Adverse presumption

Record showed that neither husband of deceased, nor any child out of the four children of the deceased had appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution case

As per contents of the FIR, deceased had been married with "ZH" for the last 16/17 years and she had four children from the said wedlock

Husband of deceased and children of the deceased were the natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence being inmates of the area, where the occurrence took place but none from them appeared in the witness box

Said fact had also created another dent in the prosecution story because the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would have not supported the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted of the charge.

Petitioner was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting rifle-butt blow on the left side of his head

Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the daughter of the complainant, who was wife of the petitioner had come to the house of the complainant being annoyed with the petitioner and the petitioner wanted to take her back forcibly with him to his house

In such circumstances, daughter of the complainant was the best witness to prove the ocular account and the alleged motive but she was not produced in the witness box

As the prosecution had withheld the best evidence, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witness been produced in the evidence, then her evidence would not have supported the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-petitioner

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, as a result of which, son of complainant got hit on different parts of his body and died on the spot

As per record, the most relevant and important witnesses of the prosecution i.e. nephew of the complainant and "SK" had been abandoned by the prosecution without any rhyme and reason

Name of "SK" was though not mentioned in his initial report by the complainant, however, he was the verifier of his initial report

Besides, both these witnesses were shown identifiers of dead body of the deceased at the hospital, therefore, from their non-appearance an adverse inference under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be inferred in terms that had these witnesses been produced in Court, they would have not supported the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

According to Police Officer, on the day of occurrence i.e. 05.07.2021 when after receiving information of the occurrence, he reached the place of occurrence, two Security Guards, who had already apprehended the appellant at the spot, produced the appellant before him, therefore, said Security Guards were the most material and impartial witnesses of the occurrence and they could have at least confirmed the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence

Even given up witness who was also witness of ocular account had not been produced by the prosecution and he was given up

Thus the prosecution withheld the best evidence

Thus, under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, an adverse inference could be drawn that if they had testified, their statements would not have supported the prosecution's case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the persons who had their residences or their shops near or around the place of occurrence neither appeared during the investigation of the case nor before the Trial Court in support of the prosecution case

It was admitted by the eye-witnesses that the place where the incident took place was surrounded by inhabited houses and shops

Investigating Officer of the case made no effort to record the statements of the persons who had their residences or their shops near or around the place of occurrence during the course of the investigation

Failure of the prosecution to produce the said persons who had their shops and houses at and around the place of occurrence raised the presumption that had they been produced before the trial Court, they would not have supported the prosecution case

Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that if any evidence available with the parties was not produced, then it should be presumed that had that evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the party producing the same

Investigating Officer was under a binding duty to collect evidence and his failure to record the statement of the residents of the houses and shops around the place of occurrence had to be taken as a circumstance belying the prosecution's case

Purpose of the trial was the discovery of truth

Prosecution's case suffered from inherent defects which were irreconcilable as they were

Compounding the failures of the prosecution was the fact that the persons, admittedly residents around the place of occurrence, were not produced as witnesses

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Perusal of injury statement revealed that it was prepared at 11:50 a.m. with reference to Rapt No.6 dated 29.06.2021 but said Rapt had not been brought on the record by the prosecution, which reflected that either Rapt No.6 was not pertaining to this case and claim of the prosecution was pseudo in that regard or it was not going to support the claim of prosecution, therefore, was not produced

Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, could be advantageously referred on the subject

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, -shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Withholding Rapt mentioned in Medico-Legal Examination Certificate

Adverse presumption

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the wife of complainant and caused injuries to the witness

Perusal of Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of injured witness revealed that in the Medico-Legal Examination Certificate, Rapt No.14 dated 31.08.2020 was mentioned but said Rapt had never been produced by the prosecution before the Court, meaning thereby that it had been withheld/ suppressed by the prosecution

Thus, a presumption would be that same had been suppressed as it was not going to support the case of prosecution

In that regard, Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be advantageously referred

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, wrongful confinement, hurt by rash or negligent act, criminal intimidation, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Withholding material witness

Adverse presumption

Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing

Record showed that according to the complainant, two persons had witnessed the occurrence, however, one of them was given up by the prosecution without assigning any cogent reason

Only explanation offered was that said witness was allegedly an absconder in other criminal cases, yet no FIR or documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate such a claim or justify his non-production

Prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses who were otherwise cited in the case seriously affected the integrity of its version

In those circumstances, an adverse inference under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was legitimately drawn that had that witness been produced, his testimony would not have supported the prosecution's case

