Admissibility

Accused were charged for committing dacoity with the complainant and his cousin and snatching an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- with a mobile

Admittedly, in the case in hand the disclosure of the appellant was followed by the discovery of new facts i.e. the names of his accomplices, earlier not known to the Investigating Agency, as well as the role of each accused played during the crime coupled with the recovery of looted money on his pointation from his house

If any incriminatory material related to the case was recovered or any fact was discovered in consequence of the information conveyed by the accused person, then the information so received would be admissible in evidence within the purview of Art.40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, because then the presumption would be towards its truthfulness

Since, the disclosures of the appellant was followed by the recovery of looted money as well as the discovery of new facts which earlier were not known, therefore, the same was an admissible piece of evidence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence can be produced to prove the facts founded in the pleadings and evidence beyond pleadings or different from the pleadings cannot be considered as admissible and even if it is inadvertently brought on record the same cannot be relied upon or considered.

Non-mentioning of necessary details as to offer and acceptance of gift in the written statement/pleadings of the petitioners

Effect

Evidence beyond the scope of pleadings

Admissibility

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondent and decreed the suit

Validity

Basic ingredients of a valid gift are offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

No description of making of offer and acceptance of the same by the deceased donor had been given in the written statement of the petitioner, which were necessary to plead and prove

Same had not even been deposed during the evidence either by the petitioner or his witnesses because a party cannot lead any evidence beyond its pleadings

No illegality and irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction was found in the findings of the Appellate Court

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Neither the petitioners were nominated in the FIR, nor warrants had been issued against them under Ss.75/87, Cr. P.C. that they had been arrested upon their statements in police custody; even after their arrest in the above cases, they were not forwarded to the Magistrate for their confessional statement to the effect that they were the persons who committed theft of the subject vehicles from the place of the incident as reported by both the complainant for the reason that confession before the police was not admissible in evidence under the law

Recovery of the stolen vehicles had been effected on the pointation of the petitioners and its evidentiary value was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence as the prosecution claimed that there was CCTV footage

Wider net was thrown by the police to involve the petitioners on the pretext that they were professional car snatchers

Case of the petitioners did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Grant of bail in such offences not falling within the prohibitory clause was a rule and refusal thereof was an except

Petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession of the accused was recorded in police custody, thus, was not admissible under Arts.38 & 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Before conviction every accused is presumed to be innocent

Prosecution failed to establish that the petitioners were ever convicted in any case registered against them, therefore, they could not be refused bail merely on such ground

Bald allegations that a person by habit or habitually commits the offences highlighted in S.110 Cr.P.C. are not sufficient to proceed under that provision, rather the allegations must substantially be supported by cogent evidence

Such powers could not be exercised as a tool of oppression against innocent, poor and helpless people

Petitioners were admitted to post-arrest but, in circumstances.

Lack of critical explanation by supporting evidence for the purported relationship between the parties, which prompted the applicant not to reduce the agreement into writing

Identical affidavit in evidence

Admissibility

Discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses

Suit and appeal of the applicant were dismissed concurrently

Validity

Only through rigorous and detailed presentation of evidence the court could be persuaded to issue a decree for specific performance based on an oral agreement to sell

Legal threshold for proving an oral agreement was inherently high due to the absence of written documentation, thus necessitating a robust and meticulous evidentiary approach to satisfy judicial scrutiny

Failure to specify essential details, the absence of written evidence of earnest money, and the lack of a credible explanation or supporting evidence for the purported relationship between the parties all cast significant doubt on the validity of the plaintiff's claim

Both marginal witnesses submitted nearly identical affidavits-in-evidence and such uniformity can sometimes call into question the individuality and spontaneity of their testimonies, as overly similar affidavits suggest coordination rather than independent recounting of the events

While consistency is a crucial element in legal testimonies, the absence of distinct details from each witness can significantly impact the perceived authenticity and reliability of their evidence, thus, it was imperative for each witness to provide testimony based on their personal observations and experiences to bolster the overall credibility of the case

Discrepancies in the details provided during cross-examination highlighted significant contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies, undermining the credibility of the plaintiff's claim and raising questions about the reliability of the evidence presented

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Some pages of a judgment were downloaded from the official website of the Court and was produced, which was not accepted

