Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
---Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.5, O.XLI, R.31 &
S.115---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Contents of judgment of
appellate court---Decision on each .issue---Suit for declaration and permanent
injunction, was contested by seven defendants while remaining defendants
admitted claim of plaintiffs and filed "Iqbal Dawa" in favour of plaintiffs---Trial
Court dismissed suit against seven defendants and decreed suit against
remaining defendants---Appeal against said judgment was dismissed by
Appellate Court---Validity---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts
below were based on correct appreciation of evidence , which could not be
interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, especially when
plaintiffs could not point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence on
record by the courts below---Contention of counsel for plaintiffs that impugned
judgment of Appellate Court was in violation of mandatory provisions of O.XLI,
R.31, C.P.C., was repelled as Appellate Court was alive to the situation and issue
involved had been dealt with and decided in a careful manner---Appellate Court
had given its findings on all points of controversy and no prejudice. seemed to
have been caused to the plaintiffs---Giving issue-wise findings by the Appellate
Court was not the requirement of law as under O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C., Appellate
Court was to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and
mention reasons for the decision.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 713 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : HAZAR GUL
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.5, O.XLI, R.31 & S.
115---Suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction---Plaintiff
claiming declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of suit-land by
virtue of oral sale; and entries in the Revenue Record incorporated during the
settlement in the name of predecessor-in-interest of defendants were illegal, void
and ineffective on the right of plaintiff--Plaintiff also prayed for grant of
permanent injunction and in the alternative he also prayed for possession of suit-
land in case he was not found in possession of same---Suit was concurrently
dismissed by the courts below---Validity---Onus to prove the factum of oral sale,
was heavily placed on the plaintiff being beneficiary, but he had failed miserably
to discharge the same as evidence produced by him was discrepant,
contradictory and suffering from infirmities---Plaintiff had not been able to show
that entries incorporated in the Revenue Record were illegal and void qua his
rights--Concurrence of facts recorded by the courts below being based on correct
appreciation of evidence , were not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High
Court, especially when plaintiff could not point out any misreading or non-
reading of evidence by the court below--Appellate-Courts had given its findings
on all points of controversy and no prejudice seemed to have been caused to
plaintiff and Appellate Court dealt with the issue involved in case and decided
same in a careful manner---Giving issue-wise findings by the Appellate Court
was not the requirement of law as under O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. Appellate Court
was to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon and reasons
for the said decision be also mentioned---Objection of plaintiff that provisions of
O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. had not been complied with, had no force, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2007 MLD 408 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : Mst. NOOR BIBI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 115 & O. VII, R.2---Suit for recovery of amount---Suit having concurrently
been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, defendant had filed
revision against said concurrent judgments---Concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the courts below were based on correct appreciation of evidence ,
which hardly called for interference of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction---
Both Courts below had given exhaustive judgment after due appraisal of
evidence on record and after discussing all the pros and cons of the case---No
legal defect was found in impugned judgments which were in harmony with the
evidence on record---Conclusion of fact arrived at concurrently by the lower
courts, was not open to challenge in revision, particularly when no specific
misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out---evidence on
record had been properly appreciated and no prejudice seemed to have been
caused to defendant---Appellate Court was alive to the legal situation and issue
involved had been dealt with and decided in a careful manner---Appellate Court
had given its finding on all the points of controversy---Revision against
judgments of Courts below being bereft of merits, was dismissed, in
circumstances.
