Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b), 324

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 544-A, 382-B, 265-C, 342, 340(2), 161

SUMMARY Although the prosecution case rests against a single accused, such circumstance by itself, neither relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt nor absolves the Trial Court of its obligation to critically evaluate the evidence produced before it. It is true that in cases involving a solitary accused, substitution is comparatively rare; however, it is equally settled that the burden of proof never shifts and remains squarely upon the prosecution. Even in such situations, the prosecution is under a heightened duty to establish, through unimpeachable evidence that it was the accused alone, who committed the offence and that the chain of evidence conclusively connects him with the crime. ii. For this purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the social and occupational status of both the complainant and the deceased, and to assess whether, in the normal course of human conduct, they could reasonably be expected to be present at the graveyard at the stated time. iii. Such conduct appears unnatural and improbable, especially keeping in view that both the complainant and the deceased were daily wage earners with routine working schedules and modest means, and were not shown to be engaged in leisure activities of this nature. iv. When the sole justification for the presence of the complainant and the deceased at the graveyard was the alleged activity of feeding partridges, it was incumbent upon the complainant to satisfactorily establish the credibility of such explanation. v. This conduct assumes importance, as it demonstrates that the complainant was fully aware that the deceased had expired at the spot, a fact which was also subsequently confirmed by the medical officer. In such circumstances, the natural and expected course of conduct would have been to take the dead body to the police station for legal formalities, rather than transporting it to the hospital. vi. Once this Court reaches the conclusion, as the circumstances strongly suggest, that the presence of the complainant is doubtful, the entire prosecution case is rendered fragile. vii. Although, at first glance, these discrepancies may appear to be…