Recoveries

  1. Recovery must be made in presence of independent witness. Where available. Shaukat Hussain v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (D)
  2. Recovery of crime weapon alleged to have been effected at the instance of the co-accused cannot be used as a corroboration against the accused for the simple reason that the evidence of both the marginal witnesses of recovery is contradictory and as such inconsistent. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1996 SCR 336 (D)
  3. Mere fact that the recovery effected from the accused does not connect him is no valid ground to detract him from other incriminating evidence connecting him with the commission of offence. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1996 SCR 336 (E)
  4. Post-mortem report — Recovery of ‘bullet’ — Some cartridges contain small pellets as well as large pellets like LG cartridges — It is possible that large pellet was described by medical officer as ‘bullet’ in his report because there is no difference between the two — It cannot be inferred that the injury which cause the death of deceased was caused by 12 bore gun. Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (H)
  5. Recovery — Proof of — Shariat Court was not justified in holding that gun has not been proved to have been recovered from the accused — Held: Witnesses clearly stated that gun was recovered at the instance of accused. A. Rashid and others v. Abdul Ghaffar and others 2001 SCR 240 (F)
  6. Objection that recoveries were not witnessed by the independent witnesses, therefore same cannot be relied upon — An explanation was tendered by S.I. that why in presence of other witnesses at the time of recoveries, none out of them were cited as recovery witness — It was brought on record by defence that the persons of the vicinity did not agree to become witnesses of recovery — This explanation was not criticized in cross-examination — From the trend of cross-examination it becomes clear that defence admitted the recoveries. M. Ilyas v. Kabir H. 2002 SCR 510 (C)
  7. The medical evidence, the crime empty recovered from the place of occurrence and weapons of offence recovered at the instance of accused coupled with confession of one of accused is sufficient material to connect the accused with the commission of offence. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others 2004 SCR 9 (C)
  8. Accused was arrested on 26.2.1991 whereas recovery was made on 11.3.1991 — Occurrence took place on 11.2.1991. It is doubtful as to how the accused, who ran away with Kalashinkove after the occurrence later on was arrested from Mandi Baha-ud-Din, managed to place the Kalashinkove at a deserted place near the house of complainant and later on after one month on his pointation the same was recovered — This is astonishing that no person during this time visited that place or took away this weapon from there — Held: This recovery by itself is doubtful. Asia Bibi & 5 others  v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 1 (C)
  9. No independent person was either cited or produced to prove recovery — The recovery made in the case is doubtful — There is no proof that the alleged weapons of offence were owned by the accused-respondents or were seen by any person in their possession prior to the occurrence — The alleged recovery made at the pointation of the accused respondent is not free of doubt. Masood Hussain & 2 others v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 272 (B)
  10. No person from the locality was associated in the recovery process — The accused was rightly given the benefit by the Shariat Court — The prosecution witnesses were initially involved in murder case and later on the respondent was involved on the basis of fabricated evidence. Ajaib Sikandar v. Muhammad Javaid & another 2006 SCR 49 (B)
  11. The gun and empties were recovered — The recovered guns and empties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory — According to report these empties were not fired from the gun recovered by the accused — It does not corroborate the version of prosecution rather it negates the version of prosecution — There is doubt regarding manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and the motive of incident. Muhammad Yaqub v. The State and another 2007 SCR 332 (E)
  12. No person from the vicinity was cited as witness — effect of — Murder was committed in the village where the accused was residing — While deceased and her parents were living in a different village — It was impossible to produce the witnesses from that village — It is not necessary in every case to cite the witnesses from the same locality — So far the relationship with the diseased is concerned, it has no ground for discarding the evidence. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (K) 2001 SCR 240, 1985 PSC 905 relied.
  13. So far as recovery of gun is concerned it is merely corroborative evidence and it is not necessary that the corroboration should be from independent evidence — It is sufficient if the version of the eye-witnesses is corroborated from some evidence or any circumstance. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (L) PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 23 relied.
  14. Recovery must be made in presence of independent witness were available. Shaukat Hussain v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (D)
  15. Recovery can be proved by a single witness. Niaz Ahmed v. The State 2008 SCR 326 (G)
  16. Murder case — conviction of — contention — that in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, no number of pistol has been mentioned, therefore, it cannot be said that the pistol sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory was the same which was issued in the occurrence — held: mere non-mentioning the number of pistol in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory does not make it doubtful. Muhammad Tasleem and another v. The State and another 2014 SCR 893 (D)
  17. The blood-stained daggers/knives have been recovered by the police on the pointation of the accused from open places—Held: The recovery of weapon of offence made from such open place which is accessible to the general public, cannot be relied in evidence for conviction. Javaid Akhtar  v. Muhammad Zubair & others 2015 SCR 533 (C) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 28, 1984 Cr. L. J. (Lahore) 657, 1984 SCMR 560 & 1994 SCMR 6 rel.
  18. Weapons of offence blood stained recovered but it has not been proved that the blood on the weapons is of human origin — Held: The accused cannot be convicted only on the evidence of recovery of blood-stained daggers/knives. Javaid Akhtar v. M. Zubair 2015 SCR 533 (E)
  19. The recovery of weapon of offence itself is not a substantial piece of evidence. Javaid Akhtar v. Muhammad Zubair & others 2015 SCR 533 (G) 2003 SCMR 868 ref.
  20. Held: the recovery is a corroborative piece of evidence and if any discrepancy is made out in this regard that cannot be given preference over the ocular account which is otherwise confidence inspiring and believed by the Courts below. Karamat Hussain v. State & another 2015 SCR 1007 (D) Muhammad Shabir v. Ch. Muhammad  Rashid & others (criminal appeal No.14 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2014) rel.
  21. Recovery  of Pistol — corroborative piece of evidence — credibility of — in presence of ocular evidence — contention of the convict-appellants that recovery of pistol appears to be doubtful as the same has been made five days after the arrest of the accused. No explanation — regarding the non-recovery of empties/cartridges, moreover, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory is also not available on the record—Held: In such situation, much reliance cannot be placed on the recovery. Further held: that ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable and no material contradictions came on the record. Further held: the recovery which is one of the corroborative pieces of evidence, has become immaterial. Said Akbar v. Sr.Ghulam H. 2015 SCR 1487 (F) M. Shabir v. Ch. M. Rashid & others (criminal appeal No.14 of  2013  decided  on  20. 02. 2014)  rel.
  22. The accused were armed with revolver but they did not use the same and while leaving the house of the complainant, they have taken nothing from the house—Held: such like recoveries seem the progress of police and cannot be made basis for the conviction when there is no other evidence available on the record. Mushtaq Ahmed  v. Sikandar Khan & others 2015 SCR 1520 (A)
  23.  —recovery made from open space situate at thickly populated area—adjacent to main road—no independent recovery witness cited—no explanation in this regard by prosecution—only son and nephew of complainant and son of deceased produced in Court, other recovery witness abandoned by prosecution after declaring him hostile. The record also shows that from the recovered empties none else matched with the pistol allegedly recovered on the pointation of the convict, Jahanzeb and the pistol allegedly recovered on the pointation of the convict, Shoib even has not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Held: Not much reliance could be made on such recoveries, in circumstances. Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (G) 1995 SCMR 127
  24. — weapon of offence, sent after delay of 23 months to Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL) — Empties and bullets not sent to FSL — Held: recovery memo becomes inconsequential. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (I) 2022 SCR 1489, 2008 SCMR 707, 2005 SCMR 1128 Rel.
error: Content is protected !!