2024 S C M R 51

Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Reappraisal of
evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Presence of witnesses at place of incident
doubtful---Defective investigation---Conflict between ocular and medical evidence-
--Ocular testimony in the case was led by the complainant, and two other persons
who were residents of a village situated around 30 to 35 kilometers from the place
of occurrence---Incident occurred in the night at 8:55 p.m. in the month of October
and the testimony of the eye-witnesses remained unsuccessful in establishing any
source of light at the scene of the crime---It was only after a lapse of two and a half
months of the incident that the respondent (acquitted accused) was implicated in the
case---No identification parade was conducted for determining the involvement of
the accused persons and the evidentiary value of identification at a belated stage
had little value in the eyes of the law, more particularly when the lineaments and
physiognomy of the accused were not mentioned anywhere by the complainant or
the eye-witnesses---Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not show the place of incident
in the site plan through the prosecution claimed that the incident occurred near a
hotel; I.O. also admitted that he had not demarcated the place from where the
accused had fired at the victim in the rough site plan, nor had the prosecution
witnesses shown him the specific place of death of the deceased at the site of the
occurrence; I.O. further admitted that he had called upon the inhabitants of the
place of occurrence i.e. owners of the nearby haveli and service station, but they
could not provide any detail of the occurrence or any description of the assailants---
As per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained two firearm injuries, however
the postmortem report revealed that only one firearm injury was found on the
deceased's body---High Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to substantiate
the case against the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and
leave was refused.