Inconsistency

2025 MLD 428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 115Judgments of lower courts at varianceInconsistencyPreference

In the matter of giving preference to the judgments of lower courts while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, preference and regard is always given to the findings of the appellate court, unless they suffer from any legal infirmity or material irregularity.

2025 MLD 1508 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 114 & 34Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(i)(a) & 25Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, common intention, possession of illicit weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtOcular account and medical evidenceInconsistencyAccused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Eye-witness deposed that the deceased sustained four injuries, while per statement of Medical Officer deceased sustained five injuries which were through and through

Said witnesses deposed that deceased died while in the way to Hospital, but per deposition of Medical Officer, deceased died instantaneously

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

2025 CLD 193 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Inconsistency

Meaning.

2024 YLR 2272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceOcular account and medical evidenceInconsistencyAccused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing

According to complainant, the pistol shots fired by accused culminated in injuries on left bicep, left armpit, left shin and left shoulder of deceased

During autopsy though Medical Officer noticed four entry wounds but none out of them was on left bicep

Besides that, the Medical Officer observed two firearm entry wounds on the left leg of the victim and needless to mention here that in accordance with the ocular account there should have been a single firearm injury

Furnishing of medical evidence in a case of homicide is not a simple formality and instead it enables the Court to adjudge the veracity of eye-witnesses in reference to their claim of having seen the incident

In the instant case, both the eye-witnesses remained consistent in their stance of remaining with the victim at the crime scene for about 45 minutes thus no leverage about the difference in the locale of injuries could be given to them

Conflict between medical and ocular account was always considered a factor detrimental to the case of prosecution, sufficient enough for discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused through unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

2023 MLD 373 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possession of narcoticAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtStatements of witnessesInconsistency

Prosecution case was that fifty kilograms of charas in fifty packets were recovered from secret cavities of the car of the accused persons

Record showed that the Investigating Officer and complainant were not consistent with regard to the arrival of Investigating Officer to the spot as the former admitted in his cross examination that he conducted investigation from 1600 hours till 1700 hours however, the complainant had admitted that the Investigating Officer arrived on the spot after 2230 hours

Prosecution also did not establish case against accused/front seater as none of the witnesses had uttered a single word with regard to conscious knowledge of the said accused in respect of the availability of contraband in the vehicle in question

Paramount duty of the prosecution was to lead a trust worthy evidence to enable the court to believe that the accusations made against the accused were just, trust worthy and did not create even a single doubt to bring home the charges against him/them

Circumstances established that the prosecution had been unable to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 PTD 607 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

AmendmentInconsistencyScopeLaw accepts that an amendment becomes a part of original statute and both ought to be construed togetherIn case of any inconsistency, harmonization may be employed so as to impede an irreconcilable conflict

While an amendment is considered as the last expression of will of the legislature, generally prevails, however such effect is prospective and should not be given any retroactive construction, overriding effect on prior rights unless the verbiage of the provision makes such construction necessary.

2023 YLR 2185 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtOcular account and medical evidenceInconsistency

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant

Prosecution witnesses stated that accused caused iron rod blow to the deceased which hit his head and then other accused caused lathi blow to the deceased on the same place of the head

No one could believe such type of evidence of prosecution witnesses as according to them the incident took place at night hours and they had seen the incident in torch lights from a distance

In such circumstances, it was not possible to witnesses the incident in the manner as deposed by the prosecution witnesses

As per the evidence of Medical Officer, the deceased received solitary injury on his head showing fracture on the skull

From the evidence produced by the prosecution it was also not clear as to whose blow hit the deceased out of two accused

If the blows of both the accused hit the deceased then there must be two injuries on the person of deceased but as per postmortem report deceased received only one injury

Ocular account was in conflict with medical evidence, in circumstances

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

2021 PLD 843 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4(g)Punjab Healthcare Commission Regulations for Banning Quackery, 2016, Regln. 7Delegated legislationImposing fine, power ofInconsistency

Regulation No. 7(3) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Regulations for Banning Quackery, 2016 had empowered the Committee to impose fine upon person found to be practicing quackery, which was against the express provisions of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010

Under S.4(g) of the Act, 2010 such power was the sole prerogative of the Punjab Health Care Commission and the same could not have been delegated to a Committee nominated by the said Commission under Regln. 2(c).