Validity

Perusal of the said pages showed that apparently the same comprised of an unsigned copy of judgment passed in the case, however, nothing was available on the record to substantiate that the said pages had been downloaded from the official website of the Court and had remained un-altered or un-changed thereafter

Besides, there was no mechanism available with the office of the Court to verify whether the said copy had been compared with the original judgment/order of the Court by any competent authority and was free from errors and omissions so as to be treated as a true and real copy of the judgment actually passed by the Court

Moreover, such a copy had neither been made per se admissible in a Court of law as evidence of what had been decided therein through permission granted by the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders nor by any notification issued by the Court in that regard rather the said copies were uploaded subject to all just and legal exceptions and were not claimed to be authentic and true copies of the orders actually passed by the Court and free from errors and omissions

Section 12 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 although made an electronically generated printout of documents admissible as evidence as a true copy of the original document/order yet the same had been made admissible subject to the condition that the print out or other form of electronic documents in addition to fulfillment of requirements specified in applicable law were also verified in the manner that might be laid down by the appropriate authority

Moreover, the said copy was an unsigned copy downloaded by the petitioner himself, statedly from the official website, without any involvement of and authentication by the office of High Court

Such a copy could be allowed to be placed on the record where the High Court would have permitted the same or made the same as admissible

Hence a copy claimed to be downloaded from official website of High Court could not be treated as an equivalent or at par with the certified copy

In the present case, the said copy had not been placed on the record as an impugned order rather the same had been placed on the record for reference only

Said unattested and unsigned copy of the judgment available on the file as an annexure comprised of 23 pages and had 41 paragraphs and it was not possible for High Court while hearing the objection case to determine whether the said copy was an exact copy of judgment passed by High Court and was free from errors or omissions to allow the same to be retained on the file by treating the same as atpar with an authentic document

Office objection was sustained.

Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Banking Court on the plea that statement of accounts produced by respondent / bank was not in compliance of S. 2(8) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891

Validity

Statement of accounts on the basis of which suit was decreed was disputed and could not be relied upon as it had become a case of evidence

Where defects in statement of accounts were pointed out, even on such score alone leave should have been granted by virtue of requirement of S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Banking Court as the same was passed without looking at applicability of statement of accounts in that form

High Court granted leave to defend the suit and remanded the matter to Banking Court for trial in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Retracted confession could be relied upon if it was found to be voluntary and was truthful and fit in with the prosecution case

In the present case, the accused had claimed that his confession was not voluntary and was a result of him being maltreated by the police

No mention of this was made in the statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C, and no sign of maltreatment was seen on him at the time of making his confession

Said accused did not give evidence on oath to support his claim

Accused was not in injured condition at the time of the confession

Confession fully fit in with the prosecution case, namely that an attempt was made to break upon an ATM inside a bank in order to rob it and the bank guard was killed during such attempted robbery

As such it was found that confession was made voluntarily with the object to tell the truth

Appeal of accused persons "AK" and "AH" against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Confession made by an accused person while in police custody is not admissible.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Statement of complainant (deceased) recorded by the police

Admissibility

Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died

Defence objected that the statement of complainant (deceased) was recorded to police during investigation, which was only and only a statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and that the same was not admissible in evidence

Validity

Mere fact of recording the statement of the deceased by the Police Officer during investigation did not make it inadmissible in evidence, as S. 162(2), Cr.P.C., specially excluded dying declaration from the restriction application

Ascertaining the veracity of a dying declaration in any particular case was an exercise into a question of fact and not of law

Thus, the usual aids employed by the Courts for determining the truthfulness of any statement would all be relevant for evaluating a dying declaration

Each and every dying declaration was liable to be scrutinized in its attending circumstances as well as on the basis of integrity of its maker

In the present case, it was the deceased then injured who reported the matter, who was fully conscious and oriented in time and space

Cause of death had fully been explained by the doctor before the Trial Court

Attending circumstances of the case lent full support to the statement of the deceased recorded before the police

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons

Appeal was partially allowed.

Objection to admissibility of a document in evidence has to be decided then and there instead of deferring the same till the end of trial and even at the time of passing final judgment.

If court is satisfied about the truthfulness of direct evidence then the corroborative evidence is not of much significance

Corroboration is not a rule of law but is that of prudence.

