MUHAMMAD ATIF NIZAMI and otherss vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 296 of 2005 registered under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants could be legally convicted based on remote and uncorroborated identification evidence of a sole witness who identified them after one year despite not being named in the F.I.R. The Sindh High Court held that the evidence brought on record was extremely remote, lacking corroboration, and insufficient to connect the applicants with the alleged crime, with no probability of conviction. The Court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence is weak, uncorroborated, and fails to establish a reasonable probability of guilt, the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. to prevent unnecessary harassment of the accused.
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the sole identification witness identifies the accused after a delay of one year?
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. can be convicted on the basis of remote and uncorroborated evidence of a witness whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
- Is it appropriate to acquit the accused under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. when there is no probability of the accused being connected with the commission of the alleged crime?
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. This is an application for acquittal on the ground that the applicants have falsely been involved in this crime only on the basis of evidence of one witness, Shahid Hussain, whose presence himself is doubted at the place of incident and that the witness has recognized the applicants before the Magistrate after about one year, by alleging that he saw the glimpse of the applicants while running on the motorcycle. Learned counsel submits that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R.
Not they are remotely connected with the F.I.R.
' Learned Additional prosecutor General, has not supported the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, of rejection of application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. He submits that it would have been difficult for the witness, who had seen glimpse of the applicants, to recognize them after about a year, therefore, he submits that applicants were arrested in an encounter with the police after a year and thereafter this case has been opened while the police earlier has submitted report as A Class.
' After hearing the learned counsel, it appears that the witness Shahid Hussain has not been named in the F.I.R. While he is vegetable vendor and his presence at the place of incident is to be supported by corroborative evidence. The F.I.R. Is silent in respect to the presence of any other person except the persons named in the F.I.R. Moreover, the witness has not given any identification of the applicants nor the Motorcycle number etc. It has further been observed that the evidence A which has been brought on record is so remote that there will be difficult for the prosecution to connect the applicants with the crime. The piece of evidence of witness Shahid Hussain hardly links-up the applicants with the alleged crime, who has not been named in the F.I.R.
' In such a situation, there is no probability of connection of the applicants with the commission of crime, hence the proceedings of F.I.R. No,296/2005/ under section 324/34, P.P.C. Are quashed and the applicants are acquitted.