Skip to main content

2015 Y L R 1943


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Co-sharer

Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

2013 S C M R 587

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

Entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property

  PLJ 2026 SC 96 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:   Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. AYESHA TAYYAB--Petitioner versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT.DISTRICT SIALKOT, etc.--Respondents C.P. No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22.5.2025. (On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 406--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 561-A--Quashment of criminal proceedings and Quashment of FIR--Entrustment of property and dishonest   misappropriation   of   entrusted   property--“Qarz-e-Hasna”--Amount was handed over as a loan/trust--High Court observed that no offence under section 406 PPC was made out from contents of FIR and proceeded to quash same under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199--Contents of FIR determine whether a cogni...