Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Corroboration between ocular and circumstantial evidence.... tangible and reliable evidence is required for conviction.

Summary: Ss. 419/420/471/34, PPCS. 497(5) CrPCPrinciple for grant & cancellation of bail are quite different.Strong reasons are required for cancellation of bail.

Summary: Violation of Environmental Protection Law.

Summary: The case revolved around an application by the petitioner, Muhammad Ayyaz, who was accused of murder. He sought the constitution of a medical board to determine his age, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense and should be tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.The facts of the case indicated that the petitioner had been charged with a serious crime and subsequently applied for consideration as a juvenile based on a school certificate showing his date of birth as May 7, 1998. He requested a medical board to conduct an ossification test to verify his age.The prosecution opposed the petitioner's application, arguing that he was not a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime, and cited documents such as the petitioner's voter registration and national identity card (CNIC) that indicated he was 18 years old by January 1, 2013.The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner's application based on the CNIC and electoral roll information, ruling that an ossification test was unnecessary.In the judgment, Judge Tariq Saleem Sheikh emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough inquiry when there's a question about the age of an accused person, as per the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He cited legal definitions of the term "inquiry" and noted that it is different from a trial, intending to seek the truth. The judge held that this inquiry should involve a broad spectrum, including considering documents, recording statements of witnesses, and requisitioning medical reports, such as ossification tests.The judgment further stated that the burden of proving juvenility rests on the accused person. Still, belated claims may lead to adverse inferences. The judge criticized the trial court's decision to discard the petitioner's School Leaving Certificate and not requisition the school's record or examine its custodian to verify the certificate's genuineness.Regarding the National Identity Card (CNIC), the judgment recognized its probative value and mentioned that entries in the NADRA Database carry weight and hold unless rebutted. The judge directed the learned trial court to conduct an inquiry under Section 7 of the Ordinance and consider the petitioner's request for an ossification test, taking into account all documents and information produced by the parties.The judgment highlighted the importance of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and emphasized the need for modern techniques, such as the ossification test, to ensure a just conclusion.

Summary: The case revolved around a suit for pre-emption concerning a piece of land measuring 11 Kanals and 14 Marlas, located in Phalwari, Tehsil Shakargarh. The petitioner contended that, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shahra and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, the revenue authorities were obligated to incorporate a decree passed by a civil court of competent jurisdiction in the revenue record. They argued that there was no need to initiate execution proceedings for this purpose. The petitioner believed that respondent No. 1 had erred in refusing this relief.In response, counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 argued that they were bona fide purchasers of a part of the disputed property from the legal heirs of the original vendor. They suggested that the petitioner should seek recourse through the appropriate civil court.After reviewing the arguments and the relevant legal precedent, the court found that the petitioner's contentions were valid. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another (1972 SCMR 322) and other cases to assert that a decree passed by a civil court could be incorporated into the revenue record without resorting to execution proceedings. The court also noted that the revenue authorities had a legal duty to act upon the decree. Therefore, the refusal by the first respondent to incorporate the decree was erroneous.The court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent No. 2 to incorporate the decree in the revenue record. However, it noted that the rights of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were bona fide purchasers, should be determined by the civil court.The Lahore High Court, through this judgment, clarified that a decree from a civil court could be incorporated into the revenue record without the need for execution proceedings, following well-established legal principles. The court sided with the petitioner and directed the revenue authorities to fulfill this obligation.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved with respect to a co-accused, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they are corroborated by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source which shall be unimpeachable in nature---The appellant, Muhammad Asif, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case revolved around the killing of Muhammad Akram, allegedly orchestrated by Muhammad Asif and two others. However, the trial court acquitted the co-accused but sentenced Muhammad Asif to death, a decision later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. During the appeal, the Supreme Court raised several doubts regarding the prosecution's case. It questioned the credibility of eyewitnesses, highlighted inconsistencies in their testimony, and noted the failure to produce key witnesses who could have corroborated the events. The court also scrutinized the medical evidence, particularly the timing of the victim's death, and found discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative. In reaching its decision to acquit Muhammad Asif, the Supreme Court referred to legal precedents and principles of evidence. Ghulam Sikandar and Another vs. Mamaraz Khan and Others (PLD 1985 S.C.11): The principle of indivisibility of credibility was highlighted, indicating that if a witness falsely implicates one accused, their testimony regarding other accused individuals may also be suspect unless strongly corroborated by independent evidence.Muhammad Faiz Bakhsh v. The Queen: This case emphasized the importance of recording witness statements promptly, stating that unexplained delays in recording statements could render witness testimony unreliable and inadmissible. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence, particularly in cases where witnesses have close relationships with the accused. Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the Prosecutor General and Chief Incharge of Investigation of Punjab Police to issue instructions regarding the handling of evidence, especially bloodstained items, to ensure proper investigation and prosecution in future cases. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed Muhammad Asif's appeal, overturning the previous conviction and acquitting him of all charges based on doubts raised about the prosecution's case and adherence to legal principles.

Summary: Background:In Roe v. Wade, a pregnant woman, under the alias "Jane Roe," challenged the constitutionality of Texas laws that criminalized most abortions unless performed to save the life of the mother. Roe argued that these laws violated her constitutional right to privacy, which she contended was implicit in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.---Issues:Whether the right to privacy includes a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy.Whether state laws criminalizing most abortions violate the right to privacy.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy indeed encompasses a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's interest in regulating abortions to protect maternal health and potential life. The Court divided pregnancy into three trimesters and held that during the first trimester, the decision to abort must be left to the woman and her physician. During the second trimester, states may regulate abortion to protect maternal health, and during the third trimester, states may regulate or prohibit abortion to protect potential life, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Consequently, the Texas laws criminalizing most abortions were found unconstitutional.---Citations/Precedents:Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Summary: Summary pending