Assessment of medical evidence
Assessment of medical evidence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person, rape and wrongful confinement
Bail, grant of
Delayed FIR
Assessment of medical evidence
Scope
Complainant alleged that his daughter was enticed away by the accused for the purpose of committing zina with her as he had developed relations with her on mobile phone and had earlier demanded her hand but the same was refused
Held; matter was reported to the police with a delay of one day for which no plausible explanation was given by the complainant
Alleged abductee had recorded her statement wherein she had alleged that the accused had enticed and took her away towards the jungle and committed zina-bil-jabr with her for two nights and on third night she had managed to escape
Medical examination report of the alleged abductee transpired that no marks of violence on her body or on her private parts had been noticed and no opinion regarding commission of rape with the victim was given by the doctor
Prosecution story was, prima facie, not in line with the medical evidence
Petitioner had made out a case for grant of bail, which was allowed.
Slight difference of inches about the seat of injury could not be termed as conflict in medical and ocular evidence.
"Assessment of medical evidence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939525
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Assessment of medical evidence"
2020 Y L R Note 46
MUHAMMAD SHAREEF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench)1986 P Cr
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2013 Y L R 156
AMEER BAKHSH alias KURARO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh2018 P Cr
MUHAMMAD BILAL and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Larkana Bench)P L D 1997 Karachi 566
ABDUL QADIR‑‑‑ Plaintiff Versus S.K. ABBAS HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑ Defendants
Court: Damages ‑‑‑Accident‑‑‑Plaintiff suffering mental torture and nervous shock‑‑‑ Entitlement to claim damages‑‑‑‑Damages for mental torture and nervous shock would depend upon evidence produced to prove nature, extent and magnitude of such suffering‑‑‑‑Fair compensation would be difficult to assess in such cases‑‑ Court would have discretion to determine on basis of evidence, fair sum to be awarded to affected person‑‑‑Conscience of Court must be satisfied that damages awarded would, if not completely, at least satisfactorily compensate aggrieved party‑‑‑Person who suffered mental torture and nqrvous shock was thus, entitled to recover damages.‑‑Damages.2019 M L D 348
MIR GHULAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court1981 S C M R 656
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE- Petitioner Versus MESSRS LUCKY STORES & ZUBAIR MEDICAL STORES,
Court: ---S. 11-Res judicata Principles of res judicata, held, applicable to cases before Income-tax authorities subject to certain limitations stated.-Res judicata.2007 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan1990 P L C 540
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus FAZAL HUSSAIN
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab1987 P L C 520
GENERAL MANAGER, ROHRI CEMENT WORKS, ROHRI Versus MUHAMMAD MOHSIN
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind