Home Maxims & Terms Recovery of empties meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Recovery of empties

Recovery of empties legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2020 PCrLJ 1603 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302 & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceRecovery of emptiesRelianceScopeRecovery of crime weapon was not effected from the possession of the accused-appellant

Empties collected from the place of occurrence, thus could not be sent for matching to Forensic Science Laboratory.

2020 YLR 2503 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 302Qatl-i-amdRecovery of emptiesDispatch to Forensic LaboratoryScope

Empties recovered from the spot were to be sent to the Forensic Laboratory without any delay, failing which such evidence does not remain free from doubt and cannot be used against the accused.

2020 YLR 2503 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 302Qatl-i-amdRecovery of emptiesCorroborative evidenceScope

Recovery of empties is a corroborative piece of evidence and where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

2020 PCrLJ 1543 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 302Qatl-i-amdRecovery of emptiesScope

Law requires that empties recovered from the spot should be sent to the Forensic Laboratory without any delay, failing which such evidence does not remain free from doubt and cannot be used against the accused.

2019 YLR 189 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Recovery of emptiesCorroborative evidenceScopeRecovery of empties were considered to be corroborative piece of evidence

Such kind of evidence by itself was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused especially when the other material put-forward by the prosecution in respect of guilt of the accused had already been disbelieved.

2018 YLRN 274 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Recovery of emptiesEvidentiary valueRecovery of empties were considered to be corroborative piece of evidence

Such kind of evidence by itself was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused especially when the other material put-forwarded by the prosecution in respect of guilt of accused had already been disbelieved.

2018 YLRN 112 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss.302 & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceRecovery of emptiesSeven empties of 30-bore in a scattered condition were recovered from the spot, which were sent to the Arms ExpertReport of Arms Expert showed that all the seven empties of 30-bore had been fired from one and the same 30-bore weapon

Allegedly, accused and his absconding brother were charged by the complainant to have fired at him with their respective weapons with which he was injured

Circumstances suggested that it could be the doing of one person but two real brothers were charged for the commission of offence

Non-recovery of any other empties to have been fired from some other weapon suggested that either one of the accused was not involved in the firing at the deceased or he might not be even present at the spot

Said factors did not support the prosecution version

Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

2018 YLRN 59 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302, 324, 427 & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceRecovery of emptiesScopeInvestigating Officer recovered ten empties from the place of occurrenceReport of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that said empties were fired from different 12-bore weapons

Said report could not implicate the accused as the crime weapon had not been mentioned in the FIR and during the trial it was disclosed that the accused persons were carrying with 12-bore shot guns

Record was silent whether guns carried by accused persons were single barrel or double barrel

Circumstances established that recovery of empties was inconsequential.

2017 PCrLJ 1180 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd, common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryDiscriminate firingRecovery of emptiesAccused's role, according to FIR was of making lalkara and being one of the four, who fired at the deceasedNo one was specifically charged for effective firing

Nature and number of wounds on the deceased and empties recovered from the spot, gave rise to the question that more persons had fired at the deceased

Said factor made the case one of further inquiry and made accused entitled to concession of bail

Bail was allowed accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 297 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd, common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryDiscriminate firingRecovery of emptiesForensic science report in contradiction to FIRAccused were alleged to have murdered two brothers of complainant

Similar role of discriminate firing had been attributed to accused and absconding co-accused, but only five empties of thirty-bore weapon along with a spent bullet had been recovered from spot

Forensic Science Report, revealed that all said five empties had been fired from one and same thirty-bore weapon, which gave rise to the question as to whether one or more persons had fired at the victims

Said factor alone made case one of further probe and made accused entitled to concession of bail

Bail applications were allowed accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Recovery of empties", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955053

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Recovery of empties"

YLR 2009
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5624/B .of 2009, decided on 22nd June, 2009.

2009 Y L R 1977

GHULAM MUSTIFA and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Lahore
PCRLJ 2005
2005-May-3

2005 P Cr

FARMAN ULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PCRLJ 1997
1995-May-14

1997 P Cr

MUHAMMAD ISRAIL KHAN — Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI KHAN and another — Respondents,

Court: Peshawar
PLD 1990
Criminal Appeals Nos. 41 and 94 and Confirmation Case No.8 of 1989, heard on 30th January, 1990.

P L D 1990 Karachi 314

MUHAMMAD ACHAR‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Relationship of eye‑witnesses with deceased by itself is not sufficient to discredit their testimony‑‑‑Closely related witnesses can be as reliable as a completely unknown and stranger witness‑‑ Credibility of a witness does not depend upon relationship, but the same should flow from his deposition‑‑‑Nature and quality of the statement of a witness should evoke confidence and trust‑‑‑No hard and fast rule can be laid down that a person closely or distantly related to complainant or deceased would always be an untrue and interested witness, nor can it be said with any force that a stranger who is not related to deceased will always be a true witness‑‑‑Relationship and nearness cannot be the only touchstone, but may be an important factor in assessing worth of evidence and its credibility‑‑‑Statement of a witness can be accepted or rejected only after the same has been examined thoroughly with reference to facts and circumstances and evidence of other witnesses recorded in the case‑‑ Evidence of witnesses either related or close to deceased should, however, be carefully scrutinized.‑‑Witness.
MLD 2024
2023-December-1

2024 M L D 862

Muhammad Ali — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent

Court: Sindh
MLD 2007
N/A

2007 M L D 310

ATTAULLAH and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Karachi
YLR 2010
Criminal Miscellaneous No.586 of 2010, decided on 21st May, 2010.

2010 Y L R 2155

KHAYAL NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
SCMR 1998
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.98‑L of 1996, decided on 3rd April, 1996.

1998 S C M R 277

ANWAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2002
N/A

2002 Y L R 32

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1989
Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1987, decided ‑ on 13th November, 1988.

P L D 1989 Peshawar 133

QASAM JAN Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Recovery of any number of empties would always not be the ground to exonerate accused from commission of offence‑‑Even if no empty .was recovered from the spot, yet accused could be held responsible for commission of offence‑‑When prosecution case upon evidence was plausible and trustworthy, recovery or non‑recovery of empties, held, would have no value.‑‑ Recovery.