CRIMINAL TRIAL
— Identification — Scope — Identification by voice is always considered to be a weak type of evidence. [2024 CCJ 38 = 2024 PCrLJ 396]
— Cross-examination by defense, evidentiary value of — Scope — When the prosecution referred to certain portions of the cross-examination, arguing that these constituted admissions by the defense and noting that several points were clarified by the defense, the High Court observed that the prosecution’s contentions were not sustainable — High Court noted that admissions in a criminal case do not have a binding effect on the client — Additionally, the court emphasized that the prosecution must establish its case based on its own evidence and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defense. [2024 CCJ 38 = 2024 PCrLJ 396]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — In case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace — For giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts — If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. [2024 CCJ 38 = 2024 PCrLJ 396]
— Police witnesses — Scope — No doubt police witnesses are as good as other independent witnesses and conviction can be recorded on their evidence, but their testimony should be reliable, dependable, trustworthy and confidence worthy and if such qualities are missing in their evidence, no conviction can be passed on the basis of evidence of police witnesses. [2024 CCJ 36 = 2024 PCrLJ 370]
— Substitution — Scope — Substitution of real culprit charged directly and singularly is a rare phenomenon in the system of criminal justice. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]
— Minor discrepancies — Scope — Minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not be sufficient for acquittal of the accused facing murder charge as with the passage of time it is very natural that the witnesses might have not been unanimous on minor narrations — Human behavior varies from person to person — Different people not only behave and react differently in different situation but their behavior also depends upon facts of each case as to how a person reacts and behaves in a particular situation, can never be predicted — Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]
— Variability of human reactions and memory in serious crime situations — Scope — In situations involving serious crime some persons turn stunned, some become speechless whereas some would see the incident whereas some would flee from the spot — No fixed rules of natural conduct are available — Similar is the situation of memory of different people — By and large people cannot accurately recall the sequences of events which take place in a short span — People can only remember the main purport of the incident. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — No doubt accused is treated as a favorable child of the courts and law and benefit of even a single doubt is extended to him, but the doubt must be reasonably entertained by a person of common prudence on justifiable grounds — Such benefit could not be stretched to the extent of self-created, imaginary and hypothetical doubts in favour of accused at the cost of the family of the deceased who were the victim of the brutal acts of accused, they too, deserve equal treatment of the court of justice — Balance is to be maintained between accused and the complainant party in dispensation of justice before the court of law. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]
— Plea of alibi — Scope — Plea of alibi shall be taken at the earliest time/ stage i.e. soon after arrest of the accused. [2024 CCJ 35 = 2024 PCrLJ 356]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Prosecution is bound under the law to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, but no such duty is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Conviction must be based and founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt, and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Nobody is to be punished unless proved guilty on the basis of reliable, independent and truthful evidence and “benefit of reasonable doubt” when accruing must go to the accused. [2024 CCJ 30 = 2024 PCrLJ 306]
— Site plan — Scope — Although site plan can never be considered as substantive piece of evidence but its importance cannot be denied to determine the locations of the incident as well as the position of the witnesses particularly in those matters, where presence or otherwise, of the witnesses has been challenged — No doubt previous enmity can be a reason for the accused to commit the alleged crime but the same can equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the accused in the case for previous grouse as motive is always considered to be a double edged weapon. [2024 CCJ 30 = 2024 PCrLJ 306]
— Absconsion, proof of — Scope — The process server neither appeared before the Trial Court nor submitted any report regarding the execution of notices — Additionally, the constable was given up by the prosecution as unnecessary — This implied that the prosecution failed to prove the fact of absconsion, as such, this piece of evidence was of no use to the prosecution. [2024 CCJ 30 = 2024 PCrLJ 306]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused as of right and mistake in releasing a criminal is better than punishing innocent persons — “Any reasonable doubt” qua the veracity of the prosecution case or guilt of the accused when accruing shall be resolved in favour of the accused in all eventualities. [2024 CCJ 30 = 2024 PCrLJ 306]
— Medical evidence — Scope — With no eye-witness evidence to the identity who carried out the attack the medical evidence becomes inconsequential as it can only reveal what kind of weapon/device was used and the seat of the injuries of the dead and injured — It cannot identify the person who inflicted the injuries. [2024 CCJ 28 = 2024 PCrLJ 284]
— Duty of prosecution — Scope — The prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt — Judicial mind must be satisfied that the accused had committed the offence — Quality and not the quantity of evidence determine the culpability of the accused — The accused cannot be held guilty on the strength of a weak piece of evidence — Conjectures, probabilities or presumptions cannot form the basis for holding the accused guilty — The accused alone is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]
— Motive — Scope — Motive is the state of mind of an accused, which can be formed even at the spur of the moment — Even the absence of motive is of no consequence because the motive is an impulse and desire that induces a criminal action on the part of an accused — It is distinguished from “intent,” which is the design with which the act is done — Absence of motive is not helpful in the presence of unimpeachable ocular evidence. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]
