Withholding of evidence

Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced one to death while the other was given imprisonment for life

High Court reduced the sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life whereas the other was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Allegation of sodomy lacked corroboration due to absence of DNA report or chemical examiner's findings, despite the claim of prosecution that anal swabs were submitted for testing

Critical DNA profiling and chemical report that could have supported the charge of unnatural lust were missing

Court could infer under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it and missing documents would not have supported prosecution's case

Motive was not established, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were doubtful and medical and forensic links were either suppressed or infirm

Chain of circumstantial evidence stood fractured

Where prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain was to be proved to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt

Failure to establish any one link was sufficient to vitiate the entire case

There were legal limitations of Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and prosecution had failed to satisfy strict conditions for admissibility and reliability of custodial recoveries

Chain of circumstances necessary for conviction was not satisfactorily established

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and declined to interfere in acquittal of co-accused by the High Court.

Complainant did not furnish detailed description of currency notes and their denominations which had raised questions regarding authenticity of payment of ransom as claimed by the complainant

Failure to provide specific details about ransom money, such as denomination and serial numbers, diminishes reliability of entire ransom allegation

Prosecution's failure to identify the place where ransom money was paid had created doubt in prosecution's case

Prosecution witnesses in whose presence ransom amount were paid to abductors were abandoned

Persons from whom complainant allegedly managed/collected ransom amount were neither cited as prosecution's witnesses nor produced in witness box

Testimony of witnesses who were present at critical moments of crime, such as payment of ransom, was inevitable for corroborating complainant's narrative

Failure to produce such witnesses had cast doubt on veracity of complainant's version and raised reasonable suspicion about nature of the incident

Non-production of such material witnesses also amounted to withholding of best available evidence, therefore, adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had those witnesses been produced they would not have supported prosecution's case

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

At the trial, prosecution did not produce owner of the house as witness, thus, adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had the above witness been produced by the prosecution at the trial, he would not have supported the version of the prosecution

Place of occurrence was surrounded by Abadi but investigating officer did not associate any person for the recovery of dead body

Investigating officer did not prepare recovery memo of dead body of deceased and simply made memo of iron box

No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged iron box

Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest, the recovery memo lacked independent corroboration and the same was disbelieved

Judgments of Courts below were against the principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal dispensation of justice and the law settled by Supreme Court

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd; one was sentenced to death whereas the other was sentenced to imprisonment for life

High Court maintained the conviction but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Complainant and other prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded at trial, made dishonest improvements for assigning specific roles to each accused

Such improvements created serious doubt about veracity of their testimony and it was not safe to place reliance on such statements

Eleven crime empties allegedly recovered from crime scene and one 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered on the pointing of one accused were sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory, wherefrom report was negative

No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged recovery of crime weapon on the pointing of accused

Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest recovery of alleged weapon of offence, and due to lack of independent corroboration, the recovery was disbelieved

Prosecution did not produce an injured passerby and an eye-witness of the occurrence

Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had such witnesses been produced by prosecution at the trial, they would not have supported version of prosecution

Alleged motive lacked force necessary to connect accused persons with the commission of offence

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to both the accused persons as prosecution failed to prove charge against them beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Under Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e- Shahadat 1984, a plaintiff is duty bound to prove the genuineness of the document through cogent, confidence inspiring and independent evidence

Where the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that way and not otherwise

Agreement in question was attested by two marginal witnesses; though the petitioner produced only one of them but later failed to produce him for cross examination, therefore, earlier statement/evidence of said marginal witness was of no support to the petitioner and the said statement could not be read against respondent

Although it was apprised to the Trial Court that said witness had died but the petitioner failed to produce the death certificate of said witness till the final decision of the case

Petitioner also failed to produce the second marginal witness

Petitioner while recording his own statement deposed that said (second) witness had died while his counsel got exhibited /produced photo copy of his death certificate but the Courts below did not accept the said photocopy of death certificate as a piece of evidence

Simple oral assertion was not enough to prove the factum of death of both the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell

Article 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provides the procedure how to prove document when no attesting witness is found

It was obligatory upon the petitioner to prove the fact that his witnesses had died or could not be traced out

Petitioner had a way to prove the factum of death by leading secondary evidence

Best evidence was withheld without showing any justification, thus inference of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, had to be drawn against him

Petitioner failed to produce attesting witnesses or to comply with the requirements of Art. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Provisions of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 are mandatory and non- compliance thereof renders agreement as inadmissible in evidence

Petitioner had failed to prove genuineness of a valid agreement to sell in his favour, therefore, the Courts below had rightly concluded and dismissed the suit of the petitioner concurrently

Civil revision ,filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent/pre-emptor filed suit for possession through pre-emption which was concurrently decreed in his favour by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Witness of respondent/pre-emptor neither stated that he was handed over any notice/letter to affect service upon petitioner/defendant nor served the same upon him

Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad

Non-production of acknowledgment receipt (A.D) amounted to withholding of material evidence and such flaw had grave adverse effect on the case of respondent/pre-emptor

Witness of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was also not produced by respondent/pre-emptor nor any explanation was furnished in that regard, which amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it would be legally presumed that had the witness been produced in evidence, he would have deposed unfavourably against respondent/pre-emptor and presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would go against him

Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad

Both the Courts below committed misreading and non-reading of evidence and had also failed to apply correct law which rendered such dicta as not sustainable in the eyes of law

High Court under S. 115 C.P.C, had jurisdiction to interfere in perverse concurrent judgments and decrees of two lower fora

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/pre-emptor

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellant / plaintiff claimed to be owner of plot in question and sought cancellation of letter issued by Capital Development Authority (CDA) transferring half share in the suit property from his name to respondent / defendant

Appellant / plaintiff did not produce his father in evidence whose testimony would have thrown light on the controversy

Held, that rule of presumption is based on the principle that no one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong

Such rule contains a well-known Latin maxim "omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem (all things are presumed against the wrongdoer)

Where a person withholds evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage, consistent with the facts admitted or proved, has to be adopted

Trial Court was correct in observing that appellant / plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove as to how he gained knowledge regarding transfer of half share in suit property in favour of respondent / defendant

High Court declined to interfere in finding of Trial Court that half share in suit property was in fact purchased by appellant's / plaintiff's father when he was eight-year-old minor and had no means to purchase such property

Trial Court correctly termed appellant's / plaintiff's father as ostensible owner of such share

Appellant / plaintiff was not able to impeach transaction for the transfer of half share in suit property in favour of respondent/ defendant through transfer letter in question

Respondent/ defendant having become owner of entire suit property on the basis of such property was well within his rights to have transferred it onwards to person "JA"

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land on the basis of registered sale deed executed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by petitioner / plaintiff

Validity

No independent person representing predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants either at the time of execution or registration of sale deed was produced by petitioner / plaintiff before Trial Court as witness

Statement of alleged attorney was also not recorded by petitioner / plaintiff and an adverse inference was drawn that had such person been produced, he would not have supported petitioner / plaintiff

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below, as both the Courts had properly appraised evidence of parties

Petitioner / plaintiff was not able to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Widow of deceased got herself medically examined, her MLR was exhibited and she got recorded her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Injured widow was the star/direct witness who was not produced before Trial Court, leading to adverse inference against prosecution

When ocular evidence was unreliable, the strongest corroborative evidence could not cure such deficiency/lacking

When direct evidence was unacceptable, the corroborative evidence would become worthless

Prosecution evidence was not free from doubt therefore, defence version taken by accused in their statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C., was to be believed in total

Alleged recoveries of Churras (daggers) from accused persons were inconsequential

Presence of eye-witnesses was not found free from doubt and was not confidence inspiring

Benefit of doubts would go to accused as a matter of right and not as a grace and in granting such benefit, single circumstance was sufficient

High Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons, as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and accused persons were acquitted of the charges

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If any party withholds the best piece of evidence, it can be presumed that such party has some sinister motive behind it.

Suit for recovery 5 Marla house as dower amount filed by respondent / plaintiff was decreed in her favour, as the same was mentioned in Nikahnama

Validity

Nikahnama was to be examined as a simple contract between parties without any presumption of truth attached to it

Petitioner's copy (???)of Nikahnama was his best evidence and by producing that copy (???) of Nikahnama petitioner could have dispelled statement of Nikah Registrar that he forgot to fill conditions of Nikah only in "fourth copy" (???) prior to submitting the same in Union Council concerned under the law

In absence of such copy there was no reason in disbelieving unshaken testimony of respondent / plaintiff, her witness as well as scribe of Nikahnama

Non-production of his own copy of Nikahnama led to an adverse inference against petitioner as the best evidence in such regard was withheld by him

Case of petitioner fell within the purview of Illustration (g) to Art.129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Failure to do so entitles the Court to draw adverse inference against party failing to produce it.

Land in question was acquired by authorities and respondents-lessees over the land sought enhancement in compensation on the plea that they had suffered huge loss due to acquisition of land

Referee judge allowed references and enhanced compensation

Validity

Leasehold rights of respondents-lessees could not be similar to the rights of landowners or that the words 'person interested' used in S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could not be interpreted to mean "lessee of property"

Only rights of owners were protected under Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution

Respondents-lessees could avail remedy either for return of their bid amounts deposited along with any improvements

Respondents-lessees did not appear in Court as witnesses, presumption was to be drawn against them within the contemplation of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and it had to be accepted that their case was based on no evidence

Pleadings in objection petition and statements of officials could not be considered as evidence, when respondents-lessees opted not to appear as witnesses in support of their objection petitions, to avoid facing cross-examination in Court

Pleadings of parties in any civil litigation were not evidence unless the party appeared in Court in support thereof

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by Referee Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

On the day of occurrence nine fire-arm empties along with one bullet head were recovered from the spot but were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory until recovery of weapons of offence

Crime empties along with bullet head despite having been taken into possession on the day of occurrence were kept in Malkhana and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after recovery of weapons

Weapons were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory with a delay of more than one month

Result of Forensic Science Laboratory though confirmed use of recovered pistols and matched with fire-arm empties but the same had no evidentiary value and was inconsequential

Accused persons were linked with commission of offence and evidence produced by accused persons had no legs to stand which was discarded for having no material evidence rather it was an afterthought

Injured witness was not produced by accused persons and was given up, such aspect led the Court towards conclusion in terms of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Accused persons had intentionally given up the injured witness who if had produced could have gone against defence version

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as the Trial Court had already taken a lenient view while awarding imprisonment for life instead of death sentence

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed by Trial Court on the ground that plaintiff had proved payment of consideration amount

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Production of notice was crucial and failure thereof indicated conscious withholding of relevant and crucial evidence

Notice and contents was a substantive piece of evidence, required to prove factum of alleged request to defer delivery of possession and balance consideration, which notice was withheld by plaintiff without any explanation

Mere production of envelope, alleging delivery of notice to defendant, did not substituted requirement of producing notice

Absence and failure to produce notice raised adverse inference against plaintiff in terms of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Concurrent findings recorded and legal inference drawn by Courts below regarding admissibility of evidence and proof of execution of agreement in question were contrary to law

Conclusions reached on the basis of such findings were erroneous and illegal

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Hearsay evidence

Withholding of evidence

Non-production of material witness due to security concerns

Effect

Two police constables were on patrol when they signaled a motorbike to stop but its riders sped away and the constables chased them

Motorbike was chased into a street whereupon four persons came in the way of constables and an exchange of hot words followed whereupon said four persons fired at the constables, one of them died

Complainant was not an eye-witness to the firing and had allegedly reached the place of incident within a few minutes of the occurrence after being informed by his friend through mobile phone

Friend of complainant was a foundational witness of the prosecution case as it was his narration of the events to the complainant over the phone which led the complainant to go to the scene and formed basis of the FIR

Friend of complainant was not examined by the prosecution to corroborate the complainant's FIR especially in respect of the shooting of the deceased nor was any CDR (Call Data Record) produced by the prosecution to support such conversation

Impugned judgment although mentioned that the friend of complainant did not give evidence due to security concern but it was a weak argument for him not to give evidence as the court could always provide adequate security to a witness

Non-examination of the friend of complainant was an important omission by the prosecution as their case was built on the hearsay evidence

Statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. could never replace the value/ weight of evidence given under oath which was tested through cross-examination

Friend of complainant was originally on the calendar of witnesses and was later on given up, therefore, Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 came into play whereby it could be presumed that had the friend of complainant been produced he might not have given evidence favourable to the prosecution's case

Impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances and by extending benefit of doubt, accused was acquitted of the charge.

Payment of consideration and execution of promissory note, a fundamental component of transaction, were statedly carried out at office and in presence of an advocate whose evidence was crucial

Advocate was not produced to testify as to which withholding evidence suggested adverse inference in terms of illustration (g) of Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

No evidence was produced by plaintiff to prove 'long standing business relation' and purpose of loan, alleged to have been received for purchase of land, which constituted relevant fact, forming part of transaction as alleged in plaint

Burden to prove such fact was on plaintiff under Art. 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

High Court directed Trial Court to refer matter to Handwriting Expert with admitted and specimen thumb impression for seeking opinion whether promissory note bore thumb impression of defendant set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded matter with a direction

High Court set aside judgment and decree and remanded matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that before Maghrib prayer four persons made firing upon two brothers of complainant, due to which, they died

Motive behind the occurrence as disclosed in the crime report was that the accused had suspicion that deceased had illicit relation with his sister

Record showed that name of the accused reflected nowhere in the crime report

Nominated accused were declared innocent and the accused was nominated by the complainant later

Brothers of complainant were shot at had not been seen by the complainant and he was attracted at the place of occurrence after hearing report of firing

Complainant had not seen the accused firing at the deceased

Prosecution case against the present accused was entirely structured upon the evidence of last seen adduced by paternal uncle of deceased persons

Said witness had stated that prior to half an hour of Maghrib prayer, he along with his friend had seen the accused, who was briskly going towards jungle carrying a .30 bore pistol in his right hand

Said witness, after completion of autopsy proceedings, informed the complainant next day that he had seen the accused while going towards jungle while lashing 30-bore pistol

Statement of said witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer next day of occurrence and no reason was cited by him for withholding the most vital information

Said witness had stated that they heard Maghrib Azan at the house of their uncle, where dead bodies were laid, which showed that they reached the place of occurrence even before the arrival of police and if so, why the present accused was not nominated in the crime report

Silence of said witness created serious doubt about his veracity

Evidence of last seen was outside the ambit of proximity in terms of time and space

Said witness could not mention the exact time when he had seen the accused going towards jungle having .30 bore pistol in his right hand

According to said witness, his friend was also accompanying him, who was absolutely an independent witness but the prosecution had not examined the said witness while treating him as unnecessary witness

Adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could fairly be drawn that had the witness been examined, his evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution

Numerous improvements were found in the statement of said witness

Self-negating and contradictory statement of said witness reflected that the witness was not truthful and he had deposed an afterthought, fabricated and concocted story just to create incriminating evidence to strengthen the case of un-witnessed occurrence against the present accused

Strong evidence was required to connect the accused with the commission of offence in case of circumstantial evidence

None of the pieces of evidence, either individually or collectively, was compatible with the guilt of the accused thus, it would not be safe to maintain the findings of conviction

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court in circumstances.

Prosecution had to produce original destruction certificates before the court and in case of absence of the same, the Magistrate concerned who had carried out the destruction proceedings could have been examined in support of the stance of the prosecution

By not examining the said witness, prosecution had withheld the best evidence

Presumption could be drawn that party had some motive behind it by not producing the said evidence and in case such evidence was produced, the same would not have supported the prosecution case

Such circumstances made the case of prosecution dubious

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence recorded against the accused were set-aside.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for recovery of money which defendant obtained as loan and executed cheque in favour of plaintiff

Cheque was dishonoured on presentation and defendant did not repay the loan

Plea raised by defendant was that cheque was one of the three blank signed cheques which he had handed over on intervention of a third person

Trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Holder of negotiable instrument was holder in due course unless it was established that same had been obtained by means of fraud or some unlawful consideration

Presumption was that negotiable instrument was issued against consideration unless rebutted

Onus to prove the same was upon person denying consideration

Appellant in order to rebut amount of consideration could have called the third person in witness box to establish that cheque was not issued for consideration

Best evidence was withheld and inference was to be drawn against defendant

Defendant failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or infirmity in judgment passed by Trial Court which was otherwise well-reasoned and required no interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Delay in reporting matter at first available opportunity; refusal of witnesses (injured) to record their statements to investigating officer and considerable delay in recording FIR were sufficient to widen the rope to involve accused with whom enmity was proved as stated by the injured prosecution witness

No active role was assigned to accused except that of instigation

High Court declined to uphold the conviction when allegation of instigation was not backed/supported by any corroborative pieces of evidence

Even cause of dispute i.e. expelling buffaloes from wheat crop, was not of such consideration to have motivated accused to instigate others for killing

Complainant party did not claim arrival of accused party to be armed with any weapon or in a manner to have given rise to any apprehension to accused towards his life etc.

Formation of unlawful assembly was not with the only object to commit murder

Section 149, P.P.C., therefore, not applicable to the present case

Convictions and sentences awarded to all accused persons by Trial Court were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that accused persons entered in her house and torn her clothes and outraged her modesty when her husband and brother were present

Husband and brother of complainant were natural witnesses and their evidence had status of material evidence in absence whereof it was not safe to hold conviction

No reasons were assigned by prosecution for non-examination of such material witnesses

Withholding of material witnesses without any legal and plausible justification could result into adverse inference against the one withholding such evidence

Conviction could well be maintained on a solitary statement of witness but it was not safe where prosecution claimed eye witnesses and their presence was otherwise natural at such relevant time

Non-appearance of husband and brother to support charge of assault upon wife/sister ought to have been appreciated by Trial Court within four corners so sketched by relevant law and guidelines by Supreme Court which prima facie had not been done

Motive was not shown and without any enmity there was no purpose of outraging modesty of a woman by entering in her house in presence of male members and it was not appealable to a prudent mind

Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Case property was torn clothes but same were not shown or identified by complainant before Trial Court

Prosecution produced nothing, except words of complainant

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as prosecution story lacked logical reasons and was not free from doubts, resultantly accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

If a best piece of evidence is available with a party and the same is withheld by him, then it is presumed that the party has some evil motive behind it in not producing that evidence.

Plaintiff claimed that she was owner of plot in question and alleged that transfer application and proceedings before Capital Development Authority in her name were fraudulent proceedings in favour of defendant

Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in her favour by Trial Court

Validity

Discrepancies and material contradictions present on record proved that beneficiary i.e. defendant did not discharge onus rather he failed to prove due transfer of suit plot in his favour

Defendant withheld independent evidence to prove his claim and made no efforts to produce or call any evidence from Capital Development Authority officials in his favour

Defendant had to discharge onus under Art.117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as beneficiary of transaction of document was obliged / duty bound to prove the same

Trial Court had rightly passed judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff and rightly declared that entire transfer was result of fraud

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

If a best piece of evidence was available with a party; and same was withheld by it, presumption would be that the party had some evil motive behind in not producing the said evidence

Presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could fairly be drawn in the matter.

Second instalment was payable by plaintiff to defendant within seven days after publication of advertisement inviting objections to sale

Plaintiff never published any public notice in newspaper inviting objections to her intended purchase of suit property, during 90 days period of time and therefore, did not offer to make payment of second instalment in breach of agreement

To the contrary, through a letter, plaintiff proposed that defendant should hand over possession of suit property immediately without further payment

Effect

Intention and conduct were going in directions which could not be termed as anything except an intended breach of terms and conditions of agreement of sale

Requirement of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to prove execution of contract by producing two attesting witnesses had not been done, therefore, reference to Art. 129, illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was misconceived

Plaintiff herself had failed to produce the best evidence without explaining circumstances of her failure

High Court decided issues against plaintiff

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

In order to raise presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it is not necessary to follow procedure of giving notice for production of documents under O.XI, C.P.C. or to summon documents under O. XVI, C.P.C.

Delay had occurred in lodging F.I.R., as occurrence was alleged to have taken place at midnight while report was lodged at 10.15 hours

Complainant was stated to have received information regarding death of his brother at 7.30/8.00 a.m., whereas distance between place of occurrence and police station was 10/12 kilometer and there was no explanation regarding such delay

Conduct of complainant immediately after incident was contrary to natural course of human conduct as he did not make efforts either to take dead body of his brother to hospital or police station rather he was waiting for arrival of police to the spot, therefore, consultation and deliberation in lodging of report could not be ruled out

Prosecution did not produce those two prosecution witnesses who had allegedly helped accused while shifting dead body of deceased to the house rather abandoned them inspite of the fact that they were important witnesses to provide support to the case of prosecution

Presumption under illustration (g) of Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be drawn in favour of accused as prosecution had withheld its best evidence

Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind was sufficient for acquittal of accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right

Evidence led against accused persons was not sufficient for maintaining conviction and sentence

High Court extended benefit of doubt to both the accused and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

If best piece of evidence was available with the party, and said party failed to produce the same before the court, then a presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be drawn that had the said piece of evidence been produced before the court, it would have been unfavourable to the said party.