Such non-production of material witnesses, coupled with other infirmities and glaring omissions, led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant, in his deposition, had attempted to attribute motive by alleging that some females from the mohallah disclosed to him that the deceased (his sister) was teased by the accused

However, it was a matter of record that none of those alleged females were cited prosecution witnesses, nor they were produced before the Court to substantiate that claim

Such uncorroborated assertions amounted at best to marginal hearsay, and in the absence of supporting testimony from the alleged sources, that version could not be given any evidentiary weight

Failure of the prosecution to produce such material witnesses, who were admittedly available and could have supported the prosecution's narrative, led to a presumption of adverse inference under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Thus, it appeared that these persons were deliberately withheld for reasons best known to the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Withholding material witness

Adverse presumption

Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant

Complainant and his wife appeared to be interested witnesses as they concealed the presence of wife of appellant and wife of his brother

Police records indicated that the statements of said witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., recorded on 13.10.2021, confirmed their presence at the house during the incident

Said witnesses stated that they heard commotion, found deceased lying beside a cot and witnessed appellant taking her for treatment, but she had already passed away

Said witnesses also informed husband of deceased of her death via phone

To establish an unbroken chain of events, the prosecution was obligated to examine said two ladies, who had firsthand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding death of deceased

Prosecutor's opinion dated 15.10.2021, referenced in the police file, also noted that said two witnesses had initially withheld crucial information and attempted to shield the offenders

Prosecutor recommended placing the names of said witnesses in Column No. 02 of the charge sheet

However, the record revealed that this recommendation was implemented, nor were they produced before the Trial Court to testify

Such an omission warranted an adverse inference under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Moreover, wife of complainant, during her testimony, denied seeing her other daughter, at the scene, whereas other female witness testified that her daughter was indeed present

Such contradiction further reinforced the prosecution's failure to produce the best available evidence

Under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party withheld crucial evidence, it was presumed that such evidence would have been unfavorable to its case

Additionally, although the prosecution recorded statement of husband of deceased under S.161, Cr.P.C., on 19.05.2021, but he was not produced before the Trial Court for testimony

Said deliberate withholding of evidence further strengthened the presumption that the prosecution intentionally avoided presenting witnesses whose statements could undermine its case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution did not produce and examine the key witnesses to the alleged incident i.e. baby girl and "K" to substantiate its case against the accused

This failure indicated that the prosecution withheld crucial evidence

Under Art.129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution implying that had these witnesses testified, they would not have supported the prosecution version of events

Thus, withholding of vital witnesses led to the dismissal of the prosecution claim due to lack of corroborative evidence

Appeal against conviction filed by accused/appellant was allowed, in circumstances.

Most importantly, the prosecution did not examine "AB" as a witness, despite his evidently pivotal role as the first informer and a participant in the medical identification process

Failure to produce such a vital witness, who could have substantiated key aspects of the case, amounted to withholding material evidence

Said omission invited an adverse inference against the prosecution under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which empowered the Court to draw unfavorable conclusions where a party suppressed or withheld evidence within its control

Moreover, while the prosecution moved an application to summon the Tapedar, it conspicuously failed to seek permission to produce "AB", the most significant marginal witness in this case

Said selective approach further highlighted the weakness in the prosecution's evidence and raised doubts about the completeness of the case presented against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for kidnapping the brother of complainant and extending threats to kill the complainant and his brother

Significant deficiency in the prosecution's case was the consistent claim by its witnesses that the ransom amount was paid by the wife of the victim

Yet, the prosecution failed to produce wife of victim as a witness before the Trial Court to substantiate that claim or to establish the essential ingredients required under S.365-A, P.P.C

In case of non-production of witness by the prosecution during the trial gave rise to an adverse inference that had she been entered the witness-box he would have deposed against the prosecution

Said omission left no room for the Court but to draw an adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that in case wife of the victim appeared, she would not confirm the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In the present case, the first person, who discovered that tragic scene, was younger sister of the deceased, who was merely seven years old at that time

Upon seeing her sister hanging, the young girl immediately ran to inform a neighbourer

In turn, said neighbour promptly called the complainant and told him over the phone about the death of his daughter

Shortly thereafter, the deceased's mother also arrived at the scene, she saw her daughter hanging with the iron rod and she herself brought down the dead body

However, astonishingly none of those three key persons, the younger sister of the deceased, the neighbourer and the mother of deceased was produced before the Court as a witness to testify regarding what they had seen

Prosecution did not put forward the explanation for what reasons it failed to produce these crucial witnesses before the Court, thus it withheld the necessary evidence that could have directly established the circumstances, in which the deceased was found

