Recovery evidence
Recovery evidence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
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.
Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.
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.
Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.
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.
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.
"Recovery evidence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124962025
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Recovery evidence"
1988 S C M R 385
PIRAN DITTA — Petitioner Versus QADIR BDX and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1988 S C M R 500
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus RASHID and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1977 P Cr
MAQBOOL AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent
Court: Lahore1997 S C M R 23
HAYAT and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1988 S C M R 438
MURAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus MEHR SHAH and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1993 P Cr
ALLAH BUX IAGHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Karachi1992 P Cr
MANGO alias MANTHAR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi1987 S C M R 67
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High Court1987 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.1988 S C M R 374
HAJI SAID MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus FALAK SHER and others — Respondents
Court: High Court