---S. 302 (c)---appreciation of evidence ---Site plan had shown that occurrence
had taken place in a thickly populated bazar having shops on both the sides, but
no independent eye-witness was produced by the prosecution---Enmity between
the parties had not been denied even by the prosecution witnesses---Though five
accused were shown to be present at the spot who allegedly fired at the deceased
with different fire-arms, but accused was stated to be armed with .30 bore
pistol---No empty of pistol was recovered from the spot and only empties of 7
mm rifle were recovered---Even after arrest of accused, no. weapon of of fence
was recovered from accused---Plea of innocence raised by accused, was admitted
by Investigating of ficer and Investigating of ficer had further stated that son of
real brother of deceased had stated before him that accused was not present at
the time of occurrence and that no recovery was effected from him---Both the
eye-witnesses were related to deceased and were inimical to accused---No
independent corroboration was available as no independent eye-witness had
either been produced before the police or the Trial Court---To maintain a
conviction on capital charge, especially when both the parties were inimical
towards each other, independent corroboration was very necessary, which was
lacking in the case---Complainant party was also involved in the murder of some
other person, which factum had also been admitted by both the eye-witnesses---
Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow
of doubt to maintain conviction of accused, impugned judgment of Trial Court
was set aside and accused was directed to be released.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1214 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Side Opponent : State
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 392---Bail, refused of ---Question
of identification of accused related to deeper appreciation of evidence which
could not be considered at bail stage---Police opinion was not binding on Court
especially when the same was not based upon sound material and in the
presence of statements of eye-witnesses no reliance could be placed on it---
Accused were involved in a heinous case of robbery in which father of the
complainant had lost his life due to fire-arm injuries caused by the accused---of
fences committed by accused fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1),
Cr. P. C. ---Specific role had been attributed to accused who, prima facie, had
fully and actively participated in the crime and caused the murder of an innocent
person just to snatch a motorcycle---Bail was refused to accused in
circumstances.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YUNUS BHATTI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ARIF
---Ss. 302, 324, 379, 109, 148 & 149---appreciation of evidence ---Ocular account
not confidence-inspiring---Medical evidence in conflict with ocular account---
Recovery of crime empties and weapons not established---Allegation against
accused/ appellants was that, in the eventful night, they all armed with rifles
and gun, committed murder of three persons including a female and caused
injuries to two other persons---Motive was alleged to be that 13/14 years prior to
occurrence, complainant's brothers had committed murder of real brother of
accused and due to that grudge triple murder was caused---Trial Court, while
acquitting two co-accused, convicted and sentenced three accused to death---
Accused contended that occurrence took place during dark of the night and
assailant could not be identified by prosecution witnesses; that previous enmity
existed between parties and accused were roped in the case falsely; that plea of
alibi was successfully established by two co-accused and that strong
corroboration was required to warrant conviction of the rest of accused---
Validity---F.I.R. had been recorded with delay after due deliberations---
Prosecution witnesses were seriously cross-examined on the source of light and
all of them gave different versions---Prosecution witnesses tried to make
dishonest improvements about the time of occurrence which led to conclusion
that occurrence took place in the dark of night---Two of the accused who were
attributed firing at deceased woman and an injured eye-witness, had successfully
established their plea of alibi before Trial Court---Statements of prosecution
witnesses could be relied upon against remaining accused in presence of reliable
strong and independent corroborative evidence which was lacking in the case---
Motive alleged by prosecution was based on suspicion due to which accused
were roped in the case---Medical evidence supported the case of prosecution to
the extent that deceased and witnesses received injuries with fire-arm weapons
and not beyond that---Eyewitnesses had alleged that injuries to deceased were
caused by rifle alone but instead of any bullet, a pellet was recovered from dead
body which aspect belied prosecution case---Recovery of crime empties was not
established by prosecution---No crime weapon was recovered from one of the
accused and gun recovered from another accused was never sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory---Recovery of a rifle at the instance of one of the accused
could not be used against him as no empty was recovered or sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory, hence, it could not be said with certainty that rifle was used
during the occurrence--Prosecution case was not free from doubt---
Accused/appellants were acquitted of all charges---Appeal was allowed.
