Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),109,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 103
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father and brother of the complainant by firing---Prosecution case revolved around the statement of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Admittedly, the said witnesses were not the residents of the place of occurrence or any place near the same---According to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place in a vacant plot of land situated in front of the house of a doctor---Eye-witness/complainant initially admitted that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 7 to 8 kilometers from his house, whereas the house of the other witness was at a distance of one kilometer from the house of the complainant---After admitting during cross-examination that his house was at a distance of as many as 7/8 kilometers from the place of occurrence, the complainant had changed his version and stated that his house was situated on the back side of the house of said doctor, the house in front of which the occurrence had taken place in a vacant plot of land---Such claim of the complainant that his house was on the back of the house of doctor was badly exposed to be a false claim during the cross-examination of draftsman, who in his cross-examination, gave the complete details of the houses which were present near and around the place of occurrence and also admitted that the house of the complainant was not near or around the place of occurrence---Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by draftsman and the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by Inspector showed that the house of the complainant was not marked in the same---Other eye-witness also made an attempt to prove himself as a resident of an area around the place of occurrence, however, he too failed---Complainant during cross-examination stated that the house of the other eye-witness was at quite a distance from the place of occurrence---Statements of eye-witnesses proved that admittedly the said witnesses had no reason to be present at the place of occurrence and also they made no effort to explain as to why on the night of occurrence, at about 7.30 p.m., they were present in a vacant plot of land for no reason at all---Thus, the eye-witnesses failed to prove any reason for leaving their houses on the day of occurrence and their arrival at the place of occurrence and the same remained unproved---Names of both the eye-witnesses were neither mentioned in column No.4 nor at page 4 of the inquest reports prepared with regard to two deceased as being the witnesses who were present near the dead bodies at the time of preparation of the inquest reports---Such fact also evidenced the absence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Muhammad Rafiq v. State 2014 SCMR 1698; Usman alias Kaloo v. State 2017 SCMR 622 and Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State 2017 SCMR 724 rel.