Due to this omission, there was no direct, firsthand evidence available on the record to conclusively prove that the deceased was indeed found hanging with the iron rod by a dupatta as claimed

Therefore, the failure to produce those primary witnesses created serious doubts in the prosecution case

Moreover, adverse inference was drawn under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had such witnesses been produced by the prosecution during the trial, they would not have supported the prosecution's case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Re-appraisal of evidence

Material witnesses not presented for evidence

Adverse presumption

Accused were charged for committing murder of four persons of the complainant party and causing injuries to the three persons

At the trial, the prosecution did not produce the injured driver of vehicle, the injured sitting on the front seat of another vehicle; the injured witnesses sitting on the rear seat of one of the vehicles; the injured driver of a third vehicle; and the minor and other injured sitting in the back of one of the vehicles

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah, jaifah, causing hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Withholding material witnesses

Adverse presumption

Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died whereas there sustained firearm injuries

According to the statements of four eye-witnesses, two other witnesses were also accompanying them at the relevant time and the names of such witnesses also appeared in the challan, but the evidence of said witnesses were withheld by the prosecution without any plausible reasons, therefore, a presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could fairly be drawn that had the said witnesses been examined in the Court their evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Though, said witness appeared on 28.12.2022, but his statement was not recorded and thereafter he was never produced before the Court, amounting to withholding material evidence, which offended Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Presumption was that had such witness been produced before the Court, he would not have supported the prosecution version

It also raised the presumption that evidence which could be and was not produced would, if produced, be un-favourable to the person who withholds it

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the indictment

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In this case, the witness of extra-judicial confession stated in his statement that the appellant admitted his guilt before him and one Mr. "A" and two other persons

During cross-examination, said witness further stated that at the time of the confession of the appellant, the Police Officials were also present, and the Police Officials made a video recording

Person's name who made the video was "AG"

Alleged witness of the confession of the appellant, was given up by the prosecution, which created some questions

Even "AG" and other Police Officials were not produced by the prosecution

Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that if any evidence available with the parties is not produced, then it will be presumed that had that evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the party producing the same

Trial Court while convicting the appellant also relied upon the video clips allegedly of the appellant in the USB produced by witness

Said video clip in USB was run on a laptop computer in the Court, and it was observed by the Trial Court that Sindhi language was allegedly used by the appellant

Trial Court did not translate the Sindhi language into Urdu and also did not corroborate the same with the testimony of witness

Nothing came on record that what was actually stated by the appellant in the said recording

Moreover, the prosecution also failed to produce the transcript of the audio recording before the Trial Court

Even otherwise, according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, "No opinion could be made about the editing/genuineness in the audio contents of the video file, due to unavailability of intended forensic tools"

Said piece of evidence was of no avail to the prosecution's case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In the instant case, the uncle of eye-witnesses was an important witness, he should have been examined by the prosecution as he met with one of the eye-witnesses on the day of occurrence regarding a certain complaint

Non-examination of the said witness would give rise to an adverse inference in the circumstances of the case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the complainant was not the eye-witness and the most relevant witness/eye-witness was not produced, so an inference could be drawn that the eye-witness was not ready to support the false claim of the complainant and had he been produced he would have not supported the case of the prosecution

On one hand the complainant failed to establish his presence on the spot, whereas on the other the most important witness was abandoned as wonover, so an adverse inference could be drawn that the witness was not ready to support the false claim of the complainant

Such like situation was covered by Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Complainant admitted during examination in chief that three friends of her husband of whose names were not known to her went to the house of female accused "RS"

Said friends of the deceased were in a position to make statements qua the occurrence and they being the most natural witnesses of the occurrence had not been produced by the prosecution

Prosecution frankly conceded that neither their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. were recorded during the investigation of the case nor they ever appeared before the Trial Court, therefore, the prosecution had withheld the best piece of evidence, hence an adverse inference within the meaning of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the witness box then their evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Moreover, said cousin of complainant gave his message on 13-10-2020 at about 06:00 p.m.; at that time complainant was present at his house

Said message was also conveyed to other witnesses at the same time

Complainant admitted in his cross examination that he did not immediately proceed to the house of deceased but the prosecution had failed to examine said cousin of complainant during the course of trial

In the given scenario, abandoning of the said witness obviously led to an adverse inference in terms of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had he been produced in the witnesses box, he would not have supported the prosecution case

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Claim of the prosecution was that the accused along with deceased was living in the Dera of one "MI" as he was cultivating his land on "Batai" and that factum had also been admitted by both the witnesses of ocular account and they had also claimed that both of them went to the house of said "MI" on the day of occurrence in order to reconcile the dispute between the spouses and for that purpose they were sitting in Baithik of said "MI", whereas deceased was standing in drawing room of the said house

Meaning thereby that the occurrence took place in the house of "MI", who being owner/inmate of the house was an important and star witness of the incident but astonishingly, neither he had been joined during the course of investigation nor was produced before the Trial Court as a witness

So, the prosecution had withheld most natural and important witness of the incident i.e. owner of the house where the alleged incident took place

If any party withheld best piece of evidence then it could fairly be presumed that it had sinister motive behind it

Such aspect of the case would go against the prosecution and presumption would be that had the witness been produced before the Trial Court, he would not have supported the prosecution version

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

As per site plan there was a grocery store of one "NU" just opposite to place where deadbody was found but "NU" was not cited as a witness in this case

Existence of grocery store was an indicator that people of locality might have been available at the time of occurrence but prosecution opted not to produce any independent witness and relied upon their own team of people consisting of three brothers including complainant

Under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, adverse inference was drawn to the effect that had such witnesses been produced by the prosecution at the trial, they would not have supported the case of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial as well as appellate courts concurrently

Contention of the petitioner was that since the scribe of the document had been produced, therefore, requirement of Arts. 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 (Order) had been fulfilled

Validity

Out of four witnesses to the document only one attesting witness was produced, who too was disbelieved by the courts below and there was no explanation for non-production of the other marginal witnesses

Mandatory requirement of Art. 79 of the Order had not been met as such document could not be proved nor could the petitioner produce admissible or credible evidence to prove the existence of any bargain of sale between the parties or about the payment for consideration, thus, the opinion of expert even if brought on record could not serve any purpose as a substitute for the mandatory requirements of law of evidence

Testimony of the scribe could not be equated with that of an attesting witness as both of them had signed the document in different capacities and with a different state of mind and such scribe did not meet the requirement of Art. 79 of the Order

Adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Order against the person intending to prove the document had to be drawn against the petitioner

Petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and the findings of the courts below were based on correct analysis and appreciation of evidence

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution was under legal obligation to examine Malkhana Incharge in order to prove safe custody particularly when there was unexplained delay in sending samples to Chemical Examiner

Withholding such crucial evidence inferred an adverse presumption under Art. 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Non-production of such important witness inferred two possibilities, that if that witness had been produced he would have not supported the case of prosecution and or no such witness was in existence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Kidnapping or abducting a minor, cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, sexual abuse of minor

Appreciation of evidence

Withholding material witness

Adverse presumption

Accused/appellant was charged for abducting the minor daughter of the complainant for cohabitation caused by appellant deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage

Complainant was not eye-witness to the alleged incident

However, knowledge of offence was derived solely from hearsay, as he was informed about the occurrence by his son

Notably, the Investigating Officer failed to examine said son of complainant, whose testimony would have been crucial for corroborating the complainant's version

Such omission raised serious doubts regarding the veracity and reliability of the complainant's account, as it lacked independent evidentiary support and remained uncorroborated by the material witness

Adverse presumption as enunciated under Art. 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would arise against the complainant that had the said witness appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported the stance of the complainant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Thirty-nine crime empties of Kalashnikov, three crime empties of 12 bore along with the firearms, allegedly recovered from the appellants (accused persons) were not sent to the firearm expert for analysis and in this regard no explanation had been offered by the prosecution at the trial

Surprisingly, complainant did not receive a single firearm injury in the whole occurrence despite indiscriminate firing by the eight nominated accused and despite being in close range, allegedly witnessing the occurrence

Non-receiving of any firearm injury by the complainant during the occurrence and his accurate attribution of each injury of the deceased and injured to each accused with specific firearms casted serious doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence and his plantation as an eye witness of the occurrence due to previous enmity with the nominated accused could not be ruled out of consideration particularly when his testimony was lacking independent corroboration in material aspects

According to the complainant, his deceased father was fired upon by one of the accused while sleeping at the tube well

Admittedly complainant was not present at the tube well with his deceased father

One of the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence and three injured witnesses had not been produced at the trial due to which presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was to be drawn to the effect that had these witnesses been produced at the trial, they would have not supported the prosecution version

Statements of complainant, eye-witnesses and injured witnesses were suffering from dishonest improvements and material contradictions rendering their testimony doubtful

Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellants as well as the acquitted accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appellants were acquitted of the charge, while the appeal challenging the acquittal of one of the accused and the appeal seeking enhancement of sentence of the convicts were dismissed.

