Home Maxims & Terms Identity of Accused meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Identity of Accused

Identity of Accused legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2021 YLRN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inIdentity of accusedScope

Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the deceased by firing who was working as mason at that time

Incident was a broad daylight occurrence and because of previous acquaintance of the parties question of misidentification did not arise

Admittedly, the sister of the accused had married the deceased

In the incident it would not have been difficult for the complainant party to identify the present accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused, however, the sentence of death awarded to the accused was altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court, in circumstances, by maintaining the conviction

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification.

2020 PCrLJ 729 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 164ConfessionIdentity of accusedScopeMagistrate while recording confessional statement of accused had not affirmed the identity of accused

Questionnaire and certificate did not contain anything regarding the identity of accused like CNIC, identification marks or description of physical appearance

No identification parade was conducted in the presence of witnesses in order to confirm that the person making confession was actually the one who was roped in the case or anyone else

Confession, in circumstances was, held to have lost its evidentiary value and legal efficacy.

2020 MLD 567 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Art. 22Identity of accusedIdentification paradeScope

Identification even during course of trial, if appeared to be confidence inspiring and there appeared no reasons for false implication, mere non-holding of identification parade was not fatal.

2018 YLR 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 302(b)Qatl-i-AmdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtNight time occurrenceIdentity of accusedMedical and ocular accountDeceased person had married daughter of principal accused without parental approvalFirst Information Report was registered against two persons after one and half years

Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced principal accused to death while co-accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

Invitation by hostile in-laws for a visit that too at an odd hour of night in the month of February sounded preposterous

Obliging promptitude to accept such call without soliciting purpose thereof was no less mind boggling

Family could have postponed the visit to a more convenient point of time under safer environment and with appropriate precautions

Prosecution case from its inception was far from being confidence inspiring

Occurrence was a night time affair in a chilled winter night, question of identity of assailants was another dilemma confronting prosecution

Site plan showed that electric bulb was illuminated in courtyard but none was taken into custody

Draftsman admitted that he himself did not see any bulb and merely mentioned its presence in the site plan on the asking of complainant and prosecution witnesses and except the bulb there was no other source of light

Mute presence of witnesses throughout during the occurrence and alarm thereafter was inconceivable to say the least

Complaint and inquest report were drafted at the spot and in column No. 24 of the inquest report dead body was found lying with head and the same was not in consonance with the narrative furnished by investigating officer, who claimed to have retrieved the head of the victim from a well near another village and deputed a police constable to escort the dead body

As to how the investigating officer reached to the well and who disclosed its location were the issues left to the imagination of court

Inquest report was prepared much later than the time mentioned therein and there was possibility that complaint was recorded subsequent to the point of time mentioned therein after consultation and deliberations

Forensic Science Laboratory report was negative and prosecution case was tumbling on forensic side as well

In a violent crisis situation with witnesses standing next to deceased, removal of head of deceased by co-accused merely to be thrown in a deserted well was without any logical explanation and instead spelled out some different scenario

Admission by Medical Officer in his cross-examination that he conducted autopsy on dead body without head was a position diametrically inconsistent with the statement of investigating officer as well as description given in inquest report

Statement of police constable who escorted the dead body was also out of tune

Evidence presented by prosecution did not fit within the ambit of probability

Occurrence probably did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report

Conviction could not be maintained merely on the premise that accused harboured the only possible motive against deceased, for it required evidentiary certainty to hold the charge, and it was unsafe to maintain conviction

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused persons, set aside conviction and sentences awarded by Trial Court and acquitted them of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2012 SCMR 215 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Art. 22Criminal trialIdentity of accusedIdentification paradeScopeHolding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely a corroborative piece of evidence

If statement of a witness qua identity of accused even in court inspires confidence and the witness is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to prosecution case.

1955 PLD 63 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Prosecution to prove-Question in cross-examination by accused's counsel assuming that the accused Rab Nawaz was a partner of "Nawaz Brothers" -Assumption not evidence in case-Identity not established by such assumption.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Identity of Accused", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1432

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Identity of Accused"

PCRLJ 1984
Bail Application No. 203 of 1981, decided on 19th July, 1981.

1984 P Cr

SAGO alias PATHAN AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 1977
Criminal Appeal Nor. 25 of 1977, decided on 9th June 1977.

1977 S C M R 483

GHULAM QASIM KHAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑case‑Appreciation of evidence‑Accused having motive to kill deceased for not being allowed to carry coal dust from mine‑‑First Information Report though not containing name of accused appellant yet sufficient explanation given for failure to do so , no suggestion put in cross‑examination to prosecution witnesses of their having not identified accused‑No reason for prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate accused‑Accused absconding imme diately after occurrence‑Making of efforts to apprehend accused imme diately after occurrence‑Indicative of identity of accused having been known‑identity of accused appellant, held, not in doubt and offence of murder brought home to him.‑‑Identification‑y Evidence.
MLD 2000
Criminal Miscellaneous No.410‑B of 2000, decided on 16th February, 2000.

2000 M L D 1709

ABID and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1989
Jail Petition No. 28-R of 1988, decided on 2nd October, 1988. .

1989SCMR409

KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: High Court
MLD 2002
2001-August-13

2002 MLD 7

GHULAM RASOOL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 1990
1st July 1989

1990 P Cr

MUHAMMAD KHALID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1990
Criminal Miscellaneous No.111 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No.36(S) of 1987 decided on 21st June, 1989.

1990 S C M R 140

MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: Shariat Appellate Bench
YLR 2004
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6963‑B of 2003, decided on 13th January, 2004.

2004 Y L R 1798

SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
MLD 2000
Criminal Bail Application No. 102‑and Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 190 and 191 of 1999, decided on 17th May, 1999.

2000 M L D 1046

JAN MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Applicant Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 1981
Criminal Petition No. 42-P of 1979, decided on 21st October, 1979.

1981 S C M R 1256

WAHEED KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: -- S. 302-Evidence, appreciation of-Identity of accused established beyond reasonable doubt-Dying statement found genuine and true and corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of eye witnesses Conviction maintained.-Evidence.