Record showed that the accused made confession before the complainant and the witnesses (all police officials) after his arrest that he committed the murder of deceased

Said confession was inadmissible in evidence under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

No corroboration to the said confession was available

Place of murder was not established

Empties were not recovered

Blood of deceased was also not recovered

No eye-witness of the incident was found

No independent person was examined

Motive too was not proved

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to connect the neck of the accused with the crime in any manner whatsoever

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Such evidence was admissible under Art. 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but in case of denial, law required that such evidence generated through the automated system must be proved in accordance with law

Courts had been empowered to receive and make use of such evidence collected through modern technologies

Articles 46-A & 78-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as well as the provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 provided procedure to receive and prove such evidence

Appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentence recorded against accused were maintained.

Trial Court had relied upon the extra judicial confession of accused persons which was recorded by the Investigating officer in the presence of police officials, when the accused persons were under arrest and in handcuffs

Such practice of recording extra judicial confession by the police officials in presence of police officers was nullity in the eye of law and no credence could be extended to such piece of evidence

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused persons

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused persons were acquitted of the charge against them.

If recovery was affected on the disclosure and pointation of accused, such information would be admissible in evidence.

Con-fessional statement which on one hand was exculpatory and on the other hand not corroborated and proved during trial was of no legal worth.

Two essential requirements must be fulfilled for accepting confession i.e. the confession was made voluntarily, it was based on true account of facts leading to the crime and the same was proved at trial.

Discovery of any fact on the information of the accused in custody of police was admissible under Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

In order to apply Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the prosecution must establish that information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from any other source.

Interestingly, it was not even known why she was in police custody and why she out of the blue would decide to confess before the police and implicate the other accused

Such confession in any event could not be used against accused without independent corroboration of an unimpeachable source

No effort was made to bring the co-accused before a Judicial Magistrate to record her confession under S. 164, Cr.P.C., however, confession before the police was inadmissible in evidence especially when accused was in police custody

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Where dispute arose as to paternity of a child and no direct evidence was available to ascertain paternity, the mode of presumption was to be resorted to in order to fill the void of factual evidence

Difference of opinion existed among the Muslim scholars as to what should be the maximum period of time for extending paternity to a child born after the dissolution of marriage

Legislature had enacted Art. 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in line with Hanafi point of view, according to which, a child, born after six lunar months of marriage and within two years after dissolution of marriage; the mother remaining unmarried , would be considered legitimate and attributed to his/her putative father

Said fact was regarded as a ' conclusive proof' and no evidence could be admitted to refute the same

Article 2(9) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, stipulated that 'when one fact was declared by Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of one fact, regard the other as proved; and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving the same

Two exceptions to said provisions were, firstly, if the child was disowned by the father and, secondly, if the child was born after six lunar months once the mother declared expiry of her iddat period

In view of the said principles, the legal framework of paternity did not leave much space for the admissibility of DNA evidence

In the present case since legitimacy of child had been established as son of the petitioner/defendant , therefore, it was his duty to maintain his son according to his financial status

Family Court had fixed maintenance allowance of minor keeping in view the financial status of the petitioner/defendant

No illegality or irregularity was found in the concurrent findings passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Reluctance by the public to stand in aid of law was symptomatic of abysmal civic apathy which could not be allowed to be used as an escape route from justice

Being functionaries of the State, officials of Anti-Narcotics Force were second to none in status; their official acts and declarations were statutorily presumed as intra vires unless proved contrarily

In the absence of any flaw or discrepancy in their depositions, their testimony could not be conditioned by additional riders.

If the facts narrated in the disclosure by accused were already known to the prosecution and no new fact was emerged pursuant to the said disclosure, even no incriminatory evidence or article was recovered pursuant to the said disclosure, such disclosure so recorded whilst in police custody would not be helpful to the case of prosecution.

Accused can be convicted even on the basis of retracted judicial confession provided it is (a) made voluntarily, (b) is truthful and (c) fits in with case of prosecution and is corroborated by other independent evidence.

Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence.

If any incriminatory material related to the case was recovered or any fact was discovered in consequence of the information conveyed by the accused persons, the information so received would be admissible in evidence within the purview of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Joint recovery was not admissible in evidence.

