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

Recovery evidence

Recovery evidence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2023 SCMR 1278 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceRecovery evidence

Where the empty of cartridge and the weapon of offence i.e. .12 bore pump action gun were sent together to the Forensic Science Agency, such recovery (evidence) was inconsequential

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

2023 SCMR 1278 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Recovery evidenceMedical evidenceScope

Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.

2023 SCMR 831 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdMedical evidenceRecovery evidence

Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of an accused.

2023 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-DQatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifahMedical evidenceRecovery evidenceConviction

Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.

2021 PCrLJ 553 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtRecovery evidenceProsecution relied on recovery of a bicycle belonging to the deceased allegedly at the instance of the accused

Said recovery was tainted with doubts for several reasons: firstly there was no allegation in the private complaint that when deceased left his house he was on a cycle; secondly according to the recovery memo as well as statements of police officials the cycle was recovered on 20.6.2009 whereas the witness of last seen evidence stated during his cross examination that at a junction point for public transport some people informed the police that bicycle of deceased was available in the house of accused and on such information accused was nominated as accused in the FIR who was arrested by the police on the same night and cycle was also recovered

In such circumstances it was not safe to rely on the recovery of cycle at the instance of the accused, which even otherwise was merely a corroborative piece of evidence and relevant only when other evidence inspired confidence, which was not the situation in the present case

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him while extending him benefit of doubt.

2017 PLD 737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302 & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceRecovery evidenceScopeWeapon, recovery ofWeapon of offence pistol .30 bore was recovered from the accused

Positive report of the forensic science laboratory showed that pistol .30 bore matched with the empty recovered by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence, but not even a single firearm injury was found on the body of deceased rather deceased was done to death with the help of blunt and sharp edge weapons

Such recovery of weapon of offence did not render any help to the case of prosecution

Conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Recovery evidence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124962025

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Recovery evidence"

SCMR 1988
Criminal Petitions Nos.198 and 199 of 1983, decided on 16th December, 1987.

1988 S C M R 385

PIRAN DITTA — Petitioner Versus QADIR BDX and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 1988
Petition for Leave to Appeal No.164 of 1984, decided on 9th January, 16,18.

1988 S C M R 500

MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus RASHID and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 1977
Criminal Revision No. 204 of 1965, decided on 20th May 1976.

1977 P Cr

MAQBOOL AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1997
Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1990, decided on 14th April, 1992.

1997 S C M R 23

HAYAT and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 1988
Criminal. Petition No.176 of 1984, decided on 10th January, 1988.

1988 S C M R 438

MURAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus MEHR SHAH and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 1993
1992-May-10

1993 P Cr

ALLAH BUX IAGHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 1992
N/A

1992 P Cr

MANGO alias MANTHAR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 1988
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 148 of 1982, decided on 3rd August, 1987.

1987 S C M R 67

BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 4 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 1987
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeals NOS. 85 and 86 of 1984 decided on 4th May, 1987.

1987 S C M R 1074

TAHIR alias TAHRI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents

Court: ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition against conviction and sentence of death‑‑Young age of petitioner‑‑Interested/ unreliable chance witnesses‑‑Prosecution relying on ocular testimony of three eye‑witnesses and recovery of crime weapon stained with human blood‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider pleas that eye‑witnesses who could be present at spot only by chance, were neither disinterested nor reliable‑‑Recovery evidence was not free of doubt and petitioner being minor of 16/17 years, death penalty should not have been imposed.‑‑Age.
SCMR 1988
Criminal Petition No.195 of 1983, decided on 14th December, 1987.

1988 S C M R 374

HAJI SAID MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus FALAK SHER and others — Respondents

Court: High Court