DECEMBER 9, 2022

The Significant Contradictions between the Eyewitness Accounts and the Medical Evidence undermines the Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses --- Lahore High Court

post-img

The Significant Contradictions between the Eyewitness Accounts and the Medical Evidence undermines the Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses --- Lahore High Court 

 

Islamabad 08-08-2024: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court has acquitted appellant, who was previously sentenced to death for the murder of Faisal Masih. The Court's decision, delivered by Ms. Justice Aalia Neelum, Chief Justice, underscores the importance of the legal principle that any reasonable doubt in a prosecution's case must benefit the accused.

 

Appellant had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the intentional murder of Faisal Masih. The Trial Court sentenced him to death and imposed a compensation of Rs. 1,000,000 to the deceased's legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Appellant challenged this conviction and sentence, leading to the recent judgment by the Lahore High Court.

 

The Court emphasized that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the benefit must be given to the accused. This principle was highlighted as a matter of right for the accused, rather than a grace. The judgment reiterated that the prosecution is obligated to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, which is a cornerstone of criminal justice.

 

The Court noted suspicious delays in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) and the conduct of the postmortem examination. Such delays cast doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's case and timeline. The Court referred to established legal precedents stating that absconding alone does not conclusively prove guilt, especially when corroborative evidence is lacking. The judgment highlighted the necessity of strong and reliable corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court found that the prosecution's case was based on conjectures and lacked substantial evidence. 

 

The Court observed significant contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence, which undermined the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. The Court emphasized the importance of a proper chain of custody, the Court found discrepancies in how the murder weapon was handled, further weakening the prosecution's case. The alleged motive for the crime was deemed vague and unproven. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to support the motive.

 

The Lahore High Court's decision to acquit Appellant reflects a rigorous application of legal principles ensuring that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining proper evidence handling and providing clear, corroborative testimony. This judgment reinforces the principle that it is better to acquit a guilty person than to convict an innocent one, upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.

 

The Court ordered the immediate release of Appellant, unless he is required in any other case, and did not confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial Court.

Powered by Froala Editor

Related Post