Skip to main content

2015 Y L R 1943

By

Reappraisal of evidence --- Complainant, simply disposed in his statement that he was told by his son on mobile phone about the occurrence, but in support of his claim, complainant did not produce the mobile phone, or any call data --- No proof of the presence of accused before the occurrence, or after the occurrence was available – Complainant claimed that deceased was his wife, but, he did not produce any evidence i.e. Nikahnama or any witness of nikkah in support of his claim --- Complainant, in circumstances, could not prove that deceased was his wife --- Two minor eye- witnesses of the occurrence, were not produced for recording their evidence, wherefrom a strong presumption against the prosecution could be drawn as stipulated under Art. 129 illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ---- Nothing was on record to establish that alleged offences were committed by accused --- Statements of the prosecution witnesses, complainant, investigating Officer, and other prosecution witnesses, could not bring anything on record incriminating against accused – No crime weapon, had been recovered from the person, or on the pointation of accused ---No judicial or extra judicial confession, was on record to constitute the offence alleged against accused --- Accused though had not appeared before the court, but a favourable order in his absence, was not prohibited under law --- Once accused had been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, he would enjoy double presumption of innocence --- Case being of no evidence, appeal of the State against acquittal was without any substance, and accused stood rightly acquitted --- Impugned acquittal order stood confirmed, and appeal against acquittal was dismissed. 

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

By
PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...
Post a Comment
Read more

Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

By
PLJ 2018 Lahore 868 [Multan Bench, Multan] Present :  Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed, J. MUHAMMAD AMIN--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR--Respondent F.A.O. No. 130 of 2016, heard on 5.10.2017. Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-- ----Ss. 19, 28 & 33--Seed Act, 1976, Ss. 22-B, 22-C, 22-E, 22-D & 23--Purchasing of hybird seed substandard quantity--Issuance of legal notice--Complaint before district consumer Court--Partly allowed--Suffering of Fiscal loss and mental agony--Question of--Whether purchased seed was hybird or substandard--Direction to--Respondent was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Center to obtain expert report/lab report of plants to corroborate his version--Laboratory tests and analysis of such experts are quite helpful   to   determine controversial   issue,   involved in such like cases--It is manifest that a detailed and effective procedure has b...
Post a Comment
Read more

2013 S C M R 587

By
Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule --- Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/Prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings --- Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found --- High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal --- Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below --- Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more