Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When a person comes on merit list through a selection process, he acquires a right to be entitled for appointment. The whole edifice of governance of the society has its genesis in the constitution of laws, aimed at to establish an order inter-alia ensuring the provision of Socio Economic Justice, so that the people may have the guarantee and sense of being treated in accordance with law that they are not being deprived of their due rights.

Summary: Despite entry in Nikahnama that dower had been paid, the petitioner/husband was required to establish through evidence as to how property i.e. land mentioned in Nikahnama as dower had been transferred to the wife. Petitioner had, on one hand, admitted the said property to be given as Haqqul Mehar as per Column No. 16 of the Nikahnama and, on the other hand, failed to establish that Haqqul Mehar had been paid. Entries in Column Nos. 13 and 14 of the Nikahnama only showed payment of Haqqul Mehar @ Rs. 1000/- as well as 2 tola gold ornaments, which could not be extended beyond its context to mean that entire Haqqul Mehar had been paid.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delayed FIR---Delayed examination of witness by police---Contradiction in statements of witnesses---Dishonest improvement---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder---Complainant reached at the place of occurrence at 2:00 pm, but the FIR was lodged at 6:00pm and the dead body was shifted to the hospital for medical examination at 6:30 pm---Contents of fard-e-bayan were silent about the weapon used in the crime, but in his courtstatement complainant dishonestly improved and stated that firing was made with TT pistol---Complainant had stated that murder was committed at the behest and instigation of coaccused and for such purpose two muffle faced persons brought the accused at the place ofoccurrence, however, the court statement of complainant was silent in such behalf---Complainant had not witnessed the crime directly, thus, his statement was not helpful to thecase of prosecution---Complainant had recieved information about the occurrence at 12:00pm, but the sole eye-witness of the occurrence contradicted the case of prosecution andstated that the occurrence had taken place at 12:30 pm---Eye-witness had appeared before theInvestigating officer on the following day of occurrence for recording his statement---Appealwas accepted, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd---Recovery of weapon---Information received from accused to be proved---Scope---Accused was arrested after 5days of the occurrence whereas accused, in the presence of police constable, confessed hisguilt and recorded his disclosure on the day of his arrest and the said disclosure was followedby the recovery of TT pistol---Investigating officer in his cross-examination admitted that nocrime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, while infact according to recordand more particularly from the statement of a witness it appeared that three empties wererecovered from the place of occurrence, which were taken into possession through seizurememo---Prosecution ought to have sent the three collected empties and the TT pistol toForensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for matching with empties and it was the FSL reportwhich could confirm that the recovered TT pistol was the same through which the deceased was murdered, but that was not done---Recovered TT pistol could not be presumed to be thesame through which the murder of the deceased was committed or that the same wasrecovered on the pointation of the appellant---Without recovery of any incriminatory articleor discovery of new facts, disclosure of accused recorded in police custody was notadmissible---Prosection had not succeeded in establishing the recovery of TT pistol on thepointation of appellant, hence the same was not helpful to the case of prosecution---Appealwas allowed.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 37, 38 & 39---Qatl-i-amd---Confessioncaused by inducement, threat or promise---Confession by accused in police custody---Scope---Investigating officer had recorded the disclosure of the appellant and according to theprosecution same was recorded voluntarily---Investigating officer did not produce theappellant before the Judicial Magistrate for recording his confessional statement under S.164,Cr.P.C. on the date of recording his disclosure, but to the contrary the appellant wasproduced before the Judicial Magistrate on the last date of remand for recording suchconfessional statement---Delay so occasioned in recording such confessional statement hadlost its evidentiary value---Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement ofthe appellant admitted in his cross-examination that earlier when the appellant was producedbefore him for remand, he never showed his willingness to record such confessionalstatement---Even otherwise, prior to recording his confessional statement the appellantinformed the Judicial Magistrate that he was tortured, which fact was also recorded in hisconfessional statement---Judicial Magistrate had put a question to the appellant that as towhy he was recording such confessional statement, to which the appellant replied that he wasrecording his statement so that the compromise could be effected; meaning thereby theappellant was deceived and put on a false impression and inducement that in case ofrecording his confessional statement the matter would be compromised---Such confessionalstatement could not be presumed to have been recorded voluntarily or free from interferenceor influence, thus, the same was not admissible under the law.Mst. Tasleem and another v. State 2013 MLD 1331 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Medical evidence---Evidentiary value---Medical evidence isonly used for confirmation of ocular evidence regarding seat of injury, time of occurrenceand weapon of offence used, etc, but medical evidence itself does not constitute anycorroboration qua the identity of accused person to prove his culpability.Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1997 SCMR 866 ref.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 154---Information in cognizable cases---Prompt registration of FIR---Object---Mainobject of prompt registration of FIR is to rule out the possibility of deliberation, consultation and inquiry---Element of delay in lodging the crime report is treated with caution becausethere is a tendency to involve innocent people during the interval.(f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Delayed examination of witness by police---Effect---When statement underS.161, Cr.P.C. is delayed; such evidence may not be given that sanctity as is generally givento the evidence of a witness whose statement has been recorded promptly soon after theoccurrence.(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 38 & 39---Confession to police officer---Confession of accused while in custody ofpolice officer not to be proved against him---Scope---Disclosure of an accused recorded inpolice custody is not admissible under Arts.38 & 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, unlessfollowed by the recovery of any incriminatory evidence.(h) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond anyreasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, benefit of the same must goto the accused and it would be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story and acquit theaccused.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution hadnot produced direct evidence but only medical and circumstantial evidence--- Ocularcircumstantial evidence was contradictory and doubtful not supported by the medicalevidence---Medical evidence had established unnatural death of deceased, but still doubtsremained that either such death was result of homicide and suicide---Presumption of suicidecould not be ruled out of consideration when there were no marks of violence on the deadbody of the deceased, rather she had received a single fire-arm shot on her forehead---All thewitnesses were related inter se---Complainant had contradicted his earlier statementcontained in fard-e-bayan---One of the prosecution witnesses had contradicted the statementsof other prosecution witnesses---Said contradiction with regard to presence/non-presence ofaccused at the relevant time in his house, his arrest on the said date or on the following date,had rendered the recovery of crime weapon from the possession of accused as doubtful---None of prosecution witnesses had directly witnessed the crime, rather allegedly accusedmade phone call to prosecution witness and informed her about the murder of her daughter---Prosecution had failed to produce on record, either the mobile number which remained in theuse of accused or his mother-in-law---In absence of any material evidence, it could not bepresumed that any phone call was either made by accused or such call was received byprosecution witness---Witnesses had also contradicted each other with regard to arrest ofaccused---All the witnesses had admitted that alleged occurrence did not happen in theirpresence, rather the incident had already taken place before their arrival---Recovery of crimeweapon from the possession of accused had not been proved---Conduct of accused alsoappeared to be unnatural and not acceptable to a prudent mind---Investigating Officer hadfailed to record the extra-judicial confession or the confessional statement of accused tobring on record the motive behind the occurrence---Investigating Officer had also failed tocollect any single evidence against accused---Said infirmities and discrepancies in the case ofprosecution, escaped the view of Trial Court---Prosecution had failed to prove the chargeagainst accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed.

Summary: Summary pending