Prosecution had not produced witness "MN" at the trial who was allegedly accompanying other alleged witnesses and deceased at the time of occurrence

Under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 adverse inference was to be drawn to the effect that had he been produced by the prosecution at trial, he would not have supported the prosecution case

Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C.

Record showed that, per version of the complainant, witness "I" had also witnessed the occurrence in the backdrop of which his name was mentioned in the Inquest Report and Postmortem Report as identifiers of the dead body; he was even shown to have verified Murasila

Meaning thereby, said person was an important witness of prosecution, as such, a witness whose testimony could have been independent was abandoned by the prosecution

Although said witness was a relative of the deceased but the option of prosecution not to examine said witness during the trial created a doubt that he was abandoned presumably with some sinister motive

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Other eye-witness of the occurrence, widow of the deceased, was not produced by the prosecution in support of their case due to her illness

Same was the case with the daughter of the deceased, who was not produced in the Court by the prosecution for the simple reason that her name was not cited in the F.I.R, however, being important witnesses of the prosecution, they would have been in a better position to clearly identify with perfection the assailants, but they were abandoned and thus the prosecution in all eventualities had withheld the best available evidence, therefore, under Article 129 (g), the Qanun-e-Shahadat O. 1984 an adverse inference had to be drawn that had the said witnesses been produced they would have not supported the case of prosecution

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by inflicting churri blow

Constable who produced the photographs of deceased before the Investigating Officer on 10.08.2018, was shown as witness of the recovery memo

Said Constable was not produced as a witness by the prosecution

Thus, it was established from the recovery memo. of possession of photographs of deceased that said Constable produced the photographs on 10.08.2018 before the Investigating Officer, therefore, an adverse inference was to be drawn within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had said Constable, appeared as a witness then his deposition would have been unfavorable to the prosecution

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

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Actual dent caused to the case of the petitioner was due to non-appearance of respondent (defendant)/vendor in the witness box

Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, permits the Court to draw an adverse inference against the party who fails to appear in the witness box

Therefore, no matter how strong (consenting) the written statement filed by respondent /vendor was, it lost its efficacy as he did not make himself available for cross-examination and his written statement could not have been treated as substantive piece of evidence

Sole evidence of the petitioner was inconsequential as whatever he deposed was hearsay

Respondent being plaintiff discharged his onus by appearing in the witness box personally and producing attesting witnesses as well as a scribe

Conversely, the vendor/respondent failed to present himself for cross-examination and this was fatal to the case of the petitioner as well as respondent/vendor

Appearance of the vendor in written box was also imperative as respondent/plaintiff in his evidence had placed on record (got exhibited) the criminal proceedings and said proceedings were decided in his favour

Therefore, the failure of the respondent /vendor to appear in witness box and depose to rebut the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff had serious consequences as under the law it amounted to admission

Deposition of the petitioner being subsequent purchaser qua the subject matter agreement to sell was just hearsay as he was not in a position to depose with respect to the existence and contents of the subject matter agreement to sell

Impugned judgments and decrees did not warrant any interference, in circumstances

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concerned Tehsildar who had allegedly sanctioned the mutation and witness of the mutation i.e. the Patidar were material witnesses of the alleged gift mutation, however they were not produced for any valid reason

Presumption of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 by reason of withholding of the best evidence could be drawn against the alleged donee/petitioner

Gift mutation as well as the alleged oral gift were fictitious and the result of fraud

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Accused's reticence to satisfactorily explain as to what befell upon his wife in their matrimonial home, though somewhat intriguing, could not be equated to qualify as evidentiary certainty, essentially required in order to saddle him with corporal consequences

Failure to provide satisfactory explanation would not give rise to an adverse presumption within the contemplation of Art. 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and thus it would be grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction of murder against the accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder.

Silence or implausible explanation by the accused husband could not be equated with failure within the contemplation of Art. 121 of Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution was not absolved from driving home the charge by itself on the strength of positive proof

Grievously unsafe to convict suspects on presumptions or upon failure to establish their innocence

Accused was acquitted of the charge of murder in circumstances.

Both parties, complainant and accused did not narrate occurrence in honest manner and maliciously tried to twist facts in their own favour

Effect

Occurrence was admitted by accused to the extent of injuries to the deceased while bashing with tractor, with a variation that he was not driving the tractor at relevant time

Ocular account was not believed even by Trial Court in its totality

High Court was left with no other option but to sift grain from the chaff to draw its own independent conclusion for just decision of case.