosity is alleged against them. 1994 SCMR 1543, Muhammad Khan, PLJ 1994 SC 377.
Investigating Officer as recovery witness can be relied upon to establish recovery, but if investigation is not honest such evidence cannot be relied upon. PLJ 1988 Cr. C. (Kar.) 48. Ismail.
Investigating Officer's solitary statement can prove the recovery. He is as good a witness as any other member of public. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr. C. (Lah.) 102. Khakan.
When entire case is based on recovery the Court should scrutinise statements of recovery witnesses with caution. Prosecution should also produce independent and reliable witnesses to prove recovery. Evidence of I.O. cannot be sufficient for purpose of conviction. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr. C. (Kar.) 471. Yamin Kumhar = PLD 1990 Kar. 275.
Recovery evidence of I.O. Investigating Officer besides making stock witnesses as mashirs, also investigating and attesting recoveries of arms, his statement should be considered with great caution and on his statement alone prosecution cannot succeed unless corroborated by trustworthy and independent witnesses. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 410. Haji Abdullah Khan.
Recovery witness interested and taken from police station, no independent respectable witness of locality was associated. Recovery of carbine held to be a sham recovery and not relied upon. PLJ 1995 S.C. 1, Mehmood Ahmed etc.
No disinterested witness of recovery produced. Recovery proved by interested complainant and Investigating Officer only not relied on. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1096 Pehlwan etc.