Previous enmity was cited as motive for the crime

Citation Name : 2019 PCrLJN 91 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMEER AFZAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for committing qatl-i-amd of three persons---Previous enmity was cited as motive for the crime---Record showed that visit of one of the deceased to the house of complainant was certainly well within the realm of possibility---Departure of said deceased with other deceased on the obscure hunting session in a winter evening was a pursuit, after the hectic day, far from being usual or probable---Encounter of deceased with the assailants near village graveyard was yet another intriguing aspect of the case---Deceased stayed home whole day and planned a venture to the exclusion of assailants' knowledge, left no space for their interception at the venue---Witness, as per prosecution was, located outside the village with last inhibited house at a distance of half furlong, a place most unsuitable for the purpose mentioned in the crime report---Arrival of the witnesses upon gun reports, given the inter se distance, was extremely improbable to say the least---If at all, the assailants had confronted the deceased in the manner as mentioned in the crime report, they simply would not have held the assault in abeyance till arrival of the witnesses---Spot inspection belied hypothesis of hunting as only one .30 caliber pistol was found lying underneath dead body of one of the deceased/accused with nothing surrounding the deceased---In such state of affairs, position taken by Investigating Officer that during investigation, it was found that one of the accused attacked upon the victim, who in their self defence made firing, as a result of which, said accused died, was not entirely beside the mark---Vacillating position taken by complainant tremored the very foundation of the prosecution case---Complainant had brought massive changes in his first version by not only graduating the number of accused but also identifying them by their names---Said witness could not justify his somersaults by citing stress a trauma statedly endured by him before he made his first statement to the Investigating Officer---Changes in his earlier stance squarely spaced the hypothesis of his absence from the crime scene at the relevant time---Supplementary statements, more often than not, were being employed as a convenient method to bring about desired changes initially omitted in the crime report---Sudden trauma and mental stress were invariably cited as cover-up---In the present case, statement of complainant would remain indivisible throughout and in case he omitted names of some of the assailants on account of suspension of faculties, it would inevitably cast its shadow upon the nomination of others---Statement and subsequent supplementary statements were, thus, mutually destructive---Three accused were acquitted, assigned identical roles alongside the present accused/appellants, was yet another predicament confronting the prosecution---After taking said acquitted accused on board through supplementary statement, the prosecution could not let them off to save its case against the present appellants in the face of rejection of its evidence to their extent---No independent corroboration was available and, thus, the entire case was cast away, particularly in the face of a non-specific motive with inconsequential recoveries---Circumstances established that prosecution case was fraught with doubts, deducible from its stated positions and, thus, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted from the charges, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 YLR 1654 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed MAROOF SHAH alias MEHTAB alias BABA TT
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of husband of the complainant by firearm due to non-payment of "Bhatta"---Prosecution had produced fifteen witnesses in support of its case; however, some of the private witnesses did not depose against the culprits due to fear and terror of accused persons which reflected from the impugned judgement---Evidence of complainant and her witness revealed that accused persons were already known to them and they had been issuing threats to the deceased and his family members of dire consequences and demanding money from the deceased who was paying money but accused persons were demanding more and more---Accused had issued life threats in case of non-payment---Since the day of commission of murder of deceased, accused persons had been visiting the house of complainant continuously and issuing life threats to the entire family---Complainant's brother/witness was called at the office of the political party to whom accused persons belonged where he was threatened to keep silent and not to nominate the accused persons otherwise accused would commit another murder---During the course of recording the evidence of complainant before trial court, she was continuously crying and weeping by saying that accused persons present in court had committed murder of her husband and she also disclosed role of each accused persons---Police Officials who had arrested and interrogated the accused persons as they were involved in many other cases, had fully supported the prosecution version as the accused persons had confessed their guilt before them and disclosed the details of the alleged offence and pointed out place of incident during the course of investigation---Indeed, complainant was a simple household lady and she had no ill-will or ulterior motives to depose against the accused persons or to implicate them falsely in a heinous crime of murder of her husband---Undoubtedly, complainant had deposed against the culprits in purely natural manner and narrated the vital facts without any addition or improvement---Statement of complainant had been corroborated by witness---Honest testimony of complainant could not be discarded merely on the ground that her statement was not validated by any eye-witness---Evidently, accused belonged to a political party and were notorious criminals involved in many criminal cases---Accused were not only extorting money from the deceased but also issuing continuous life threats to him and even to other family members after the murder of deceased---In such circumstances, it was quite impossible for any person to speak against the politically strong criminals or lodged FIR or nominated them before any court and entire city was made hostage by the terrorist activities---Objection raised by the defence for not implicating the accused in FIR had no worth for consideration in the peculiar and particular circumstances of the present case, it was natural demeanor and knee-jerk reaction of the complainant that in order to ensure safety of herself and her family members she quietly lodged FIR against unknown persons---Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to prove the charge and bringing home guilt of accused ---Appeal being devoid of any legal substance was dismissed.