Criminal Trial

  1. Statement of illterate person not to be discarded on that score — Their statement not to be treated by mathematical precision. Mian Talib v. The State 1992 SCR 120 (A)
  2. Distance between assailant and victim at the time of firing-Medical evidence-Doctor is not expected to give exact distance — Only arms expert can give exact distance. Shaukat Hussain v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (A)
  3. Discretion exercised by the Courts bellows — Normally this Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below unless the discretion is capricious or against the interest of justice or established principles of criminal justice.State v. M. Bahram Khan1994 SCR272 (A)
  4. A wrong order passed by a Court in good faith would not furnish a ground for holding such Court biased against affected party — Held: It is our duty to ensure fair and impartial trial in order to maintain confidence in the system. Muhammad Farooq v. State 2002 SCR 367 (B)
  5. The Presiding Officers of Courts are bound to ensure that all proper and necessary steps are taken to arrive at the truth — Under law they are required to participate actively in proceedings with their full conscious — Held: That in this case the trial Court had no option but to issue warrant of arrest against appellant to ensure his presence before the Court. M. Farooq v. State 2002 SCR 367 (A)
  6. Delay per se is no ground for grant of bail — However, an inordinate delay amounting to abuse of the process of the Court or a scandalous delay has been held a valid ground for grant of bail. Muhammad Nadeem Javed v. Nisar Ahmed Khan & another 2003 SCR 340 (A) 1979 SCMR 438, 1968 SCMR 683, 1978 SCMR 314, PLD 1974 S.C. 224 ref. & rel.
  7. Findings of police — A Court of law is never bound by the ipsi-dixit of police nor the findings of police are sacrosanct or immuned from judicial scrutiny — The Court of law after evaluating the relevant material has to form its own opinion as to which set of accused persons is prima facie guilty of alleged offences and if the Court reaches to a certain conclusion, it has to initiate its proceedings against that set of accused persons and not as suggested by the police. Muhammad Arshad & another v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others 2003 SCR 192 (E)
  8. Direct evidence — Corroboration — Rule  — When the entire prosecution case rests upon the direct evidence of witnesses, who have seen the accused committing the crime, there is no requirement of corroboration. [Trial Court had awarded life imprisonment to appellant in murder case whereas the same was converted into Qisas by Shariat Court. Appeal was allowed by Supreme Court and sentence awarded by Trial Court was restored].  Zabir Maqsood alias Kashif Maqsood  v. The State and another 2013 SCR 642 (D)
  9. The prosecution is not bound to produce each and every witness but in a murder case where independent witnesses are present and they are not produced but only related witnesses are produced, the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with great care and caution.  Zabir Maqsood alias Kashif Maqsood v. The State and another 2013 SCR 642 (B)
  10. Contention that prosecution abandoned the witnesses, therefore, the inference can be drawn that they were not supporting the prosecution version — Held: it is not necessary that prosecution shall produce all the witnesses, the list of which has been given in the calendar of witnesses.  The Shariat Court has correctly observed that the defence is at liberty to produce these witnesses in evidence. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121(H)
  11. A police officer is as competent a witness of recovery as any other person. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (D)
  12. Section 302, APC — appreciation of evidence — contention that the witnesses are chance witnesses therefore, death sentence cannot be awarded, incident occurred outside the village mosque — The eye witnesses are residents of village and none of them is inimical towards the accused and has motive to falsely implicate him. Held:  The presence of witnesses in the mosque at the time of prayers is quite natural. They cannot be termed as chance witnesses. M. Yaqoob v. The State 2014 SCR 121 (C) PLJ 1990 Cri-e (Karachi) 346, NLR 2006 Crim.535 and PLD 1977 SC 538  ref.
  13. Section 302, APC — appreciation of evidence — contention that the statements of eye witnesses are recorded after delay so they cannot be relied upon for awarding death sentence — the trial Court and first appellate Court believed the witnesses that they were present at the place of occurrence. Held: they are inimical towards the accused and have a motive to falsely implicate the accused then late recording of statement of these witnesses casts doubts in the prosecution story. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (G)
  14. Offence of decoity — life imprisonment — appeal against conviction — contention that in the challan form the date of arrest is mentioned as 14.3.2003 and obtained on 18.5.2003. This remand was sole dent in the prosecution evidence demolishes the whole case — Observed that although in the challan form the date of arrest is inadvertently entered as 14.3.2014, whereas the order of Magistrate is very much clear who has granted the remand in which specific date of remand is mentioned as 14.5.2003. The month instead of 5th has been inadvertently written as 3rd. Held: such like clerical omission cannot demolish the whole prosecution story. Ahsaan Azeem & 2 others v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 735 (E) PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 82 & 2001 SCR 240 rel.
