Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)–
—-S. 302(b)–Conviction and sentence–Challenge to–Qatl-e-amd–Benefit of doubt to accused–High Court is convinced that since name of accused/appellant was not mentioned in FIR; his features were not given therein, nor even there is any supplementary statement to his effect, identification before Court after so long, is highly doubtful and further motive is also not established against him, therefore, prosecution has badly failed to prove charge against accused/appellant–Co-accused was implicated in case only to extent of motive, which has been disbelieved by High Court–As such, irrespective of fact that co-accused has been acquitted and said acquittal has not been challenged by complainant or prosecution, in light of principle “sifting grain from chaff, case of accused/appellant can be examined separately–It is a case wherein FIR was lodged with all possible promptness; accused/appellant was nominated in FIR with specific attribution; role assigned to him with regard to infliction of injury on person of deceased, stands fully corroborated by post-mortem examination of deceased and further prosecution witnesses also toes line of each other with regard to his participation in occurrence as well as role–Therefore, prosecution remained fully successful in establishing its case against accused/ appellant, as such, his conviction u/S. 302(b) PPC appears to be unexceptionable–At same time High Court with reference to report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency has observed that crime weapon recovered from accused/appellant did not match with crime empties collected from place of occurrence, as such, though recovery is just a corroborative piece of evidence, still said factum along with fact that motive also could not be established by prosecution, same can be taken as mitigating factors while imposing sentence–It otherwise, life imprisonment is equally a legal sentence under Section 302(b), PPC, therefore, sentence of life imprisonment recorded against accused/appellant also befits in facts and circumstances of instant case–Appeal was dismissed.
“Falsus in uno-falsus in omnibus”–
—-Legal proposition is well settled on point, as Ilon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various judgments has already held that doctrine of “falsus in uno falsits in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in all), is not applicable in prevalent system of criminal administration of justice–Similarly, there is no rule having universal applicability that where some accused were not found guilty, other accused would ipso facto stand acquitted, rather it is primary duty of Court to sift grain from chaff–Similarly, there is no cavil to proposition that grain has to be sifted from chaff in each case, in light of its own peculiar circumstances.
Comments