Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The respondents argued that the petitioners had failed to prove an agreement to sell due to a deficiency in their evidence. The law under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, requires the production of two marginal witnesses to prove such a document. In this case, the petitioners produced only one marginal witness, and there was no reasonable explanation for not producing the second one. As a result, the suit was dismissed in the lower courts.The petitioners' counsel suggested that the deficiency in evidence could be remedied by considering the Scribe's testimony as equivalent to that of an attesting witness. However, the court noted that the Scribe's evidence could not be a substitute for an attesting witness, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasized the distinct roles and states of mind of the two.Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of raising objections at the appropriate time when admitting documents into evidence, as later objections would not be considered valid.

Summary: Acquittal --- The prosecution's case was based on the abduction of Muqadas Batool, the daughter of the complainant, Khurshid Hussain. It was alleged that Rehmat Ali had abducted Muqadas Batool and sexually assaulted her. Muqadas Batool's account of the events was central to the prosecution's case.However, the judgment pointed out several issues with the prosecution's case. The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Muqadas Batool's version of events, including the alleged abduction, was not entirely convincing, and the court raised questions about her actions and reactions during the alleged abduction.The court also noted that there was a lack of medical evidence to support the prosecution's claims, as there were no injuries or signs of sexual assault found during the medical examination.Additionally, the court highlighted that no eyewitnesses were presented who could confirm the abduction or the crime. The recovery of evidence was also questionable, with the absence of key items such as the motorcycle allegedly used in the crime.Given the doubt and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the court acquitted Rehmat Ali, as the evidence presented did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to wrongfully convict one innocent person.

Summary: Acquittal granted----The appellants, including Mst. Rukhsana Begum, challenged their convictions for various offenses including murder, under sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The incident in question occurred on February 22, 2003, when a group of assailants attacked Muhammad Faazil and others, resulting in the deaths of Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Yar. Muhammad Faazil, the complainant, alleged that the accused, armed with various weapons, launched a coordinated attack, leading to the deaths of his sons. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and autopsy reports to support their case. However, the Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence and raised several significant doubts. The court questioned the credibility of the FIR, highlighting inconsistencies in the timing of events and the omission of crucial details. Doubts were raised regarding the presence of the complainant and other witnesses at the crime scene, with the court finding their testimonies unreliable and lacking corroborative evidence. The recovery of weapons, a crucial aspect of the prosecution's case, was deemed unreliable due to the lack of independent corroboration and the involvement of witnesses whose credibility was already in question. The court observed a pattern of bias and enmity between the parties involved, suggesting that private vendettas may have influenced the course of events and the testimonies presented. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning their convictions and acquitting them of all charges. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted flaws in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the handling of evidence. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that convictions are based on sound evidence and legal standards.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending