livelawpk.com - Delays in the FIR and Post-Mortem, as well as Contradictions

Delays in the FIR and Post-Mortem, as well as Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimonies, leads to Reasonable Doubt --- Lahore High Court

4 months, 1 week
185

Islamabad, 12-08-2024: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has acquitted Kashif Jamal, who was previously convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Hassan Ali. The acquittal was granted after the Court identified multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, leading to reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement in the crime.

Kashif Jamal had been convicted by a lower Court for the murder of Hassan Ali, based on FIR No. 271 filed on March 11, 2022. The charge, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), led to a life sentence with a fine of Rs. 500,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the accused.

1. Delay in FIR and Post-Mortem: The Court noted an unexplained delay of over seven hours between the occurrence of the crime and the post-mortem examination. This delay raised suspicions that the police may have used the time to fabricate evidence or influence witnesses. The Court referenced the case of Irshad Ahmad Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1190) to emphasize the impact of such delays on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

2. Inconsistent Eyewitness Testimonies: The Court found significant discrepancies in the statements of the eyewitnesses, particularly regarding the time of the crime and the number of shots fired. These inconsistencies were considered serious enough to undermine the reliability of the witnesses, referencing Akhtar Ali and others Vs. The State (2008 SCMR 06).

3. Doubt on Motive and Presence at the Scene: The alleged motive, which stemmed from a previous quarrel between the families, was deemed implausible by the Court. The judgment cited Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others Vs. Sajjad and others (2017 SCMR 596), pointing out that if the accused had a grudge, it was unlikely he would have spared the complainant, who claimed to be present at the scene.

4. Benefit of Doubt: The Court reiterated the legal principle that when reasonable doubt exists regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused. This principle was central to the decision to acquit Kashif Jamal.

The Lahore High Court’s ruling has overturned the lower Court’s conviction, ordering the immediate release of Kashif Jamal unless he is required in another case. This judgment underscores the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly when a person's liberty is at stake.

The decision has been approved for reporting and is expected to influence future cases where there are delays in procedure or inconsistencies in witness testimonies.