2021 YLRN 31 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss.302, 324, 337, 147, 148, 149, 506 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular account and medical evidence

Inconsistency

Sentence, modification of

Prosecution case was that the accused persons made firing upon the complainant party, due to which two sons of complainant were hit and died and many other persons became injured

Allegation against the co-accused in FIR and in statements of witnesses was that he fired only one shot upon injured

Investigating Officer found only one entry wound on buttock of injured but medical reports negated the ocular account

In such conflicting circumstances normally court would prefer medical evidence

In the present case, medical reports placed on record were contradictory to each other and X-ray of injured witness was not brought on record

In medical report two bullet injuries (entry wounds) had been mentioned, and the whole record was silent as to how injured received second bullet injury

Co-accused also received two bullet injuries on his left foot, detail of which had been given in the medical report

All witnesses had deposed that co-accused fired at injured witness and said injured witness also stated that co-accused fired on him from backside but all witnesses failed to disclose that from whom firing injured received other injury and at the same time who fired at co-accused who received two bullet injuries

Said circumstances indicated that co-accused might have or might not have committed the alleged offence

Evidence against co-accused was shaky as such he could not be convicted with clear conscious and benefit of doubt must be extended in his favour to the extent of his role of shooting a fire at injured witness

Allegedly, other co-accused persons made firing on complainant but in the court statement complainant did not utter that one co-accused fired shot at him and similarly in cross-examination the complainant stated that other co-accused was not present at the place of occurrence

Although, the other witnesses highlighted their alleged role but statement of complainant was very important in that regard which created doubt regarding their role of firing at complainant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had fully proved the case to the extent of accused of murder of deceased

Conviction of accused was maintained, however, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence, his sentence under S.302(a), P.P.C. was altered into S.302(b), P.P.C. and he was sentenced to death as Tazir, in circumstances, however, he was acquitted in offences under Ss.147, 148, P.P.C. and 13/20/65, Arms Act

Appeal against acquitted accused was dismissed accordingly.

2019 PCrLJ 1600 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 302Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Qatl-i-amdAct of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtRecovery of crime weaponProofTestimony of witnessesInconsistencyForensic evidence, falsification of

Eleven accused were arrested on charges of murder and indiscriminate aerial firing but Trial Court only sentenced one accused to death while other absconded

Depositions showed no mention of sealed parcel relating to recovery of .30 bore pistol from house of accused and led by him for recovery

No explanation was on record as to when such parcel was handed over to the relevant official of police station for safe custody and then delivered to the Laboratory; it was also not known as to which parcel with .30 bore pistol was handed over to police official who appeared as prosecution witness for delivery at the Laboratory

Medical evidence also did not support ocular account

Deposition of prosecution witnesses were not relied upon as same did not inspire confidence

Prosecution failed to bring on record unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt of accused persons

Investigation was not conducted honestly, fairly and in professional manner and prosecution during trial failed in its duty to bring on record consistent, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence

Witnesses (police officials) appeared to have prima facie deposed falsely despite one of their colleagues having lost his life while in uniform and performing his duties

Police officials who were present on occasion appeared to have shown cowardice

Investigating officer turned a blind eye to acts of persons who were named in FIR and who were alleged to have resorted to and had instigated rioting and unlawful assembly by persons who were armed with deadly weapons

Obstruction caused to public servants in discharge of their functions was also ignored

High Court acquitted accused persons and set aside conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2019 MLD 570 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

General and special lawInconsistencyApplicability and scope

Special law would prevail in case of inconsistency between the general and the special law.

2018 YLRN 145 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 115RevisionScopeJudgment of Trial Court and Appellate CourtInconsistencyPreference

In case of such inconsistency findings of Appellate Court must be given preference in absence of any cogent reason to the contrary.

2013 CLC 494 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Constitution and sub-Constitutional legislationInconsistencyPrinciple

Constitution is supreme, therefore, no legislation and any of its provision should be inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution

If any provision of any Act is found inconsistent with any provision of Constitution, in that case, Constitution having an overriding effect, must prevail.