livelawpk.com - A Vague Motive cannot be the Basis for a Conviction; ---

A Vague Motive cannot be the Basis for a Conviction; Similarly mere abscondence of the Accused cannot be taken as Sole Ground for Conviction --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

2 months, 3 weeks
102

A Vague Motive cannot be the Basis for a Conviction; Similarly mere abscondence of the Accused cannot be taken as Sole Ground for Conviction --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad, 01-10-2024: In a landmark ruling, the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, acquitted Muhammad Irfan alias Fani and Qamar Hussain alias Qamri in a murder case due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, emphasized the importance of timely and properly documented FIR registration and reliable witness testimony.

The case originated from FIR No. 100/2013, registered at Police Station Dunyapur, District Lodhran, involving charges under multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, including murder (Section 302), attempt to murder (Section 324), and other allied charges. The case was filed by the complainant, alleging that the appellants were part of a Qabza group and had committed the murder of his son, Ayaz Shah, over a property dispute.

The trial Court initially convicted the two appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting two co-accused due to lack of evidence. The complainant, then filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the convicts. The appellants also filed criminal appeals challenging their convictions.

The prosecution presented 21 witnesses to establish its case. However, the defense argued that the evidence was inconsistent and fraught with contradictions. The appellants denied all charges and contended that the allegations were fabricated.

Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar pointed out several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused:

1. Doubtful Timing and Registration of FIR: The Court noted that the timing and manner of FIR registration were suspect, as the prosecution failed to produce the police officer who took the complaint to the police station. The Court cited previous judgments such as Ata Muhammad and another vs. The State (1995 SCMR 599) to support the view that police often manipulate FIR timings.

2. Contradictory Witness Testimonies: The Court observed that the statements of the witnesses did not align with the evidence presented. Several key witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the incident, raising doubts about their credibility.

3. Delay in Conducting Post-Mortem: There was a significant delay of 3 hours and 25 minutes in conducting the post-mortem examination, which, according to the Court, indicated that the police might have been involved in manipulating the case. The Court referred to the case of Irshad Ahmed vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1190) in its analysis.

4. Inconsistencies in Medical and Forensic Evidence: The medical evidence provided by Dr. Muhammad Saeed did not corroborate with the prosecution’s version of events. The Court relied on forensic medicine texts and concluded that the injuries could not have been inflicted as claimed by the prosecution.

5. Insufficient Motive and Lack of Corroboration: The alleged motive behind the crime—related to a property dispute—was not supported by independent evidence. The Court stated that a vague motive cannot be the basis for a conviction.

6. Abscondence of the Accused Not Conclusive of Guilt: The Court ruled that mere abscondence of the accused cannot be a sole ground for conviction and cited Muhammad Sadiq Vs. The State (2017 SCMR 144) to support its position.

The High Court allowed the appeals of Muhammad Irfan and Qamar Hussain, acquitting them of all charges and setting aside their sentences. The criminal revision for enhancement of their sentences was also dismissed.

The judgment highlights the necessity of credible evidence and procedural adherence in criminal trials. It underscores that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case should be resolved in favor of the accused, reinforcing the principle that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

This decision serves as a reminder to the police and prosecution to ensure that cases are built on solid and verifiable evidence, free from manipulation and procedural flaws, to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.