Concept of submission of facts through affidavits in legal jurisprudence of Pakistan was same as of any other foreign jurisdiction

Any fact deposed through affidavit had to be considered admissible if the deponent appeared before the Court or authority before whom the affidavit of facts had been submitted

Mere filing of affidavit without explanation of deponent was of no use

Executant of affidavit had to appear before the Inquiry Magistrate to fulfil the minimum requirement of term prima facie (as used in S. 8 of the Extradition Act, 1972)

Article 10-A of the Constitution provided a guarantee of a fair trial as well as of due process and both said terms placed a heavy burden upon the state functionaries to apply minimum standard through which the concept of transparency, fairness and impartiality should be reflected.

Joint recoveries, under certain circumstances, were admissible in evidence if it could be easily deduced that the incriminating recoveries had been effected from a particular accused.

Discovery of any fact on the information of the accused in custody of police was admissible.

Disclosure memo of accused and memo of pointation of place of occurrence would be of no avail to the prosecution's case when the alleged disclosure was not followed by any discovery

Said disclosure, therefore, under Art. 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was not admissible in evidence.

Disclosure of accused relating to discovery of new facts or the recovery of an incriminating evidence, was admissible under the provisions of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc., act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Disclosure by accused

Admissibility

Accused disclosed the names of absconding accused persons as his accomplices and narrated the manner in which they planned to launch the attack

Accused also pointed the place of occurrence

Since disclosure of accused disclosed the discovery of new facts which earlier was not known, therefore the same was admissible piece of evidence.

Disclosure coupled with discovery of new facts was admissible under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant, common intention

Apreciation of evidence

Disclosures of accused persons

Admissibility

Prosecution case had been supported by the disclosures of the accused pesons, who admitted their guilt and narrated the entire story for making plan to blackmail and commit sodomy with the victim

Discloures of the accsused persons discovered new facts, whereby the accused persons made plan to compel the victim to bring his younger brother, the same was admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Not necessary for the admissibility of dying declaration that the deceased at the time of making the report should have been under expectancy of death.

Respondent/wife contended that no separate suit was required for her claims of recovery of dower and maintenance allowance of minor

Validity

Under subsections (1a) and (1b) of S.9 of Family Courts Act, 1964, either party could submit his/her claim in written statement

Though in subsection (1b), the relief of only dissolution of marriage including Khula was mentioned as a claim to be set up by the wife, however, in said subsection the word "including Khula" was used which had enlarged its scope

Merely specifying the words dissolution of marriage including Khula would not mean that wife could claim only such reliefs in her written statement but the word "including" used in S.9(1b) of Family Courts Act, 1964 would enlarge its scope and the wife was not supposed to file separate suit for maintenance allowance of minor etc, instead all such claims could be joined in the written statement

Words used in the concluding para of subsection (1b) was also very relevant which supported the case of the wife, i.e "shall be deemed as a plaint and no separate suit shall lie for it" and it further strengthened the case of the wife, and whatever she claimed in her written statement would be considered as if she had filed a separate suit to such effect

Father was morally and legally bound to maintain the children and he could not escape from the liability on any pretext even if the custody of the minor was with the mother

Claim of dower of the wife was based upon a dower deed duly proved in the evidence and never rebutted in clear terms by the husband

Payment of dower was obligatory upon the husband which was the entitlement of wife as consideration of the marriage

Husband on contracting second marriage without permission of first wife or Arbitration Council, became liable to pay to first wife entire dower amount either prompt or deferred

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Accused pointing out the place of occurrence while in police custody, was not a "disclosure" within the contemplation of Art. 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and thus could not be admitted in evidence to their detriment.

In order to attract the provision of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, prosecution was obliged to prove that the information given by the accused led to the recovery of a fact which was not previously known to any body

Simple statement of the accused regarding the fact which was already in the knowledge of the police or any person did not fall within the purview of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but under Art. 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984.

Statement of accused immediately after the occurrence was a relevant fact within the meaning of Art. 27 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and could be brought on record as an admissible fact.