  15. Murder case — argument that the material on the basis of which the conviction order against convict-appellant has been passed is not believable because on the basis of same evidence the other accused have been acquitted. Held: according to the century’s old settled principles of administration of criminal justice the Courts have to sift the grains from the chaff.  Further held: it is not necessary that if a piece of evidence is disbelieved to the extent of one accused according to his assigned conduct in the prosecution story, the same cannot be believed to the extent of other accused against whom cogent, confidence inspiring evidence is available on the record. Muhammad Bashir & another v. Sain Khan & 2 others 2014 SCR 821 (F)
  16. Murder case — contention that one Saqib Nisar, who allegedly has given the pistol to the accused was not implicated as accused — held: he has given the weapon of offence to the accused, however, nothing is on record that he also participated in the commission of offence or played any role in the occurrence, therefore, the prosecution has rightly not implicated him as accused. Muhammad Tasleem and another v. The State and another 2014 SCR 893 (I)
  17. Bail matters — while dealing with the bail matters, the Courts are supposed to make a tentative assessment of evidence and the other material brought on the record. The Courts are not supposed to go into the deeper appreciation of evidence and the other record made available. The Courts have to confine themselves within the parameters determined by law. While dealing with the bail matters, the Courts have only to look into the material brought on the record in the form of FIR, the statements recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C., and of course the defense version, if any.  Shuakat Aziz & another v. Ansar Ali and another 2014 SCR 934 (E)
  18. When the ocular account is disbelieved by the trial Court being contradictory in nature, the other evidence is only corroborative in nature cannot be given any weight and no preference can be given over the ocular account. Abid Hanif  v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983 (C)
  19. Cancellation of proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C. and exemption from personal appearance — if a person absconds during trial and later on moves an application for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that he has gone abroad for earning livelihood, in such circumstance the accused be exempted from personal appearance provide that there are other accused who are facing the trial. The purpose of Section 512, Cr.P.C. is not that normal rights of the accused will not be available to him or snatched. M. Iqbal v. Allah Ditta 2014 SCR 461 (B) 2003 SCR 506  ref.
  20. Cancellation of proceedings under section 512 and arrest warrants — accused appeared voluntarily — the conduct of accused is such that he voluntarily appeared for facing trial, therefore, the trial Court in its discretion thought it proper to cancel the proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C., ordered for cancellation of warrants and fresh bail bond which appears to be a proper and legal course. Muhammad Iqbal v. Allah Ditta & another 2014 SCR 461 (C)
  21. The mother of the complainant-appellant died two days prior to this occurrence — at the time of occurrence, a number of persons was sitting there — to offer Fateha but no one has been cited as a witness which — shows that the place of occurrence is not same as stated by the prosecution. In this regard, no explanation has been brought on record that why the persons present — at the time of occurrence were not cited as witness and whether they were not willing to — appear as witness. R. Zamin Abbas v. Sultan Mobashar Saidain & others 2014 SCR 1678 (C) 2013 SCR 642  rel.