— Punishment — Objects of punishment, detailed. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]
— Punishment — Elements to be considered for assessing quantum of sentence, detailed. [2024 CCJ 27 = 2024 PCrLJ 273]
— Interested witness — Scope — It is not a rule of universal application that a disinterested or independent witness will always tell the whole truth and a related or interested witness will utter only lies before the Court — When the Court is satisfied that a witness, though related to deceased or interested in conviction of accused, has told the truth then his testimony should be accepted without any hesitation. [2024 CCJ 25 = 2024 PCrLJ 229]
— Motive — Scope — Motive is not the requirement of law and conviction can be recorded even in the absence of motive. [2024 CCJ 25 = 2024 PCrLJ 229]
— Minor contradictions — Scope — Minor contradictions do creep in with the passage of time and can be ignored. [2024 CCJ 25 = 2024 PCrLJ 229]
— Delayed post-mortem examination — Scope — Delay in post-mortem examination is normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased which happens only when the complainant and police remain busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in such cases of un-witnessed occurrence. [2024 CCJ 23 = 2024 PCrLJ 214 = 2022 LHC 6374]
— Dishonest improvements — Scope — A witness is untrustworthy if he makes dishonest improvements in his statement on a material aspect of the case in order to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to bring his statement in line with the other prosecution evidence. [2024 CCJ 23 = 2024 PCrLJ 214 = 2022 LHC 6374]
— Motive — Scope — Although, the prosecution is not under obligation to establish a motive in every murder case but it is also well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused. [2024 CCJ 23 = 2024 PCrLJ 214 = 2022 LHC 6374]
— Duty of prosecution — Scope — The responsibility to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt squarely lies with the prosecution and if it fails to successfully discharge it, the only result can be the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused person. [2024 CCJ 23 = 2024 PCrLJ 214 = 2022 LHC 6374; 2024 CCJ 28 = 2024 PCrLJ 284]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Multiple doubts are not required in this regard, even a single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient — It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. [2024 CCJ 23 = 2024 PCrLJ 214 = 2022 LHC 6374 = 2024 CCJ 36 = 2024 PCrLJ 370]
— Related witness — Scope — Mere relationship of a witness cannot be a ground to discard his evidence, however, testimony of such witness is to be scrutinized with great care and caution, especially the same should not be relied upon, without corroboration, for sustaining conviction on a capital charge. [2024 CCJ 22 = 2024 PCrLJ 202]
— Motive — Scope — When the prosecution does not succeed in establishing the motive, then it is for the prosecution to suffer. [2024 CCJ 22 = 2024 PCrLJ 202]
— Absconsion — Scope — Absconsion is not a substantive piece of evidence, rather it is a circumstance that can be taken into consideration, that too, when the prosecution succeeds in bringing home guilt against the accused by producing convincing evidence. [2024 CCJ 22 = 2024 PCrLJ 202]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — The cardinal principle of justice always lays emphasis on the quality of evidence which must be of first degree and sufficient enough to dispel the apprehension of the Court with regard to the implication of innocent persons along with guilty one by the prosecution, otherwise, the golden principle of justice would come into play that even a single doubt if found reasonable would be sufficient to acquit the accused, giving him/them benefit of doubt because bundle of doubts are not required to extend the legal benefit to the accused. [2024 CCJ 22 = 2024 PCrLJ 202]
— An appeal is the right of every convict. [2024 SCLR 10 = 2023 SCP 340 = 2024 SCMR 60]
— The foremost rationale of the administration of criminal justice is to penalize and reproach the offender or perpetrator so as to maintain law and order in the populace and society and deter such crimes — Hence it is the onerous duty of the State to punish offenders under the laws of the land, which includes penal laws — In the administration of criminal justice, the evidence considered may be ocular or circumstantial and may be classified as direct or indirect evidence — In all indictments, it is the arduous duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as where such doubt exists, the Court may extend the benefit thereof to the accused and exonerate him from the charge — The probative worth and value of evidence hinges, by and large, on the facts of each case — The Courts are duty-bound to gauge the trustworthiness of witnesses, identify and resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies and/or contradictions, contemplate the medical evidence vis-à-vis the ocular testimony as corroborative piece of evidence, and then reach a conclusion — The term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is a legal fiction whereby a hefty burden of proof is required to be discharged to award or maintain a sentence or verdict of guilt in a criminal case — Id est, it connotes that the prosecution is obligated to satisfy the Court with regard to the actuality of reasonable grounds, beyond any shadow of doubt, in order to secure a verdict of guilt — Indubitably, the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is considerably greater than the benchmark adopted in the trial of civil cases i.e. on a balance of probabilities. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— Evidence — Scope — When the presence of eye-witnesses on the spot is doubtful then, in such situations, the ocular testimony should be excluded from consideration. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— Contradiction in ocular and medical evidence — Scope — The contradictions in the ocular evidence and medical evidence originates doubts and improbabilities in the prosecution case and, in such a situation, the benefit of doubt would obviously be extended to the accused. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — It is not obligatory or compulsory that there should be several circumstances creating doubts in order to justify the extension of this benefit to the accused; on the contrary, even a simple circumstance creating reasonable doubt vis-à-vis the guilt of the accused is sufficient to entitle him to such benefit. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— Presumption of innocence of accused — Scope — If two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of the evidence, then the view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to — The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and, in the event of an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinvigorated, fortified and strengthened — The law does not impose any fetters on the powers and jurisdiction of the Appellate Court for reconsideration or reappraisal of the evidence on which the order of conviction or acquittal is grounded. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— Appeal against acquittal — Scope — In an appeal against acquittal, the Court would not ordinarily interfere and would instead give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused which carries a double presumption of innocence, i.e. the initial presumption that an accused is innocent until found guilty, which is then fortified by a second presumption once the Court below confirms the assumption of innocence, which cannot be displaced lightly. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— The Accused is the Favourite Child of Law — Scope — Supreme Court while being mindful of the phrase that “the accused is the favourite child of law” observed that it is somewhat enlightening to understand why this axiom was not coined contrariwise to say “the victim is the favourite child of the law” — The substratum of this concept is based on the farsightedness and prudence, ‘let a hundred guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be convicted’; or that it is better to run the risk of sparing the guilty than to condemn the innocent — The raison d’être is to assess and scrutinize whether the police and prosecution have performed their tasks accurately and diligently in order to apprehend and expose the actual culprits, or whether they dragged innocent persons in the crime report on account of a defective or botched-up investigation which became a serious cause of concern for the victim who was deprived of justice — The philosophy of the turn of phrase “the accused is the favourite child of law” does not imply that the Court should grant any unwarranted favour, indulgence or preferential treatment to the accused, rather it was coined to maintain a fair-minded and unbiased sense of justice in all circumstances, as a safety gauge or safety contrivance to ensure an evenhanded right of defence with a fair trial for compliance with the due process of law, which is an integral limb of the safe administration of criminal justice and is crucial in order to avoid erroneous verdicts, and to advocate for the reinforcement of the renowned doctrine “innocent until proven guilty”. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]
— All acquittals including acquittal on compromise are honorable for the reason that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove their cases against the accused on the strength of evidence of unimpeachable character — There can be no acquittals, which may be said to be dishonorable and the law has not drawn any distinction between any types of acquittals — Once a person is acquitted by trial court, said person would stand shorn of stigma of any allegation and he would have to be deemed thereafter as innocent and having not committed any such crime — If acquittal of accused is not assailed before higher forum, such acquittal earned by accused from trial court, on whatsoever basis, would attain finality and pandora box of allegations could not be re-opened or used against him — In short, acquittal is an acquittal simpliciter and, must entail upon all consequences of pure acquittal — Additionally, order of acquittal of accused shall erase, efface, obliterate and wash away his alleged or already adjudged guilt in the matter apart from leading to setting aside of his sentence or punishment, if any. [PLR 2024 Lahore 4 = 2023 LHC 5587 = PLD 2024 Lahore 54]
— Mere registration of an FIR against a person cannot be used as a definitive test to label him as having a bad character. [PLR 2024 Lahore 4 = 2023 LHC 5587 = PLD 2024 Lahore 54]
— Benefit of doubt — Scope — Conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence — Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused and burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt — It is also an established principle of law and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffer — For the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. [2024 SCLR 29 = 2024 SCMR 156 = 2023 SCP 332]
— Absconsion — Scope — Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. [2023 SCLR 71 = 2023 SCMR 2122 = 2023 SCP 249]
— Corroborative evidence — Scope — The evidence of prosecution witnesses of the ocular account if found reliable, is sufficient to record conviction without any other corroborative piece of evidence. [2023 SCLR 56 = 2023 SCP 289 = 2023 SCMR 2016]
— Contradiction in ocular evidence and site plan — Effect — The statement of prosecution witnesses of the ocular account if contradictory to site plan it would have precedent over the distance mentioned in the site plan. [2023 SCLR 56 = 2023 SCP 289 = 2023 SCMR 2016]
— Site plan — Scope — Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence having no legal sanctity — The purpose behind the preparation of site plan is to explain or give a glimpse of the occurrence in black and white enabling the concerned to appreciate the facts of the case in a more rational way. [2023 SCLR 56 = 2023 SCP 289 = 2023 SCMR 2016]
— Contradiction in ocular and medical evidence — Scope — Primarily the ocular account is always considered as principle evidence — The litmus test to evaluate the veracity of the prosecution witnesses of ocular account depends being independent, reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring — The evidence of the expert is only confirmative in nature — If there is contradiction in between the ocular account and medical evidence qua the number of injuries, the rule of thumb is that the preference would be given to the ocular account as the statement of prosecution witnesses of ocular account is always placed at a higher pedestal as compare to the medical evidence — The rationale behind such strict construction of the rule of thumb is that firstly, expert evidence is confirmatory in nature based upon opinion of an expert which can be influenced by so many factors (i) lack of expertise (ii) lack of knowledge (iii) defective technique (iv) variation in observation (v) lack of co-ordination with subordinate staff and (vi) possibility of obliging concession extended in favour of either of the party due to extraneous consideration. [2023 SCLR 56 = 2023 SCP 289 = 2023 SCMR 2016]