Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Astonishingly, despite alleged indiscriminate firing by three accused, none of the PWs tried to escape or hit with a single fire shot and they were surprisingly standing firm to watch minutely that the fire shot of Saif-ur-Rehman hit the deceased on his head, which in the ordinary course of life is impossible. It is also beyond one s comprehension as to why the accused let the alleged eyewitnesses to go safely to lodge report and stand eyewitnesses against them.It is settled law that once intrinsic worth of ocular account is accepted and believed then the rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroboratory in nature, would be required as a matter of caution. Conversely, once the ocular account is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value, would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, section 55-A of the FCR and 25th Constitutional Amendment.(a) Grounds for review under section 55-A of the erstwhile FCR explained

Summary: 1.Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to comply with conditions of a leave application, the Court is still required to apply its mind to the case of the plaintiff before passing any order/judgment. Leave granted where statement of account incomplete.2.Notwithstanding the creation of a mortgage, the mortgagor remains liable to the lessor for any breach or non-performance of the conditions of lease; and that if the lessor forfeits the lease, the remedy of the mortgagee is against the mortgagor for indemnification, and not against the lessor. The security of the mortgagee in the mortgaged property can be no better than the interest given to the mortgagor by the lease.

Summary: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (Appeal dismissed. During encounter PC was killed, accused Confessed before Magistrate ,and admitted in Statement U/S 342)----The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused individuals. The defense contested the charges, alleging police misconduct and insufficient evidence.The court ultimately found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and compelling, supporting the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It dismissed the defense's claims of innocence and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The judgment referenced various legal precedents and emphasized the importance of deterring offenses against law enforcement personnel.In its decision, the court highlighted the reliance on witness testimonies, forensic reports, and the absence of mitigating circumstances to justify its ruling. The judgment underscored the need to maintain the integrity of law enforcement efforts and uphold accountability for criminal acts. Therefore, the court rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and affirmed the lower court's decision in its entirety.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Muhammad Asif and Mehboob Alam were involved in a criminal case registered on 15.11.2011, with charges including murder and other offenses.After a trial, Muhammad Asif was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court.This decision was appealed to the Lahore High Court, which converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.Muhammad Asif filed criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision.---Issues:Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Muhammad Asif.Whether the delay in the postmortem examination affects the credibility of the prosecution's case.Whether the High Court's decision to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment was justified.---Holding/Reasoning:The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to support the conviction and that the time of occurrence was not mentioned in the complaint. However, the crime report did mention the date and time of occurrence, undermining the argument of an unseen occurrence.The delay in the postmortem examination was reasonable considering the distance to Mayo Hospital and the challenges in medical facilities in the country.Previous hostility between the parties did not discredit the prosecution's evidence.The High Court's decision to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment was supported by justifiable reasoning and met the standards of safe administration of criminal justice.The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and upheld the decision of the Lahore High Court.The criminal petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending