Presumption of guilt
Presumption of guilt legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Presumption contained in S. 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, provides that initial burden of proof rests on prosecution
Burden to prove all ingredients of charge lies on prosecution and it never shifts on accused who can stand on plea of innocence assigned to him under law till it is dislodged
Unless presumption of innocence imputed to accused is crowed out by force of suspicious circumstances, accused cannot be called upon to prove that charge was false or he was innocent
Prosecution therefore, is never absolved from proving charge beyond reasonable doubt and burden shifts to accused only when prosecution succeeds in establishing presumption of guilt.
Initial burden always lies on the shoulders of prosecution to prove charges levelled against accused and thereafter successfully discharging its legal obligation, it invariably shifts to accused to bring on record reasonable evidence to rebut presumption of guilt placed on him by special provisions contained in S. 14 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
"Presumption of guilt", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952845
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Presumption of guilt"
P L D 1991 Lahore 415
DOST MUHAMMAD alias DOOSO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 2003 Supreme Court 56
VIJANT KUMAR and 4 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus STATE through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:2009 S C M R 790
Syed QASIM SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 2003 Supreme Court 46
Mir MUNAWAR ALI TALPUR‑‑‑Appellant Versus STATE through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad and 2
Court:2012 P L C (C
ASGHAR ALI and others Versus MANSOOR MUZAFFAR ALI and 3 others
Court: Islamabad High Court2008 S C M R 1118
THE STATE and others — Petitioners Versus M. IDREES GHAURI and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1979 S C M R 316
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: ----S. 411 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 114(a)‑Stolen property‑Possession of‑Possession of stolen goods simpliciter though not an offence, yet, each case depends upon its own facts‑Stolen goods belonging to a statutory corporation found in truck of petitioner and petitioner himself travelling in such truck‑Presumption of guilt, held, attracted to case in absence of possession having been accounted for‑Petitioner not merely offering no explanation for such possession but even denying recovery of goods from his truck‑No exception, held further, could be taken to judgments of Courts below, in circum stances holding petitioner having committed offence under S. 411. Presumption‑Possession of stolen property.2021 P Cr
MASOOD ALAM NIAZI and others — Appellants Versus The STATE through Chairman NAB — Respondent
Court: SindhP L D 2008 Supreme Court 166
MANSUR-UL-HAQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Respondent
Court: High Court2007 Y L R 1018
RIAZ AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: Karachi