  22. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the role of the prosecuting agency which investigated and collected the material/evidence against the accused is very important and it is to be seen that the same is above board and free from any doubt and suspicion. Javaid Akhtar v. Muhammad Zubair & others 2015 SCR 533 (D)
  23. Insufficient evidence — murder — Held: in absence of the DNA report, the reliance upon the evidence of PW cannot be made to determine safely that the skeleton was of the deceased. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (C)
  24. Held: in absence of any evidence regarding identification of the skeleton and the report of the Serologist about blood grouping and origin of the blood, even if the chemical examiner’s report would have been tendered, the prosecution’s case shatters and falls like a house of cards. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (D) 2013 PSC (Cri) 732 ref
  25. Bail matter — the accused’s burden is not much heavier like the prosecution. He has only to show that the defence plea taken by him creates reasonable doubts/suspicion in the prosecution case on the basis of evidence/material, collected by the prosecution or/and he is entitled to avail the benefit of it. Sudheer Shah alias Kala Shah v. The State and another 2016 SCR 1653 (C)
  26. —Murder case—defense liability—place of occurrence— room of the house of the accused— bloodstained articles and dead body recovered on the pointation of the accused—Held: the accused had to explain that how the occurrence took place—Mere denial on the part of the accused, not sufficient to absolve him of the liability. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (E) 1968 SCMR 378, 1969 SCMR 558 & 2015 PCr.LJ 1685 ref
  27. —Murder case—circumstantial evidence—appreciation of—duty of the Court— duty of the Courts to sift the grains of truth from the chaff of falsehood— if any doubt arises of such nature that does not brush away the whole case then the same may be counted towards the mitigation—In the cases of circumstantial evidence, there must be an unbroken chain of events excluding the possibility of innocence—Held: the courts are not absolved of their obligation to search for truth in all cases keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (P)
  28. —Evidence—appraisal of— minor discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses constitute the mitigating circumstances, which, held: under the settled principle of law may be considered for quantum of punishment. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (C)
  29. —Appraisal of —murder case—admissibility of a portion of statement of a witness to the extent of some accused and rejection of it to the extent of other accused—principles of—argument that on the same set of evidence acquittal of some accused and the conviction of other accused, is against the administration of criminal justice— observed that it is not the era when the evidence had been tested on the touch stone of truthfulness by following the principle of “Falsus in Uno-Falsus in omnibus” rather this is the period, where the Courts have to sift the grains of truth from the chaff of falsehood.Held:in criminalcases the Court has to appraise the evidence minutely keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court has to sift the grains of truth from the chaff of falsehood, thus, on the basis of this principle, some portions or the whole statement of a witness can be relied upon against some of the accused and the same portion can be rejected against the other accused, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727  (D) 2002 PCr.LJ 524 ref
  30. —Benefit of doubt— Deceased has not attributed a specific role to the accused in the dying declaration—held: Shariat Court has rightly set aside the conviction of the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (H) PLD 2015 Lahore 1 ref
  31. —Evidence—appraisal of—minor discrepancies—prosecution’ witnesses remained consistent on the material propositions, however, the minor discrepancies are found which constitute the mitigating circumstances—- in view of the settled principle of law, mitigating circumstances may be considered for quantum of punishment. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (K) 2007 SCR 10 rel
  32. —circumstantial evidence— doubt —neither the links of the chain of evidence are interconnected nor the prosecution succeeded to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt, in such scenario the acquittal of the convicts is the requirement of law. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (I)
  33.   — It may be stated that if a case is not otherwise proved then conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of surmises and conjectures because proving the charge is the duty of the prosecution. Asif Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique & another 2019 SCR 632 (C)
  34. —when a case is presented as a case of direct evidence, then the same should be proved through direct evidence. Waqas Abid  v. Sajid Hussain & 3 others 2020 SCR 520 (E)
  35. —Murder case—under the principal of administration of criminal justice, minor contradiction/ discrepancies which do not substantially affect the material particular prosecution story, cannot be taken into consideration. Rafique-ur-Rehman v. The State 2022 SCR 199 (B) 2018 SCR 661 & 2018 SCR 417 rel
  36. —Murder case—Plea of alibi—proof—burden of—convict took plea of alibi in the statement u/s 265-D Cr.P.C., — neither any question was put to the prosecution witnesses during the crossexamination regarding alibi nor in the statement recorded u/s 342, Cr.P.C. the convict took the plea of alibi—held: although it is duty of the prosecution to prove its case, but when a specific plea is raised by the accused in defence, the burden of proof lies on him. Rafique-ur-Rehman v. The State 2022 SCR 199 (D)
  37. —Murder case—evidence—minor discrepancies—the prosecution witnesses though remained consistent on material proposition— however, minor discrepancies found which constitutes mitigating circumstances which may be considered for quantum of sentence and not for acquittal. Rafique-ur-Rehman v. The State 2022 SCR 199 (E)
  38. —Murder—onus of proof—when the accused admits the facts regarding death of deceased but negates the manner of occurrence, then the onus to prove the same lies upon him. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (D) 2007 SCR 1 ref
  39. —Murder—enhancement of sentence—see Nani Sultana v. Tanveer Ahmed & others 2022 SCR 615 (G)
  40. —Principle of audi alteram Pertem—See Muhammad Javed  v. Muhammad Jamil & another  2022 SCR 705 (C&D)
error: Content is protected !!