CASE LAW'S

قانونی طور پر F.I.R لکھنے اور پڑھنے کا آسان طریقہ کار:

ایک F.I.R میں کل 6 کالمز ہوتے ہیں جن کی تفصیل درج ذیل ہںے:
کالم نمبر ایک میں تاریخ اور وقت وقوعہ درج ہںوتا ہںے جب کہ کالم نمبر2 میں نام و سکونت اطلاع دھندہ مستغیث یعنی مدعی کا ذکر ہںوتا ہںے، کالم نمبر 3 میں مختصر تفصیل جرم، دفعات کا ذکر اور مال اگر کچھ کھو گیا ہںو تو اس کا ذکر ہوتا ہںے، کالم نمبر 4 میں جائے وقوعہ و تھانہ سے سمت کا ذکر ہںوتا ہںے، اگر F.I.R درج کرنے میں تاخیر کی گئی ہںو تو اس کی وجہ کالم نمبر 5 میں درج کی جاتی ہںے اور کالم نمبر 6 میں تھانہ سے روانگی کا وقت اور تاریخ درج ہںوتی ہںے۔

جبکہ ملزم کا ذکر F.I.R کی کہانی میں ملزمان کا ذکر کیا جاتا ہںے، جبکہ F.I.R لکھنے والے پولیس آفیسر کا نام اور عہدہ معہ دستخط نیچے درج کیا جاتا ہںے، F.I.R پڑھنے کے لیے ضروری ہںے کہ F.I.R کی مکمل طور پر Better Copy کروا لیں اس طرح پڑھنے میں آسانی ہںوگی۔

اگر F.I.R اچھی طرح لکھی گئی ہو تو ملزمان کو ضمانت کے لیے کوئی راستہ نہیں ملتا، ایک اچھی F.I.R صرف ماہر فوجداری وکیل (Criminal Lawyer) ہںی لکھ سکتا ہںے اس لیے پولیس کو F.I.R کے لیے تحریر دینے سے پہلے کسی اچھے وکیل سے ضرور رجوع کر لیں کیونکہ پولیس کا کام تحقیقات اور ملزمان کی گرفتاری تک ہںوتا ہںے، ٹرائل میں کردار صرف آپ کے وکیل کا ہںوتا ہںے...!!

PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 224

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/337-F-(ii)/34--Acquittal of co-accused--Somersault of complainant in his statement--Acquittal of--FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of 11-days--Injured PWs (one died later on) were medically examined in injured condition on the same day with reference to Rapat through constable--Said Rapat has not been exhibited in evidence--It is not clear from the evidence as to whether the appellant was nominated therein for the stated crime--Delay of two hours in lodging the FIR was assumed great significance as the same can be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing the report keeping the names of the accused open for roping in such persons whom ultimately the prosecution may wish to implicate charge and put to trial--Both the injured witnesses has testified to this effect--Subsequently through written statements they exonerated the said co-accused contradicting his previous statement--During investigation, it was also found that one accused was not having a dagger at the time of occurrence and he was only present at the place of occurrence--The said co-accused was acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court--The appellant’s case is based on the same set of evidence and the role ascribed to him is similar to that of the co-accused--The somersault taken by the complainant regarding the accusation leveled against the appellant and co-accused, since acquitted, persuade us to extend benefit of doubt to the appellant not as a matter of grace rather as a matter of right--A shadow of doubt in the prosecution case has been created, benefit of which must be given to the appellant--Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted

2022 MLD 663
Despite the fact that accused were previously well known to complainant and eye witnesses but not nominated in crime report, their nomination through supplementary statement creates serious doubt qua their culpability.

Motive alone, as a corroborative circumstance to support the ocular evidence cannot be relied upon to convict an accused when the ocular testimony is neither credible nor worthy of reliance. It is an established proposition of law that motive is not substantive piece of evidence rather same is merely a circumstance, which might lead the accused to commit the occurrence.