----Ss. 302, 394, 396 & 412---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(h)-
appreciation of evidence ---Incident was a Bank dacoity and a broad daylight
occurrence---Description of accused was given in F.I.R.---Accused and his co-
accused were apprehended immediately after occurrence---Car on which
accused came in the Bank was also recovered from an abandoned place near the
place of occurrence---Repeater gun belonging to deceased Security Guard of the
Bank along with a .30-bore pistol was recovered from co-accused and a .30-bore
pistol was also recovered from accused---Eye-witnesses, especially the injured
prosecution witness had no animus whatsoever against accused---One Security
Guard of the Bank was murdered by accused and another one had sustained
injuries---Accused had been identified in identification parade---Independent
witnesses in the case had no animus or motive whatsoever to falsely implicate
accused-Death sentence awarded to accused was confirmed and' Murder
Reference, was answered in the affirmative.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 831 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAHID MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 420, 468, 471, 409 & 109---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of
1999), Ss.9(a)(vi), 10 & 15---appreciation of evidence ---Confessional statement of
accused was recorded by Senior Special Magistrate, when accused was in
custody of FIA---Accused was not informed that after recording his statement, he
would be handed over to FIA---Confessional statement was recorded after Court
hours and was exculpatory in nature---Accused included the name of firm in
question in the tender inquiry for a healthy competition, its approval, however
was given by senior of ficials and accused claimed himself to be innocent---
Confessional statement of accused being relied upon by prosecution very
heavily, was also not put to accused in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C.---
Conviction could not be based on material not put to accused in his statement
under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Accused was not asked whether he had made confessional
statement voluntarily, before the Magistrate---Statement of accused was not put
to co-accused, that the accused had made a confessional statement involving him
in the of fence and what was his explanation---Prosecution, in circumstances had
failed to bring home guilt to accused---Report of the Court of Inquiry showed
names of six highups besides accused persons, but Reference to National
Accountability Bureau was sent only against accused leaving said highups, high
and dry, without any rhyme or reason---Only evidence against co-accused was
the statement of accused recorded under S.164, Cr.P. C. and said statement was
exculpatory in nature and it could not be read against other accused---Said co-
accused, in circumstances, could not be convicted only on that piece of evidence
---No other evidence was available on record connecting said co-accused with
the crime---Prosecution, in circumstances had badly failed to prove the charge
against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction of accused recorded
against them by the Trial Court, was set aside and they were released from jail.
---S. 302 (b)---appreciation of evidence ---Counsel for accused had not seriously
challenged conviction and prayed only for conversion of conviction of accused
from S.302(b) to S.302(c), P.P.C.---Sufficient material was available on record in
the form of ocular evidence and evidence of injured prosecution witnesses to
maintain conviction of accused---Incident was a day time occurrence and venue
and time of occurrence had not been challenged by accused---Ocular evidence
had got ample support from medical evidence ---Part attributed to accused of
causing hatchet blow to deceased, was fully corroborated by evidence of Doctor
who medically examined the deceased---No ground was available for discarding
prosecution version which was supported by injured witnesses---Accused with
all of his co-accused were declared proclaimed of fenders during investigation---
Accused remained fugitive from law for a period of 6-1/2 months which had
also corroborated prosecution version---Apart from motive, no serious enmity
existed between the parties---Witnesses could not be termed as interested
witnesses---Prosecution, in circumstances had proved case against accused
beyond any shadow of doubt--Accused had caused hatchet blow on the head of
deceased which coupled with the other injuries caused death of deceased---of
fence was committed on a petty issue---Contention of counsel for accused that
accused had not come on the spot with intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd, was
repelled as intention of accused to commit some of fence was always gathered
from attending circumstances of each case, and intention to commit crime could
be developed even at the spur of moment---Accused along with his co-accused
having committed intentional murder of deceased he was rightly convicted
under S.302(b), P.P.C., conviction and sentences awarded to accused under
S.302(b), P.P.C., called for no interference---Conviction and sentence awarded to
accused could not be converted from S.302(b) to S.302(c), P.P.C., as prayed by
counsel for the accused.