livelawpk.com - The Stringent Requirements for Convictions based on Circumst

The Stringent Requirements for Convictions based on Circumstantial Evidence; Every Piece of Evidence must form a Continuous Chain linking the Accused to the Crime --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

4 months
105

The Stringent Requirements for Convictions based on Circumstantial Evidence; Every Piece of Evidence must form a Continuous Chain linking the Accused to the Crime --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

Islamabad 17-08-2024: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acquitted three individuals, Rehmatullah, Naseer Ahmad, and Muhammad Younas, who were previously convicted of murder by the lower Courts. The acquittal was granted on the grounds of insufficient and unreliable circumstantial evidence, marking a significant development in the country's legal landscape.

The appellants were initially convicted by the Sessions Court in Quetta for the murder of Mustafa, an 18-year-old plumber, under Sections 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The High Court of Balochistan had upheld this conviction, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the stringent requirements for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The Court noted that every piece of evidence must form a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime. However, in this case, several links in the chain were found to be either missing or unreliable.

The judgment criticized the prosecution for failing to provide essential proof, such as ownership documents for the mobile phone and motorcycle allegedly recovered from the accused. Furthermore, the Court highlighted discrepancies in the extra-judicial confessions and pointed out that confessions made while in police custody are inadmissible under Pakistani law.

The Court also noted significant issues with the medical evidence presented, which did not support the prosecution's narrative. The absence of corroborative injuries and the lack of a sharp-edged weapon linked to the crime further weakened the prosecution's case.

Citing established legal precedents, the Court ruled that the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused, especially when the prosecution's case is riddled with inconsistencies. The judgment referenced several key cases, including Mst. Asia Bibi Vs. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), to reinforce this principle.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions and ordered the immediate release of the three men unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case.

This ruling underscores the importance of rigorous evidence standards in criminal prosecutions and serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused in the face of questionable evidence.