Petitioner/husband contended that respondent/wife was not entitled to decree of Rs. 50,000/- as no dowry article was given to her at the time of marriage and she had failed to produce any receipt of the same

Respondent/wife claimed that in previous conversation between the parties, petitioner had admitted possession of certain dowry articles which conversation was adduced by her in evidence in shape of CD and written dialogue

Validity

Held, in most of the suits for recovery of dowry articles, both the parties try to conceal true facts, therefore, it was duty of the Court to decide the controversy in such a manner that no injustice could be done to either side

Family Court being quasi judicial forum could draw and follow its own procedure in order to fulfill said obligation provided it was not against the principles of fair hearing, trial and enquiry

Petitioner though had, denied the conversation, produced by wife in shape of CD, but his own witness had identified his (petitioner's) voice

In presence of such admission from the witness of the petitioner , there was no need for seeking forensic report

Family Court, in circumstances was not justified in discarding the vital piece of evidence

Even if it was presumed that CD was not admissible in evidence, even then the Court could not, ignore the admission on the part of witness of petitioner and Family Court could exercise its authority in the interest of justice

High Court observed that the articles produced by respondent, contained in the list ( except gold ornaments ) were of ordinary nature and usually given to bride at the time of marriage, so non-submission of receipts were not fatal

Family Court while passing impugned judgment and decree had caused grave injustice to the respondent-lady, who being weakest segment of the society could not be able to challenge the same at the appropriate forum

Petitioner having failed to defend his stance, therefore, in exercise of its supervisory powers and parental jurisdiction, High Court rectified the same in order to do substantive justice

High Court modified the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in the terms that respondent was entitled to recover dowry articles as per list exhibited by her, except gold ornaments , or its alternate price of Rs. 250000/-

High Court directed the office to send copy of present judgment to the respondent for information

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Applicant/defendant contended that the statement of only one legal heir as a witness, without power of attorney on behalf of other legal heirs, was inadmissible and said witness was not present at the time making of Talb-e-Muwathibat as his name was mentioned neither in the plaint nor in the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad

Respondents/plaintiffs contended that first appellate court had wrongly modified the judgment of Trial Court by giving equal rights of pre-emption to both the co-sharers

Validity

In order to succeed a suit for possession on the basis of pre-emption, it was mandatory and imperative as well as essential to prove the performance of Talbs in accordance with law, as elaborated under S.13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and when Talbs were not proved as per dictates and requirement of law, the same was fatal to the suit

In the present case, only one legal heir/son appeared as pre-emptor on his behalf and on behalf of the other legal heirs of original pre-emptor, but he failed to produce any power of attorney executed in his favour authorizing him to appear on their behalf

Said witness deposed that he was present at the time of making of Talb-e-Muwathibat by his deceased father, but the plaint as well as alleged notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was silent in that regard as neither in the plaint nor in the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad his name emerged, rather name of other witnesses including the informer appeared; meaning thereby that the statement of said legal heir was beyond the pleadings and the same was inadmissible

Right to acquire suit property by exercising right of pre-emption accrued on the date of sale but when at that time the legal heirs did not have such right, coupled with non-appearance at the time of making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, the suit was liable to be dismissed on such single score, as making of Talb-e-Muwathibat had not been proved by the respondents/plaintiffs in accordance with law

Even if right of pre-emption of respondents/plaintiffs was presumed, even then non-appearance of all legal heirs turned fatal to the respondents/plaintiffs, as right of pre-emption was a personal right which could be exercised personally, which was missing in the present case

Respondents/ plaintiffs had failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat as per mandate of law, the question of subsequent Talbs lost their value and no decree for possession through pre-emption could be passed in their favour

Two courts below had failed to appreciate evidence on record and impugned judgments were set aside being not sustainable in the eye of law

Revision was accepted accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Disclosure by accused

Admissibility

Pointing out the place by the accused persons on 25.11.2009 where, according to prosecution's own case, the Motorway Police had already spotted the dead body on 22.11.2009 would not saddle them with any consequence, as it did not constitute information within the contemplation of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Such recovery was admissible within meaning of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Police Officer who was investigating the case was not to be encouraged to record dying declaration; however, when the Medical Officer was not available, he could record the actual spoken words or gestures of the victim.

Any statement made by accused while in police custody was not admissible in evidence.

When a man, who had recorded his statement prior to his death shed light upon the cause of his death, such statement would be admissible in evidence.

Confession made before the police was not admissible in evidence.

Information or disclosure by accused in the custody of police was inadmissible/irrelevant under Arts.38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.