livelawpk.com - If there is any Reasonable Doubt regarding the Prosecution’s

If there is any Reasonable Doubt regarding the Prosecution’s Story, the Accused is entitled to Acquittal as a Matter of Right, not as Grace --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

2 months, 2 weeks
40

If there is any Reasonable Doubt regarding the Prosecution’s Story, the Accused is entitled to Acquittal as a Matter of Right, not as Grace --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 07-10-2024: The Lahore High Court has set aside the death sentence of Irfan Haider, who was previously convicted of murder, citing significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and procedural lapses. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Mr. Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural, emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and maintaining the integrity of criminal justice procedures.

Irfan Haider was initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of Ghulam Haider in a land dispute, as described in FIR No. 603/2012, dated November 17, 2012. The Trial Court sentenced him to death and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 200,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The conviction and sentence were challenged by Irfan Haider in [Criminal Appeal No. 12708-J of 2019], while the Trial Court also forwarded [Murder Reference No. 399 of 2018] for confirmation of the death sentence.

The High Court found that there was an unexplained delay of one hour and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR, which raised doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s case. This delay was highlighted as a potential opportunity for embellishment or afterthought, which undermines the credibility of the entire prosecution story.

The Court observed a significant conflict between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts presented by the prosecution. The postmortem report indicated a time of death that did not correspond with the testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses. This discrepancy was deemed sufficient to create reasonable doubt about the occurrence as stated by the prosecution.

The Court noted procedural irregularities in the preparation of the inquest report and the timing of the FIR, indicating that the FIR might have been ante-timed. This irregularity further weakened the prosecution’s case and suggested that the evidence was not recorded in a timely and honest manner.

The weapon allegedly recovered from the accused was not forensically compared with the bullets or injuries found on the deceased. The lack of forensic confirmation made the weapon recovery inconsequential to the case, removing a critical link in the prosecution’s chain of evidence.

Referring to landmark judgments, including “Muhammad Akram v. The State” (2009 SCMR 230) and “Tariq Pervez v. The State” (1995 SCMR 1345), the High Court reiterated that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s story, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

In light of these inconsistencies and procedural lapses, the Lahore High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting Irfan Haider of all charges and ordering his immediate release, unless he was required in any other case.

The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining strict procedural adherence and ensuring that convictions are not based on weak or contradictory evidence. The decision not only highlights the flaws in the prosecution's handling of the case but also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle of benefit of the doubt in criminal trials.