Inference

Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot is not to be inferred rather to be proved by prosecution beyond scintilla of doubt.

If inference was going to hit at the root of prosecution story and making the same 'improbable' for a prudent mind then it would never be safe to hold conviction in such like situation.

Non-producing of a material witness/evidence by a party would lead to the presumption that, had the witness been produced, then the said witness would have deposed against such party, and presumption of withholding evidence went against a party.

Inference under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had to be drawn against the party which withheld its best evidence.

Returned candidate was cross-examined with questions relating to subjects of his Bachelor's degree to test his mental faculty and knowledge

Returned candidate was unable to answer such questions

Inference

Only inference which could be drawn in such circumstances was that returned candidate was not an able student having enough and required knowledge of the subjects, which he had passed

Election Tribunal was not supposed to assume the role of Controller of Examinations or Chancellor of the University

Secondly, it was common knowledge and a ground reality that sizeable number of people held very important official and unofficial positions in the system on the basis of their educational certificates and professional degrees without knowing the basics of the subjects which they had passed as per their certificate or degree, but it did not mean that they were holding fake degrees

Exercise of testing mental faculty of the returned candidate with reference to the subjects passed by him almost nine years ago could not be carried out nor such exercise would be desirable and permissible under the law

Election petition was dismissed accordingly.

Police recovered a huge quantity of arms and ammunitions from secret cavities of vehicle which was being driven by the accused, while co-accused was sitting in the front seat

Contentions of accused and co-accused were that S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was bailable; that no independent witness had been associated by the police, and that recovery had been effected from secret cavities of vehicle and conscious knowledge of it was yet to be proved

Validity

Offence under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was non-bailable in all Provinces except for the Province of Punjab

Accused and co-accused had come across police all of a sudden at a checkpoint, therefore compliance with S.103, Cr.P.C. was not possible

Vehicle was under the direct control of accused who was driving it and co-accused was sitting on the front seat, therefore, they could not be absolved from liability on mere assertion that they had no knowledge of existence of such huge quantity of arms and ammunitions in secret cavities of vehicle

Transportation of such huge quantity of arms and ammunition without any license or permit was not an ordinary selling or possession of arms, rather showed its transportation for subversive activities and ulterior motives of accused and co-accused

Bail applications were dismissed, in circumstances.

Where in a case of two versions each party tries to minimize its own role in the occurrence, court can draw the inference properly flowing from the evidence and circumstances of the case.

Said candidate, in whole of the proceedings during the hearing of election petitions, petition filed under S.14(5-A), Representation of the People Act, 1976, writ petitions in the High Court and civil petition for leave to appeal thereafter in the Supreme Court had not appeared to defend his qualifications and disqualifications, allegations and incriminating attributions, levelled against him by his contesting candidates in the election

Effect

Inference was easily deducible that disqualified candidate had either got nothing to say in his defence or was shy of and nervous to face the case and its consequences or did not want to become a candidate, after the submission of nomination papers in the election, otherwise he would have contested the stigma of disqualification ascribed and attributed to him.

Delayed post-mortem usually leads to an inference that the F.I.R. might be recorded after preliminary investigation.

F.I.R. was not recorded at the police station but in the vicinity where the police officers happened to be present, leads to an unavoidable inference that the same, in fact, had been recorded after preliminary investigation at the place of occurrence.

Where an inference is to be drawn from a number of facts proved on the record, then each fact should not be weighed singularly but effect is to be given to all the facts accumulatively and a picture of the combination of circumstances drawn as a whole.

Inference drawn from undisputed facts is a mixed question of law and facts.

Inferences, however strong, do not constitute positive evidence for over-turning the bedrock presumption of innocence which is enjoyed by every accused till his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by due process of law.

[Presumption].

Court without referring to any evidence as to person who had deposited loan amount merely observed "it proves existence of the loan against plaintiff at least by implication"-Such observation of Court, held, was wholly conjectural inference unsustainable in absence of poses a evidence to prove that respondent himself deposited the amount in order to bind him down with the acknowledgement of the loan as an admission in law.